Bibliographic record
Abstract
While quantum computers hold the promise of significant computational speedups, the limited size of early quantum machines motivates the study of space-bounded quantum computation. We relate the quantum space complexity of computing a function $f$ with one-sided error to the logarithm of its span program size, a classical quantity that is well-studied in attempts to prove formula size lower bounds. In the more natural bounded error model, we show that the amount of space needed for a unitary quantum algorithm to compute $f$ with bounded (two-sided) error is at least the logarithm of its approximate span program size over the reals. Approximate span programs have been introduced in the field of quantum algorithms but not studied classically. However, the approximate span program size of a function is a natural generalization of its span program size. While no non-trivial lower bound is known on the span program size (or approximate span program size) of any explicit function, a number of lower bounds are known on the monotone span program size. We show that the approximate monotone span program size of $f$ is a lower bound on the space needed by quantum algorithms of a particular form, called monotone phase estimation algorithms, to compute $f$. We then give the first non-trivial lower bound on the approximate monotone span program size of an explicit function. ---------------------- A conference version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2020.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".