Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jeremy Ahrens Huang

dblp:393/2777 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 33% Graph algorithms and graph theory · 33% Quantum computing and quantum information · 33%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
fine-grained complexity
1.012026
On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut · ICALP 2026
Graph algorithms and graph theory › graph cut
max-cut
1.012026
On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut · ICALP 2026
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum complexity theory
1.012026
On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut · ICALP 2026
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › post-quantum cryptography
lattice-based cryptography
0.312026
On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut · ICALP 2026
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
post-quantum security
0.312026
On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut · ICALP 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

quantum reduction · 2.0fine-grained reductions · 1.0fine-grained reduction · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 On the (Classical and Quantum) Fine-Grained Complexity of Approximate CVP and Max-Cut
abstract
We show a linear-size reduction from gap Max-2-Lin(2) (a generalization of the approximate Maximum Cut, or gap Max-Cut, problem) to γ-CVP_p for γ = O(1) and finite p ≥ 1, as well as a no-go theorem against poly-sized non-adaptive quantum reductions from k-SAT to CVP₂. This implies three headline results: (i) Faster algorithms for γ-CVP_p are also faster algorithms for Max-2-Lin(2) and Max-Cut. Depending on the approximation regime, even a 2^{0.78n}-time or 2^{0.3n}-time algorithm would improve upon state-of-the-art algorithms such as Williams' 2004 algorithm [TCS 2005] or Arora, Barak, and Steurer’s 2010 algorithm [JACM 2015]. This provides evidence that γ-CVP_p for γ = O(1) requires exponential time, improving upon the previous exponential lower-bound for γ-CVP₂ with γ < 3 by Bennett, Golovnev, and Stephens-Davidowitz [FOCS 2017]. (ii) A new almost 2^{(1/2 + ε/4ς + o(1)) n}-time classical algorithm and a new almost 2^{(1/3 + ε/6ς + o(1)) n}-time quantum algorithm for (1-ε, 1-ς)-gap Max-Cut. This algorithm is faster than the algorithm of Arora, Barak and Steurer [JACM 2015], as well as the algorithm of Williams [TCS 2005], and the algorithm of Manurangsi and Trevisan [APPROX 2018] when c₀ ε < ς < c₁ ε for constants c₀, c₁. (iii) If the Quantum Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (QSETH) can be used to show a 2^{δ n}-time lower-bound for Max-Cut, Max-2-Lin(2), or CVP₂ for any constant δ > 0, it must be via an adaptive quantum reduction unless NP ⊆ pr-QSZK. This illuminates some difficulties in characterizing the hardness of approximate constraint satisfaction problems and shows that the post-quantum security of lattice-based cryptography likely cannot be supported by QSETH. This result complements the no-go results of Aggarwal and Kumar [FOCS 2023], who showed that the classical security of lattice-based cryptography likely cannot be supported by the classical Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH).
Jeremy Ahrens Huang, Young Kun Ko, Chunhao Wang
ICALP1