MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496853341 · doi:10.1109/focs.2015.53

Near-Optimal Bounds on Bounded-Round Quantum Communication Complexity of Disjointness

2015· preprint· en· W1496853341 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Braverman, Ankit Garg, Young Kun Ko, Jieming Mao, Dave Touchette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaThomas and Stacey Siebel FoundationSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCommunication complexityUpper and lower boundsCorollaryBounded functionQuantumMathematicsQuantum information scienceOmegaLogarithmFunction (biology)Computational complexity theoryDiscrete mathematicsQuantum informationCombinatoricsPhysicsAlgorithmQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove a near optimal round-communication tradeoff for the two-party quantum communication complexity of disjointness. For protocols with r rounds, we prove a lower bound of Omega(n/r) on the communication required for computing disjointness of input size n, which is optimal up to logarithmic factors. The previous best lower bound was Omega(n/r̂ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ) due to Jain, Radhakrishnan and Sen. Along the way, we develop several tools for quantum information complexity, one of which is a lower bound for quantum information complexity in terms of the generalized discrepancy method. As a corollary, we get that the quantum communication complexity of any boolean function f is at most 2 ̂O(QIC(f)), where QIC(f) is the prior-free quantum information complexity of f (with error 1/3).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207