Span Programs and Quantum Time Complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Span programs are an important model of quantum computation due to their tight correspondence with quantum query complexity. For any decision problem $f$, the minimum complexity of a span program for $f$ is equal, up to a constant factor, to the quantum query complexity of $f$. Moreover, this correspondence is constructive. A span program for $f$ with complexity $C$ can be compiled into a bounded error quantum algorithm for $f$ with query complexity $O(C)$, and vice versa. In this work, we prove an analogous connection for quantum time complexity. In particular, we show how to convert a quantum algorithm for $f$ with time complexity $T$ into a span program for $f$ such that it compiles back into a quantum algorithm for $f$ with time complexity $\widetilde{O}(T)$. While the query complexity of quantum algorithms obtained from span programs is well-understood, it is not generally clear how to implement certain query-independent operations in a time-efficient manner. We show that for span programs derived from algorithms with a time-efficient implementation, we can preserve the time efficiency when implementing the span program. This means in particular that span programs not only fully capture quantum query complexity, but also quantum time complexity. One practical advantage of being able to convert quantum algorithms to span programs in a way that preserves time complexity is that span programs compose very nicely. We demonstrate this by improving Ambainis's variable-time quantum search result using our construction through a span program composition for the OR function.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".