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

Michael Whitmeyer

dblp:249/9285 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
5since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0002-5930-4733ORCID · corroborated

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

Theory of computation · 5 · 5 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
5 papers
Computational complexity · 71% Quantum computing and quantum information · 17% Algorithms and data structures · 10%

Topics — the 21 heaviest of 22, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational complexity
time-space tradeoffs
1.822026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · STOC 2024
Algorithms and data structures
linear algebra
1.012026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Computational complexity › algebraic complexity
matrix multiplication
1.012026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum algorithms
1.012026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum complexity theory
space-bounded quantum computation
1.012026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Computational complexity
space complexity
1.012026
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · SIAM J. Comput. 2026
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum algorithms
collision problem
0.912025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity
communication complexity
0.912025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity › proof complexity › semi-algebraic proof systems
cutting planes proofs
0.912025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity › communication complexity
multiparty communication complexity
0.912025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity
proof complexity
0.912025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity › query complexity
quantum query complexity
0.812024
Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems · STOC 2024
Computational complexity › pseudorandomness › dispersers
affine dispersers
0.712023
Searching for Regularity in Bounded Functions · ICALP 2023
Computational complexity › boolean function analysis
fourier analysis of boolean functions
0.712023
Searching for Regularity in Bounded Functions · ICALP 2023
Computational complexity › boolean function analysis
fourier coefficients
0.712023
Searching for Regularity in Bounded Functions · ICALP 2023
Computational complexity › property testing › boolean function testing
junta testing
0.512021
Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries · CCC 2021
Computational complexity
property testing
0.512021
Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries · CCC 2021
Computational complexity › property testing
tolerant testing
0.512021
Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries · CCC 2021
Computational complexity › proof complexity
pigeonhole principle
0.312025
Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles · ICALP 2025
Computational complexity
boolean function analysis
0.112021
Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries · CCC 2021
Information theory › harmonic analysis
fourier analysis
0.112021
Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries · CCC 2021

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

fourier analysis · 1.2recording-query technique · 1.0direct product theorem · 1.0bucketing · 1.0recording query method · 0.8normalized influence · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems
abstract
Abstract. We consider the time and space required for quantum computers to solve a wide variety of problems involving matrices, many of which have only been analyzed classically in prior work. Our main results show that for a range of linear algebra problems—including matrix-vector product, matrix inversion, matrix multiplication and powering—existing classical time-space tradeoffs, several of which are tight for every space bound, also apply to quantum algorithms with at most a constant factor loss. For example, for almost all fixed matrices [Formula: see text], including the discrete Fourier transform matrix, we prove that quantum circuits with at most [Formula: see text] input queries and [Formula: see text] qubits of memory require [Formula: see text] to compute matrix-vector product [Formula: see text] for [Formula: see text]. We similarly prove that matrix multiplication for [Formula: see text] binary matrices requires [Formula: see text]. Because many of our lower bounds are matched by deterministic algorithms with the same time and space complexity, our results show that quantum computers cannot provide any asymptotic advantage for these problems with any space bound. We obtain matching lower bounds for the stronger notion of quantum cumulative memory complexity—the sum of the space per layer of a circuit. We also consider Boolean (i.e., AND-OR) matrix multiplication and matrix-vector products, improving the previous quantum time-space tradeoff lower bounds for [Formula: see text] Boolean matrix multiplication to [Formula: see text] from [Formula: see text]. Our improved lower bound for Boolean matrix multiplication is based on a new coloring argument that extracts more from the strong direct product theorem that was the basis for prior work. To obtain our tight lower bounds for linear algebra problems, we require much stronger bounds than strong direct product theorems. We obtain these bounds by adding a new bucketing method to the quantum recording-query technique of Zhandry that lets us apply classical arguments to upper bound the success probability of quantum circuits.
Paul Beame, Niels Kornerup, Michael Whitmeyer
SIAM J. Comput.3
2025 Multiparty Communication Complexity of Collision-Finding and Cutting Planes Proofs of Concise Pigeonhole Principles
Paul Beame, Michael Whitmeyer
ICALP2
2024 Quantum Time-Space Tradeoffs for Matrix Problems
abstract
We prove lower bounds on the time and space required for quantum computers to solve a wide variety of problems involving matrices, many of which have only been analyzed classically in prior work. Using a novel way of applying recording query methods we show that for many linear algebra problems—including matrix-vector product, matrix inversion, matrix multiplication and powering—existing classical time-space tradeoffs also apply to quantum algorithms with at most a constant factor loss. For example, for almost all fixed matrices A, including the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix, we prove that quantum circuits with at most T input queries and S qubits of memory require T=Ω(n2/S) to compute matrix-vector product Ax for x ∈ {0,1}n. We similarly prove that matrix multiplication for n× n binary matrices requires T=Ω(n3 / √S). Because many of our lower bounds are matched by deterministic algorithms with the same time and space complexity, our results show that quantum computers cannot provide any asymptotic advantage for these problems at any space bound. We also improve the previous quantum time-space tradeoff lower bounds for n× n Boolean (i.e. AND-OR) matrix multiplication from T=Ω(n2.5/S1/2) to T=Ω(n2.5/S1/4) which has optimal exponents for the powerful query algorithms to which it applies. Our method also yields improved lower bounds for classical algorithms.
Paul Beame, Niels Kornerup, Michael Whitmeyer
STOC3
2023 Searching for Regularity in Bounded Functions
abstract
Given a function $f$ on $\mathbb{F}_2^n$, we study the following problem. What is the largest affine subspace $\mathcal{U}$ such that when restricted to $\mathcal{U}$, all the non-trivial Fourier coefficients of $f$ are very small? For the natural class of bounded Fourier degree $d$ functions $f:\mathbb{F}_2^n \to [-1,1]$, we show that there exists an affine subspace of dimension at least $ \tildeΩ(n^{1/d!}k^{-2})$, wherein all of $f$'s nontrivial Fourier coefficients become smaller than $ 2^{-k}$. To complement this result, we show the existence of degree $d$ functions with coefficients larger than $2^{-d\log n}$ when restricted to any affine subspace of dimension larger than $Ω(dn^{1/(d-1)})$. In addition, we give explicit examples of functions with analogous but weaker properties. Along the way, we provide multiple characterizations of the Fourier coefficients of functions restricted to subspaces of $\mathbb{F}_2^n$ that may be useful in other contexts. Finally, we highlight applications and connections of our results to parity kill number and affine dispersers.
Siddharth Iyer, Michael Whitmeyer
ICALP2
2021 Junta Distance Approximation with Sub-Exponential Queries
abstract
Leveraging tools of De, Mossel, and Neeman [FOCS, 2019], we show two different results pertaining to the tolerant testing of juntas. Given black-box access to a Boolean function f:{±1}ⁿ → {±1}: 1) We give a poly(k, 1/(ε)) query algorithm that distinguishes between functions that are γ-close to k-juntas and (γ+ε)-far from k'-juntas, where k' = O(k/(ε²)). 2) In the non-relaxed setting, we extend our ideas to give a 2^{Õ(√{k/ε})} (adaptive) query algorithm that distinguishes between functions that are γ-close to k-juntas and (γ+ε)-far from k-juntas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first subexponential-in-k query algorithm for approximating the distance of f to being a k-junta (previous results of Blais, Canonne, Eden, Levi, and Ron [SODA, 2018] and De, Mossel, and Neeman [FOCS, 2019] required exponentially many queries in k). Our techniques are Fourier analytical and make use of the notion of "normalized influences" that was introduced by Talagrand [Michel Talagrand, 1994].
Vishnu Iyer, Avishay Tal, Michael Whitmeyer
CCC3