A catalytic machine is a model of computation where a traditional space-bounded machine is augmented with an additional, significantly larger, “catalytic” tape, which, while being available as a work tape, has the caveat of being initialized with an arbitrary string, which must be preserved at the end of the computation. Despite this restriction, catalytic machines have been shown to have surprising additional power; a logspace machine with a polynomial length catalytic tape, known as catalytic logspace (CL), can compute problems which are believed to be impossible for L. A fundamental question of the model is whether the catalytic condition, of leaving the catalytic tape in its exact original configuration, is robust to minor deviations. This study was initialized by Gupta et al. (2024), who defined lossy catalytic logspace (LCL[e]) as a variant of CL where we allow up to e errors when resetting the catalytic tape. They showed that LCL[e]=CL for any e=O(1), which remains the frontier of our understanding. In this work we completely characterize lossy catalytic space (LCSPACE[s,c,e]) in terms of ordinary catalytic space (CSPACE[s,c]). We show that (Formula presented.) In other words, allowing e errors on a catalytic tape of length c is equivalent, up to a constant stretch, to an equivalent errorless catalytic machine with an additional elogc bits of ordinary working memory. As a consequence, we show that for any e, LCL[e]=CL implies SPACE[elogn]⊆ZPP, thus giving a barrier to any improvement beyond LCL[O(1)]=CL. We also extend all our results to every variant of catalytic space.

Despite the wide range of problems for which quantum computers offer a computational advantage over their classical counterparts, there are also many problems for which the best known quantum algorithm provides a speedup that is only quadratic, or even subquadratic. Such a situation could also be desirable if we don't want quantum computers to solve certain problems fast - say problems relevant to post-quantum cryptography. When searching for algorithms and when analyzing the security of cryptographic schemes, we would like to have evidence that these problems are difficult to solve on quantum computers; but how do we assess the exact complexity of these problems? For most problems, there are no known ways to directly prove time lower bounds, however it can still be possible to relate the hardness of disparate problems to show conditional lower bounds. This approach has been popular in the classical community, and is being actively developed for the quantum case [Aaronson et al., 2020; Buhrman et al., 2021; Harry Buhrman et al., 2022; Andris Ambainis et al., 2022]. In this paper, by the use of the QSETH framework [Buhrman et al., 2021] we are able to understand the quantum complexity of a few natural variants of CNFSAT, such as parity-CNFSAT or counting-CNFSAT, and also are able to comment on the non-trivial complexity of approximate versions of counting-CNFSAT. Without considering such variants, the best quantum lower bounds will always be quadratically lower than the equivalent classical bounds, because of Grover’s algorithm; however, we are able to show that quantum algorithms will likely not attain even a quadratic speedup for many problems. These results have implications for the complexity of (variations of) lattice problems, the strong simulation and hitting set problems, and more. In the process, we explore the QSETH framework in greater detail and present a useful guide on how to effectively use the QSETH framework.

Many computational problems are subject to a quantum speed-up: one might find that a problem having an O(n^3)-time or O(n^2)-time classic algorithm can be solved by a known O(n^1.5)-time or O(n)-time quantum algorithm. The question naturally arises: how much quantum speed-up is possible? The area of fine-grained complexity allows us to prove optimal lower-bounds on the complexity of various computational problems, based on the conjectured hardness of certain natural, well-studied problems. This theory has recently been extended to the quantum setting, in two independent papers by Buhrman, Patro, and Speelman (arXiv:1911.05686), and by Aaronson, Chia, Lin, Wang, and Zhang (arXiv:1911.01973). In this paper, we further extend the theory of fine-grained complexity to the quantum setting. A fundamental conjecture in the classical setting states that the 3SUM problem cannot be solved by (classical) algorithms in time O(n^{2-a}), for any a>0. We formulate an analogous conjecture, the Quantum-3SUM-Conjecture, which states that there exist no sublinear O(n^{1-b})-time quantum algorithms for the 3SUM problem. Based on the Quantum-3SUM-Conjecture, we show new lower-bounds on the time complexity of quantum algorithms for several computational problems. Most of our lower-bounds are optimal, in that they match known upper-bounds, and hence they imply tight limits on the quantum speedup that is possible for these problems.

The strong exponential-time hypothesis (SETH) is a commonly used conjecture in the field of complexity theory. It essentially states that determining whether a CNF formula is satisfiable can not be done faster than exhaustive search over all possible assignments. This hypothesis and its variants gave rise to a fruitful field of research, fine-grained complexity, obtaining (mostly tight) lower bounds for many problems in P whose unconditional lower bounds are very likely beyond current techniques. In this work, we introduce an extensive framework of Quantum Strong Exponential-Time Hypotheses, as quantum analogues to what SETH is for classical computation. Using the QSETH framework, we are able to translate quantum query lower bounds on black-box problems to conditional quantum time lower bounds for many problems in P. As an example, we provide a conditional quantum time lower bound of Ω(n^1.5) for the Longest Common Subsequence and Edit Distance problems. We also show that the n^2 SETH-based lower bound for a recent scheme for Proofs of Useful Work carries over to the quantum setting using our framework, maintaining a quadratic gap between verifier and prover. Lastly, we show that the assumptions in our framework can not be simplified further with relativizing proof techniques, as they are false in relativized worlds.

Catalytic computation, defined by Buhrman, Cleve, Koucký, Loff and Speelman (STOC 2014), is a space-bounded computation where in addition to our working memory we have an exponentially larger auxiliary memory which is full; the auxiliary memory may be used throughout the computation, but it must be restored to its initial content by the end of the computation. Motivated by the surprising power of this model, we set out to study the non-deterministic version of catalytic computation. We establish that non-deterministic catalytic log-space is contained in ZPP, which is the same bound known for its deterministic counterpart, and we prove that non-deterministic catalytic space is closed under complement (under a standard derandomization assumption). Furthermore, we establish hierarchy theorems for non-deterministic and deterministic catalytic computation.

Newman’s theorem states that we can take any public-coin communication protocol and convert it into one that uses only private randomness with but a little increase in communication complexity. We consider a reversed scenario in the context of information complexity: can we take a protocol that uses private randomness and convert it into one that only uses public randomness while preserving the information revealed to each player? We prove that the answer is yes, at least for protocols that use a bounded number of rounds. As an application, we prove new direct-sum theorems through the compression of interactive communication in the bounded-round setting. To obtain this application, we prove a new one-shot variant of the Slepian–Wolf coding theorem, interesting in its own right. Furthermore, we show that if a Reverse Newman’s Theorem can be proven in full generality, then full compression of interactive communication and fully-general direct-sum theorems will result.

We define the notion of a catalytic-space computation. This is a computation that has a small amount of clean space available and is equipped with additional auxiliary space, with the caveat that the additional space is initially in an arbitrary, possibly incompressible, state and must be returned to this state when the computation is finished. We show that the extra space can be used in a nontrivial way, to compute uniform TC1-circuits with just a logarithmic amount of clean space. The extra space thus works analogously to a catalyst in a chemical reaction. TC1-circuits can compute for example the determinant of a matrix, which is not known to be computable in logspace.

Newman's theorem states that we can take any public-coin communication protocol and convert it into one that uses only private randomness with only a little increase in communication complexity. We consider a reversed scenario in the context of information complexity: can we take a protocol that uses private randomness and convert it into one that only uses public randomness while preserving the information revealed to each player? We prove that the answer is yes, at least for protocols that use a bounded number of rounds. As an application, we prove new direct sum theorems through the compression of interactive communication in the bounded-round setting. Furthermore, we show that if a Reverse Newman's Theorem can be proven in full generality, then full compression of interactive communication and fully-general direct-sum theorems will result.

We define a new model of communication complexity, called the garden-hose model. Informally, the garden-hose complexity of a function f:{0,1}n x {0,1}n -> {0,1} is given by the minimal number of water pipes that need to be shared between two parties, Alice and Bob, in order for them to compute the function f as follows: Alice connects her ends of the pipes in a way that is determined solely by her input x ∈ {0,1}n and, similarly, Bob connects his ends of the pipes in a way that is determined solely by his input y ∈ {0,1}n. Alice turns on the water tap that she also connected to one of the pipes. Then, the water comes out on Alice's or Bob's side depending on the function value f(x,y).