1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{fullpage, times}

3: \bibliographystyle{alpha}

4: 

5: % for the notations in this paper

6: \newcommand{\defeq}{\stackrel{\Delta}{=}}

7: \newcommand{\PAR}{\mbox{{\sf PAR}}}

8: \newcommand{\GT}{\mbox{{\sf GT}}}

9: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{{\rm Tr} }}

10: \newcommand{\ANN}{\mbox{{\sf ANN}}}

11: \newcommand{\ellone}[1]{\| #1 \|_1}

12: \newcommand{\E}{\mathop{\rm {\bf E}}}

13: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb R}}

14: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}

15: \newcommand{\cK}{{\cal K}}

16: \newcommand{\cI}{{\cal I}}

17: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}

18: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}

19: \newcommand{\tP}{\tilde{\cal P}}

20: \newcommand{\cQ}{{\cal Q}}

21: \newcommand{\cX}{{\cal X}}

22: \newcommand{\cY}{{\cal Y}}

23: \newcommand{\cZ}{{\cal Z}}

24: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| #1 \rangle}

25: \newcommand{\ketbra}[1]{| #1 \rangle \langle #1 |}

26: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}

27: \newcommand{\bzero}{{\mathbf 0}}

28: 

29: % theorem-like environments in this paper

30: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition} % Specify Definition

31: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary} % Specify Corollary

32: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}    % Specify Theorem

33: \newtheorem{result}{Result}    % Specify Result

34: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}    % Specify Fact

35: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}      % Specify Lemma

36: \newenvironment{proof}{\noindent{\bf Proof:}}{\qed} % Specify proof

37: \newcommand{\qed}{\hfill{$\rule{6pt}{6pt}$}} %Box at end of proof

38: 

39: % Start of the paper

40: \title{Lower bounds for predecessor searching

41: in the cell probe model\footnote{

42: This paper is the journal version of the conference papers

43: \cite{sen:quantcell} and \cite{sen:pred}.

44: }

45: }

46: 

47: \author{

48: Pranab Sen\thanks{

49: Department of Combinatorics and Optimization, 

50: University of Waterloo, 

51: Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. 

52: Email:  {\sf p2sen@iqc.ca}.

53: Work done while the author was a graduate student at TIFR, Mumbai,

54: India visiting UC Berkeley and DIMACS under a Sarojini Damodaran

55: International Fellowship grant, and a

56: postdoctoral researcher at LRI, Orsay, France supported by 

57: the EU 5th framework program QAIP IST-1999-11234 and

58: by CNRS/STIC 01N80/0502 and 01N80/0607 grants.

59: }

60: \and

61: S~.Venkatesh\thanks{

62: Algorithms and Complexity Group, Max-Planck Institut f\"{u}r

63: Informatik, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 85, 66123 Saarbr\"{u}ken, Germany.

64: Email: {\sf srini@mpi-sb.mpg.de}. Work done while the author

65: was a postdoctoral researcher at IAS, Princeton, USA supported

66: by NSF grant CCR-9987845 and a joint IAS-DIMACS post doctoral

67: fellowship.

68: }

69: }

70: 

71: \date{}

72: 

73: \begin{document}

74: 

75: \maketitle

76: \thispagestyle{empty}

77: 

78: \begin{abstract}

79: We consider a fundamental problem in data structures, 

80: {\em static predecessor searching}: Given a subset $S$ of 

81: size $n$ from the universe 

82: $[m]$, store $S$ so that queries of the form ``What 

83: is the predecessor of $x$ in

84: $S$?'' can be answered efficiently. We study this problem in 

85: the cell probe 

86: model introduced by Yao~\cite{yao:tablesort}. Recently,

87: Beame and Fich~\cite{beame:pred} obtained optimal bounds on the 

88: number of probes

89: needed by any deterministic query scheme if the associated storage

90: scheme uses only $n^{O(1)}$ cells of word size $(\log m)^{O(1)}$ bits.

91: 

92: We give a new lower bound proof for this problem that matches 

93: the bounds of Beame and Fich. Our lower bound proof has 

94: the following advantages: it 

95: works for randomised query schemes too, while 

96: Beame and Fich's proof works for deterministic query schemes only. 

97: In addition, it is simpler than 

98: Beame and Fich's proof.

99: In fact, our lower bound for predecessor searching

100: extends to the `quantum address-only' query schemes that we

101: define in this paper. In these query schemes, quantum parallelism 

102: is allowed 

103: only over the `address lines' of the queries. These query schemes

104: subsume classical randomised query schemes,

105: and include many quantum query algorithms

106: like Grover's algorithm~\cite{grover:search}.

107: 

108: We prove our lower bound using the round elimination approach of 

109: Miltersen, Nisan, Safra and Wigderson~\cite{miltersen:roundelim}. 

110: Using tools from information theory, we prove a strong

111: round elimination lemma for communication complexity that enables 

112: us to

113: obtain a tight lower bound for the predecessor problem. 

114: Our strong round elimination lemma also extends to quantum

115: communication complexity. 

116: We also use our

117: round elimination lemma to obtain a rounds versus communication 

118: tradeoff for the `greater-than' problem, improving on the 

119: tradeoff in \cite{miltersen:roundelim}. 

120: We believe that

121: our round elimination lemma is of independent interest and should have

122: other applications.

123: \end{abstract}

124: 

125: %\noindent {\bf Keywords:} Predecessor searching, cell probe

126: %model, data structures, communication complexity, 

127: %information theory, lower bounds.

128: 

129: \section{Introduction}

130: \subsection{The problem and the model}

131: A static data structure problem

132: consists of a set of data $D$, a set of queries $Q$, a set of

133: answers $A$, and a function

134: $f:D \times Q \rightarrow A$. The aim is to store the data efficiently

135: and succinctly,

136: so that any query can be answered with only a few probes to the data

137: structure.

138: {\em Static predecessor searching}

139: is a well studied problem in data 

140: structure design (see e.g.~\cite{boas:priority, boas:order, 

141: willard:loglog, andersson:lin, ajtai:pred, miltersen:union, 

142: miltersen:roundelim, beame:pred}). 

143: Data structures for answering predecessor queries can be used to 

144: construct data structures to

145: answer other queries like rank (finding the number of elements in $S$ 

146: that are smaller than or equal to $x$) and nearest neighbour 

147: (finding an 

148: element in $S$ closest to $x$) efficiently. This motivates the need to

149: design efficient data structures that support predecessor queries. 

150: 

151: Let $[m]$ denote the set of integers $\{0, \ldots, m-1\}$.

152: \begin{definition}[Static predecessor searching]

153: In the problem of {\em $(m,n)$-static predecessor searching},

154: we are given a subset $S$ of size $n$ from the universe 

155: $[m]$. Our goal is to store the set $S$ succinctly

156: so that

157: queries of the form ``What is the predecessor of $x$ in $S$?'' for 

158: $x \in [m]$ can be answered with a few probes to the data structure. 

159: If $x$ has no predecessor

160: in $S$, that is, $x$ is smaller than 

161: every element in $S$, then return a default value, say, $-1$. 

162: \end{definition}

163: 

164: In this paper, we study the static predecessor searching problem in

165: Yao's {\em cell probe} model~\cite{yao:tablesort}.

166: The cell 

167: probe model is a natural and general model for proving upper and lower

168: bound results in data structures.

169: \begin{definition}[The cell probe model]

170: An $(s,w,t)$ {\em cell probe scheme} for a 

171: static data structure problem $f:D \times Q \rightarrow A$

172: has two components:

173: a {\em storage scheme} and a {\em query scheme}. The storage scheme

174: stores the data $d \in D$ as a table $T[d]$ of $s$

175: cells, each cell of word size $w$ bits.

176: The storage scheme is classical deterministic.

177: Given a query $q \in Q$, the query scheme computes $f(d, q)$ by

178: making at most $t$ probes to $T[d]$, where each probe reads one cell 

179: at a time, and the probes can be adaptive.

180: In a deterministic cell probe scheme the query scheme is 

181: classical deterministic,

182: in a randomised cell probe scheme it is classical randomised, and

183: in an address-only quantum cell probe scheme it is bounded error

184: address-only quantum (defined in Section~\ref{subsec:quantcell}).

185: \end{definition}

186: Since in the cell probe model we only charge a

187: scheme for the number of probes made to memory cells and for the

188: total number of cells of storage used, and all internal computation

189: is for free, 

190: lower bounds proved in the cell probe model hold in all reasonable

191: data structure models (e.g. the unit cost RAM with the same word

192: size) and give us insight into the intrinsic difficulty

193: of the problem.

194: 

195: The goal is to design cell probe schemes for $(m, n)$-static

196: predecessor searching using

197: small space i.e. $s = n^{O(1)}$ and $w = O(\log m)$, and at the

198: same time making a small number of probes $t$ in the worst case.

199: 

200: \subsection{Previous work}

201: We start by describing the sequence of results that lead to the 

202: currently

203: best known upper bounds for the $(m, n)$-static predecessor problem. 

204: For a long time, the best upper bound known for the 

205: predecessor problem

206: was due to the data structures of van Emde 

207: Boas et al.~\cite{boas:priority, boas:order}, 

208: and the data structures of

209: Fredman and Willard~\cite{fredman:fusion}. 

210: In their papers, van Emde 

211: Boas et al.~\cite{boas:priority, boas:order} 

212: gave a $(\Omega(m), O(\log m), O(\log \log m))$ deterministic

213: cell probe solution for predecessor. 

214: The main drawback of their solution is that the number of cells

215: used is very large. Later, Willard~\cite{willard:loglog} 

216: reduced the number of cells used to $O(n)$. 

217: Building on the work of van Emde Boas et al. and Willard, Fredman and

218: Willard~\cite{fredman:fusion}, and

219: Andersson~\cite{andersson:lin} designed 

220: $(O(n), O(\log m), O(\sqrt{\log n}))$

221: deterministic cell probe schemes for predecessor.

222: Recently, Beame and 

223: Fich~\cite{beame:pred} improved on these upper

224: bounds and showed a 

225: $\left(O\left(\frac{n^2 \log n}{\log \log n}\right),

226:        O(\log m),t\right)$,

227: where

228: $t = \min\left\{O\left(\frac{\log\log m}{\log\log\log m}\right),

229: O\left(\sqrt{\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}}\,\right)\right\}$,

230: deterministic cell probe scheme for predecessor. 

231: 

232: The first lower bound for the $(m, n)$-static predecessor

233: problem was proved by Ajtai~\cite{ajtai:pred}, who showed that

234: no $(n^{O(1)}, O(\log m), t)$ deterministic cell probe scheme for

235: predecessor can have constant number of probes $t$.

236: Miltersen~\cite{miltersen:union} observed that there 

237: is a close connection  

238: between the cell probe complexity of a data structure problem and

239: the communication complexity of a related communication game, and 

240: used this to improve Ajtai's lower bound to 

241: $\Omega(\sqrt{\log\log m}\,)$ probes. 

242: Recently, building on Ajtai's and Miltersen's work, 

243: Beame and Fich~\cite{beame:pred} 

244: showed that their data structure described above is indeed optimal

245: in the following sense: any 

246: $(n^{O(1)}, 2^{(\log m)^{1 - \Omega(1)}}, t)$ deterministic cell

247: probe scheme for predecessor must satisfy

248: $t = \Omega\left(\frac{\log\log m}{\log\log\log m}\right)$ 

249: as a function of $m$, and any 

250: $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ deterministic cell

251: probe scheme for predecessor must satisfy

252: $t = \Omega\left(\sqrt{\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}}\,\right)$

253: as a function of $n$. Similar lower bounds

254: were proved by Xiao~\cite{xiao:cell}. We would like to

255: stress here that all the above lower bound proofs

256: are complicated with many

257: technical details.  Also, they hold for deterministic cell

258: probe schemes only.

259: 

260: The result of Beame and Fich gives rise to the following two 

261: questions: does their lower bound hold for randomised query

262: schemes as well? It has been observed recently that randomisation

263: enormously helps in the case of membership 

264: queries~\cite{buhrman:bitvectors} and

265: approximate nearest neighbour 

266: queries~\cite{liu:ann, kushilevitz:ann, indyk:ann, chakrabarti:ann}, 

267: and one might believe that it

268: could help answer predecessor queries quickly as well. Secondly, 

269: is it possible to give a simple proof of the lower bound result

270: of Beame and Fich?

271: 

272: A partial answer to both of the above questions was given by 

273: Miltersen, Nisan, Safra and Wigderson~\cite{miltersen:roundelim}. 

274: In their paper, they

275: proved a general {\em round elimination} lemma for communication 

276: complexity.

277: Using the connection between cell probe

278: complexity of data structures and communication complexity, and

279: their round elimination lemma, they showed 

280: the following lower bound for the 

281: predecessor problem: any $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ randomised

282: cell probe scheme for $(m, n)$-static predecessor must

283: satisfy $t = \Omega(\sqrt{\log\log m}\,)$ 

284: as a function of $m$, and $t = \Omega((\log n)^{1/3})$

285: as a function of $n$. Though the 

286: lower bound proved by \cite{miltersen:roundelim} is 

287: weaker than that of 

288: \cite{beame:pred}, their approach had two advantages: their lower

289: bound holds for randomised query schemes too,

290: and the proof is much simpler.

291: In their paper, Miltersen et al. ask if their round elimination

292: based approach can be strengthened

293: to obtain the lower bound of Beame and Fich.

294: 

295: \subsection{Our Results}

296: We answer the question posed by Miltersen, Nisan, Safra and Wigderson.

297: Our main result in this paper shows that the lower bound of Beame and

298: Fich holds for address-only quantum cell probe schemes (and hence,

299: for randomised cell probe schemes) as well.

300: 

301: \subsubsection{The Predecessor Problem}

302: \begin{result}

303: Suppose there is a $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ randomised 

304: cell probe

305: scheme for the $(m, n)$-static predecessor problem with error 

306: probability less than $1/3$.

307: Then, 

308: \begin{enumerate}

309: \item[(a)]

310: $t = \Omega \left( \frac{\log \log m}{\log \log \log m} \right)$ 

311: as a function of $m$; 

312: \item[(b)]

313: $t = \Omega \left( \sqrt{\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}} \, \right)$ 

314: as a function of $n$.

315: \end{enumerate}

316: The same lower bound also holds for address-only quantum cell 

317: probe schemes for static predecessor searching.

318: \end{result}

319: 

320: We prove our lower bound for predecessor searching 

321: by combining the approach in \cite{miltersen:roundelim}

322: with a new round elimination lemma for communication complexity.

323: Our round elimination lemma is a strengthening of the one proved 

324: in ~\cite{miltersen:roundelim},

325: and we believe it is of independent interest.

326: 

327: \subsubsection{An improved round elimination lemma}

328: In this paper, all communication protocols are two-party. 

329: The error probability of a randomised or quantum communication

330: protocol is defined as the maximum error of the 

331: protocol for any input.

332: For a general introduction to (classical) 

333: communication complexity, see the

334: book by Kushilevitz and Nisan~\cite{kushilevitz:cc}.

335: 

336: Let $f: \cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ be any 

337: communication problem. Let

338: us denote by $f^{(n),A}$ a new communication game in which

339: Alice is given $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n \in \cX$, and Bob

340: is given $y \in \cY$, $i \in [n]$ and also  

341: copies of $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{i-1}$. 

342: Their task is to compute $f(x_i,y)$. $f^{(n), B}$ is defined

343: similarly. Intuitively,

344: if Alice starts the communication and her first message

345: is much smaller than $n$ bits, then she is unlikely to send 

346: much useful information about $x_i$

347: to Bob as she is unaware of $i$. So it should be possible to 

348: eliminate the first message of Alice, giving rise to a protocol

349: where Bob starts, with one less round of communication, and having

350: similar message complexity and error probability.

351: The round elimination lemma captures

352: this intuition. 

353: 

354: \begin{definition}

355: A $[t;l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_t]^A$ ($[t;l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$)

356: communication protocol is one

357: where Alice (Bob) starts the communication, the 

358: $i$th message is $l_i$ bits long, and the communication goes on

359: for $t$ rounds. 

360: \end{definition}

361: 

362: \begin{result}

363: Suppose the communication game $f^{(n),A}$ has a 

364: $[t;l_1,l_2,\ldots,l_t]^A$

365: public coin randomised protocol with error less than 

366: $\delta$. Then, $f$ has a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ public coin 

367: randomised protocol 

368: with error less than 

369: $\epsilon \defeq \delta + (1/2)(2l_1\ln 2/n)^{1/2}$.

370: A similar result holds for public coin quantum protocols (defined

371: in Section~\ref{subsec:quantcomm}) too.

372: \end{result}

373: 

374: The proof of this lemma uses tools from information theory. 

375: In particular,

376: we use the {\em average encoding} theorem of 

377: Klauck, Nayak, Ta-Shma and Zuckerman~\cite{klauck:interaction}. 

378: Intuitively, this theorem 

379: says that if the mutual information between a random variable and its 

380: randomised encoding is small, then the probability distributions 

381: on code words for various values of the random variable

382: are indeed close to the average probability distribution on 

383: code words. 

384: 

385: \subsubsection{Applications to other problems}

386: We prove our lower bound result for predecessor by actually proving

387: a lower bound for the {\em rank parity problem}. In the rank parity

388: problem, we need to store a subset $S$ of the universe $[m]$ so that

389: given a query element $x \in [m]$, we can output whether the number

390: of elements in $S$ less than or equal to $x$ is even or odd.

391: Lower bounds for rank parity imply similar lower bounds for some other

392: data structure problems like {\em point separation}~\cite{beame:pred}

393: and {\em two-dimensional reporting 

394: range query}~\cite{miltersen:roundelim}. For

395: details of the reduction from rank parity to the above problems,

396: see the respective papers cited above.

397: 

398: Independently, the round elimination lemma has applications 

399: to problems 

400: in communication complexity. For example, let us consider 

401: communication protocols for the `greater-than' problem $\GT_n$ 

402: in which Alice and Bob are given bit strings $x$ and $y$ respectively

403: of length $n$ each, and 

404: the goal is to find out if $x > y$ or not (treating

405: $x, y$ as integers between $0$ and $2^n - 1$). 

406: Miltersen, Nisan, Safra and Wigderson~\cite{miltersen:roundelim},

407: and Smirnov~\cite{smirnov:shannon} have

408: studied rounds versus communication tradeoffs for $\GT_n$.

409: Miltersen et al. show an

410: $\Omega\left(n^{1/t} 2^{-O(t)}\right)$ lower bound for $t$-round

411: bounded error public coin randomised protocols for $\GT_n$.

412: Using our stronger round elimination lemma, we improve Miltersen

413: et al.'s result.

414: \begin{result}

415: The bounded error public coin randomised $t$-round

416: communication complexity of $\GT_n$ 

417: is lower bounded by $\Omega(n^{1/t}t^{-2})$.

418: For bounded error quantum protocols with input-independent

419: prior entanglement for

420: $\GT_n$, we have a lower bound of $\Omega(n^{1/t}t^{-1})$.

421: \end{result}

422: 

423: \paragraph{Remark:} The lower

424: bound for quantum protocols is better because, by definition, a

425: quantum protocol always sends messages whose length is independent 

426: of the input.

427: 

428: There exists a bounded error classical randomised protocol for

429: $GT_n$ using $t$ rounds of communication and having a complexity of

430: $O(n^{1/t} \log n)$. Hence, for a constant number of rounds, our

431: lower bound matches the upper bound to within

432: logarithmic factors. For one round quantum protocols, our result 

433: implies

434: an $\Omega(n)$ lower bound for $GT_n$ (which is optimal to within

435: constant factors), improving upon the 

436: previous $\Omega(n/\log n)$ lower bound of 

437: Klauck~\cite{klauck:ccsurvey}. No rounds versus communication tradeoff

438: for this problem, for more than one round,

439: was known earlier in the quantum setting.

440: If the number of rounds is unbounded, then there is a private

441: coin classical

442: randomised protocol for $GT_n$  using $O(\log n)$ rounds of 

443: communication and having a complexity of 

444: $O(\log n)$~\cite{nisan:threshold}. An

445: $\Omega(\log n)$ lower bound for the bounded error 

446: quantum communication

447: complexity of $GT_n$ (irrespective of the number of rounds)

448: follows from Kremer's

449: result~\cite{kremer:quantcc} that the bounded error quantum

450: communication complexity of a function is lower bounded (up to

451: constant factors) by the

452: logarithm of the one round (classical)

453: deterministic communication complexity.

454: 

455: \subsection{Our techniques}

456: The starting point of our work is the paper of Miltersen, Nisan, Safra

457: and Wigderson~\cite{miltersen:roundelim} showing lower 

458: bounds for randomised

459: cell probe schemes for predecessor. 

460: The crux of Miltersen et al.'s lower bound is the following

461: round elimination lemma for communication complexity. 

462: 

463: \bigskip

464: 

465: \noindent {\bf Fact (Round elimination lemma, 

466: \cite{miltersen:roundelim})}

467: {\em 

468: Let $f:\cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ be a function.

469: Let $\epsilon, \delta > 0$ be real numbers. Suppose that

470: $\delta \leq \epsilon^2 (100 \ln (8/\epsilon))^{-1}$.

471: Suppose the communication game $f^{(n),A}$ has a 

472: $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ public coin randomised protocol

473: with error less than $\delta$. Also suppose that

474: $n \geq 20 (l_1 \ln 2 + \ln 5) \epsilon^{-1}$.

475: Then there is a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ public coin

476: randomised protocol for $f$ with error less than 

477: $\epsilon$.

478: }

479: 

480: \bigskip

481: 

482: \noindent Note that in the round elimination lemma 

483: of \cite{miltersen:roundelim}, the

484: dependence between $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ is quadratic.

485: In their paper, Miltersen et al. ask if their 

486: round elimination based

487: approach can be strengthened to obtain Beame 

488: and Fich's~\cite{beame:pred} lower bound.

489: 

490: Our first observation

491: is that if we can prove a stronger round elimination lemma in 

492: which $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ are related by a {\em small additive

493: term}, and the additive term is upper

494: bounded by $(\frac{l_1}{n})^{\Omega(1)}$,

495: then we can obtain the lower bound of Beame and Fich for

496: randomised cell probe schemes solving the predecessor problem.

497: 

498: Our next observation is that Klauck, Nayak, Ta-Shma and 

499: Zuckerman~\cite{klauck:interaction} have studied  rounds 

500: versus quantum communication tradeoffs

501: for the `tree pointer chasing' problem

502: using tools from quantum information theory. 

503: In fact, their

504: quantum lower bound for the `tree pointer chasing' problem is

505: better than its previously known classical 

506: lower bound~\cite{miltersen:roundelim}!

507: An important ingredient of their quantum lower bound was a

508: quantum information-theoretic result called 

509: {\em average encoding} theorem. This result says informally

510: that when messages carry very 

511: little information about the input, the average message is 

512: essentially 

513: as good as the individual messages. This result gives us a new way

514: of attacking the round elimination problem. The information-theoretic

515: round reduction

516: arguments in \cite{klauck:interaction} are 

517: average-case (under the uniform

518: distribution on the inputs) arguments, and do not immediately

519: give a worst-case result like the round elimination lemma. 

520: The information-theoretic arguments

521: have to be combined with 

522: Yao's minimax lemma~\cite{yao:minimax} (also used in the

523: proof of the round elimination lemma in 

524: \cite{miltersen:roundelim}) to prove

525: the strong round elimination lemma of this paper. 

526: The information-theoretic approach

527: brings out more clearly the

528: intuition behind round elimination, 

529: as opposed to the ad hoc combinatorial 

530: proof in \cite{miltersen:roundelim}.

531: We believe that this strong round

532: elimination lemma is an important technical contribution

533: of this paper. 

534: 

535: \subsection{Organisation of the paper}

536: We start with some preliminaries in the next 

537: section. Assuming the average encoding theorem, we prove an 

538: intermediate result in Section~\ref{sec:rndreduce} 

539: which allows us to reduce the number of rounds

540: of a communication protocol if the first message does not convey

541: much information about the sender's input. 

542: Proofs of the classical and quantum versions of

543: the average encoding

544: theorem can be found in the appendix for completeness.

545: Using the intermediate result, we

546: prove our strong round elimination lemma in

547: Section~\ref{sec:roundelim}. 

548: Sections~\ref{sec:rndreduce} and \ref{sec:roundelim} 

549: each have two subsections: the first

550: one treats the classical version of the results and 

551: the second one treats the quantum version.

552: Using the strong round elimination lemma, we prove the optimal

553: lower bound for the predecessor problem in Section~\ref{sec:predlb}. 

554: The rounds versus communication tradeoff for the `greater-than' 

555: problem is sketched in Section~\ref{sec:gt}. 

556: We finally conclude

557: mentioning some open problems in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

558: 

559: \section{Preliminaries}

560: 

561: \subsection{The address-only quantum cell probe model}

562: \label{subsec:quantcell} 

563: A quantum {\em $(s,w,t)$ cell probe scheme} for a 

564: static data structure 

565: problem $f: D \times Q \rightarrow A$

566: has two components: a classical deterministic 

567: {\em storage scheme} that 

568: stores the data $d \in D$ in a table $T[d]$ using

569: $s$ cells each containing $w$ bits, and a quantum {\em query scheme}

570: that answers queries by `quantumly probing a cell at a time' 

571: $t$ times.

572: Formally speaking, the table $T[d]$ is made available to the

573: query algorithm in the form of an oracle unitary transform $O_d$. To

574: define $O_d$ formally, we represent the basis states of the query

575: algorithm as

576: $\ket{j,b,z}$, where $j \in [s-1]$ is a binary string of

577: length $\log s$, $b$ is a binary string of length $w$, and 

578: $z$ is a binary string of

579: some fixed length. Here, 

580: $j$ denotes the address of a cell in the table $T[d]$,

581: $b$ denotes the qubits which will hold the contents of a cell

582: and $z$ stands for the rest of the qubits (`work qubits')

583: in the query algorithm.

584: $O_d$ maps $\ket{j,b,z}$ to $\ket{j, b \oplus T[d]_j, z}$, where

585: $T[d]_j$ is a bit string of length $w$ and 

586: denotes the contents of the $j$th cell in $T[d]$.

587: A quantum query scheme with $t$ probes is just a sequence of

588: unitary transformations

589: \begin{displaymath}

590: U_{0} \rightarrow O_d \rightarrow U_{1} \rightarrow O_d

591:       \rightarrow \ldots U_{t-1}

592:       \rightarrow O_d \rightarrow U_{t}

593: \end{displaymath}

594: where $U_{j}$'s are arbitrary unitary transformations that do not

595: depend on $d$ ($U_{j}$'s represent the internal computations

596: of the query algorithm). For a query $q \in Q$, the

597: computation starts in a computational basis state

598: $\ket{q}\ket{0}$, where we

599: assume that the ancilla qubits are initially in the basis state

600: $\ket{0}$. Then we apply in succession,

601: the operators $U_0, O_d, U_1, \ldots, U_{t-1}, O_d, U_t$, 

602: and measure the final state.

603: The answer consists of the values on some of the

604: output wires of the circuit. 

605: We say that the scheme has worst case error probability less than

606: $\epsilon$ if 

607: the answer is equal to $f(d,q)$, for

608: every $(d,q) \in D \times Q$, with

609: probability greater than $1 - \epsilon$. 

610: The term `bounded error quantum scheme' means that 

611: $\epsilon = 1/3$.

612: 

613: We now formally define the {\em address-only quantum cell 

614: probe model}.

615: Here the storage scheme is classical deterministic as before,

616: but the query scheme is restricted to be `address-only quantum'.

617: This means that the state vector before a query to the oracle $O_d$

618: is always a {\em tensor product} of a state vector 

619: on the address and work qubits (the $(j,z)$ part in 

620: $(j,b,z)$ above), and a state 

621: vector on the data qubits (the $b$ part in

622: $(j,b,z)$ above). The state vector on the data qubits before a

623: query to the oracle $O_d$ is {\em independent of the 

624: query element $q$ and the data $d$} but

625: can vary with the probe number. Intuitively, we are only

626: making use of quantum parallelism over the address lines of

627: a query. This

628: mode of querying a table subsumes classical (deterministic or

629: randomised) querying, and also many 

630: non-trivial

631: quantum algorithms like Grover's algorithm~\cite{grover:search},

632: Farhi et al.'s algorithm~\cite{farhi:search}, 

633: H{\o}yer et al.'s algorithm~\cite{hoyer:search} etc. 

634: satisfy the `address-only' condition.

635: For classical (deterministic or randomised)

636: querying, the state vector on the data qubits is 

637: $\ket{0}$, independent of the probe number. 

638: For Grover's algorithm and Farhi et al.'s algorithm,

639: the state vector on the data qubit is

640: $(\ket{0} - \ket{1}) / \sqrt{2}$, independent of the probe number.

641: For H{\o}yer et al.'s algorithm, 

642: the state vector on the data qubit is 

643: $\ket{0}$ for some probe numbers, and 

644: $(\ket{0} - \ket{1}) / \sqrt{2}$ for the other probe numbers.

645: 

646: \subsection{Quantum communication protocols}

647: \label{subsec:quantcomm} 

648: In this paper, we adopt the `interacting unitary quantum circuits' 

649: definition of quantum

650: communication protocols of Yao~\cite{yao:quantcc}.

651: Thus, Alice and Bob send a certain number of fixed length

652: messages to each other, and the number and length of these messages

653: is independent of their inputs.

654: If Alice's and Bob's inputs are in computational basis

655: states, the global state of all the qubits of Alice and Bob is pure

656: at all times during the execution of the protocol.

657: Measurements are not allowed during the execution of 

658: the protocol. At the end of the protocol, the last recipient of

659: a message make a von Neumann measurement in the computational basis

660: of certain qubits (the `answer qubits')

661: in her possession in order to determine the answer

662: of the protocol. The choice of `answer qubits' is independent of

663: Alice's and Bob's inputs. 

664: 

665: We require that Alice and Bob

666: make a secure copy of their inputs before beginning the quantum

667: communication protocol.

668: This is possible since the inputs to Alice and Bob are in 

669: computational basis states e.g. CNOT gates can be used for this

670: purpose. Thus, without loss of generality,

671: the input qubits of Alice and Bob are never sent

672: as messages, their state remains unchanged throughout the protocol,

673: and they are never

674: measured i.e. some work qubits are measured to determine the result of

675: the protocol. 

676: We call such quantum protocols {\em secure}

677: and will assume

678: henceforth that all our quantum protocols are secure. 

679: 

680: We now define the concept of a {\em safe} 

681: quantum communication

682: protocol, which will be used in the statement of the 

683: quantum round elimination lemma.

684: \begin{definition}[Safe quantum protocol] 

685: A $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ ($[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^B$) safe quantum 

686: communication

687: protocol is a secure quantum protocol where Alice (Bob) starts

688: the communication, the first message is $l_1 + c$ qubits long,

689: the  $i$th message, for $i \ge 2$, is $l_i$ qubits long, and

690: the communication goes on for $t$ rounds. We think of the

691: first message as having two parts: the `main part' which is

692: $l_1$ qubits long, and the `safe overhead part' which is $c$ qubits

693: long. The density matrix of the `safe overhead' is independent of the 

694: inputs to Alice and Bob. 

695: \end{definition}

696: 

697: \paragraph{Remarks:} \  \\

698: 1. \ \ The safe overhead is nothing but a way to send 

699: input independent

700: prior entanglement from Alice to Bob. The reason we use 

701: this notation is that we will later define safe public coin

702: quantum protocols where there will be two kinds of input

703: independent prior entanglement, the first being the one provided

704: by the safe overhead and the second being the one proved by the

705: public coin. \\

706: 2. \ \ The reason for defining the concept of a safe overhead, 

707: intuitively speaking, is as follows.

708: The communication games arising from data structure problems

709: often have an asymmetry between the message lengths of Alice and Bob.

710: This asymmetry is crucial to prove lower bounds on the number

711: of rounds of communication.

712: In the previous quantum round reduction arguments (e.g. those

713: of Klauck et al.~\cite{klauck:interaction}), the complexity

714: of the first message in the protocol increases quickly as the

715: number of rounds is reduced and the asymmetry gets lost.

716: This leads to a problem where the

717: first message soon gets big enough to potentially

718: convey substantial information about the input of one player to the

719: other, destroying any hope of proving strong lower bounds on the

720: number of rounds.

721: The concept of a safe protocol allows us to get around this problem.

722: We show through a careful

723: quantum information theoretic analysis of the round reduction process,

724: that in a safe protocol,

725: though the complexity of the first message increases a lot, this

726: increase is confined to the safe overhead and so, the

727: information content does not increase much. This is the key property

728: which allows us to prove a round elimination lemma for safe

729: quantum protocols.

730: 

731: In this paper we will deal with quantum protocols with {\em public

732: coins}. Intuitively, a public coin quantum protocol is 

733: a probability distribution over finitely many ({\em coinless})

734: quantum protocols. We shall

735: henceforth call the standard definition of a quantum protocol

736: without prior entanglement as {\em coinless}. Our definition

737: is similar to the classical scenario, where a randomised protocol

738: with public coins is a probability distribution over finitely

739: many deterministic

740: protocols. We note however, that our definition of a 

741: public coin quantum

742: protocol is {\em not} the same as that of a 

743: quantum protocol with prior

744: entanglement, which has been studied previously 

745: (see e.g.~\cite{cleve:ip}). Our definition is weaker, in that it

746: does not allow the unitary transformations of Alice and Bob to

747: alter the `public coin'.

748: \begin{definition}[Public coin quantum protocol]

749: In a quantum protocol with a public coin, there is, before the

750: start of the protocol, a 

751: quantum state called a {\em public coin}, of the form

752: $\sum_c \sqrt{p_c} \ket{c}_A \ket{c}_B$, where the

753: subscripts denote ownership of qubits by Alice and Bob, 

754: $p_c$ are finitely many non-negative real

755: numbers and $\sum_c p_c = 1$. 

756: Alice and Bob make (entangled) copies of their respective 

757: halves of the

758: public coin using {\sc CNOT} gates before commencing the

759: protocol. The unitary transformations of Alice and Bob during the

760: protocol do not touch the public coin.

761: The public coin is never measured, nor is it ever sent as a message.

762: \end{definition}

763: Hence, one can

764: think of the public coin quantum protocol to be a probability

765: distribution, with probability $p_c$, over finitely many

766: coinless quantum protocols

767: indexed by the coin basis states $\ket{c}$. A {\em safe public coin}

768: quantum protocol is similarly defined as

769: a probability distribution over finitely many safe

770: coinless quantum protocols.

771: 

772: \paragraph{Remarks:} \  \\ 

773: 1.\ \ We need to define public coin quantum protocols in order to 

774: make use of the harder direction of Yao's minimax 

775: lemma~\cite{yao:minimax}. The minimax lemma

776: is the main tool which allows us to convert `average case'

777: round reduction arguments to `worst case' arguments. We need `worst

778: case' round reduction arguments in proving lower 

779: bounds for the rounds

780: complexity of communication games arising from data

781: structure problems. This is because many of these lower

782: bound proofs

783: use some notion of ``self-reducibility'', arising from the 

784: original data

785: structure problem, which fails to hold in the `average case' but holds

786: for the `worst case'. The quantum round reduction arguments of 

787: Klauck et al.~\cite{klauck:interaction}

788: are `average case' arguments, and this is 

789: one of the reasons why they do not suffice to prove lower bounds

790: for the rounds complexity of communication games arising from data

791: structure problems. \\

792: 2.\ \  For $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ safe quantum protocols computing

793: a function $f$, Yao's minimax lemma says that

794: the infimum (worst-case) error of a public coin protocol is equal

795: to the supremum over all input probability distributions of

796: the infimum distributional error of a coinless protocol.

797: 

798: \subsection{Predecessor searching and communication complexity}

799: \label{subsec:mnswpredlb}

800: We first describe the connection between the address-only

801: quantum cell probe

802: complexity of a static data structure problem and the quantum

803: communication complexity of an associated communication game.

804: Let $f: D \times Q \rightarrow A$ be a static data structure problem.

805: Consider a two-party

806: communication problem where Alice is given a query $q \in Q$,

807: Bob is given a datum $d \in D$, and they have to communicate and

808: find out the answer $f(d,q)$. We have the following lemma, which

809: is a quantum analogue of a lemma of Miltersen~\cite{miltersen:union}

810: relating cell probe complexity to communication complexity in

811: the classical setting.

812: \begin{lemma}

813: \label{lem:queryandcc}

814: Suppose we have an $(s,w,t)$ quantum cell 

815: probe solution to a static data structure problem 

816: $f: D \times Q \rightarrow A$.

817: Then we have a

818: $(2t, 0, \log s + w, \log s + w)^A$ safe coinless quantum

819: protocol for the corresponding

820: communication problem. If the query scheme is address-only,

821: we also have a $(2t, 0, \log s, \log s + w)^A$ safe coinless 

822: quantum protocol for the corresponding communication problem.

823: The error probability of the communication protocol is the same as

824: that of the cell probe scheme.

825: \end{lemma}

826: \begin{proof} 

827: Given a quantum $(s,w,t)$ cell

828: probe solution to the static data structure problem $f$,

829: we can get a 

830: $(2t, 0, \log s + w, \log s + w)^A$ safe coinless quantum

831: protocol for the corresponding

832: communication problem by just

833: simulating the cell probe solution. If in addition,

834: the query scheme is address-only, the messages from Alice to

835: Bob need consist only of the `address' part. This can be

836: seen as follows. Let the state vector of the data qubits before

837: the $i$th query be $\ket{\theta_i}$. $\ket{\theta_i}$ is independent

838: of the query element and the stored data. 

839: Bob keeps $t$ special ancilla registers in states 

840: $\ket{\theta_i}, 1 \leq i \leq t$ at the start of the protocol $P$.

841: These special ancilla registers are in tensor with the rest of the

842: qubits of Alice and Bob at the start of $P$.

843: Protocol $P$ simulates the cell probe solution, but with the following

844: modification. To simulate the $i$th query of the cell probe

845: solution, Alice prepares her `address' and `data' qubits as in the

846: query scheme, but sends the `address' qubits only. Bob treats those

847: `address' qubits together with $\ket{\theta_i}$ in the $i$th

848: special ancilla register as Alice's query, and performs the oracle

849: table transformation on them. He then sends these qubits (both

850: the `address' as well as the $i$th special register qubits) to Alice.

851: Alice exchanges the contents of the $i$th special register with

852: her `data' qubits (i.e. exchanges the basis states), and proceeds

853: with the simulation of the query scheme. This gives us a 

854: $(2t, 0, \log s, \log s + w)^A$ safe coinless 

855: quantum protocol with the same error probability as

856: that of the cell probe query scheme.

857: \end{proof}

858: 

859: \paragraph{Remark:}

860: In many natural data structure problems $\log s$ is much smaller than

861: $w$ and thus, in the address-only quantum case, we get a 

862: $(2t, 0, \log s, O(w))^A$ safe protocol. In the classical

863: setting of \cite{miltersen:union}, one gets a 

864: $(2t, 0, \log s, w)^A$ protocol. 

865: This asymmetry in message lengths is crucial

866: in proving non-trivial lower bounds on $t$.

867: The concept of a safe quantum protocol helps us in exploiting

868: this asymmetry.

869: 

870: We now recall some facts about the connection between 

871: cell probe schemes for predecessor and communication

872: complexity of rank parity

873: from \cite{miltersen:roundelim}. We give proof sketches of these

874: facts  for completeness.

875: 

876: \begin{definition}

877: A $(t,a,b)^A$ ($(t,a,b)^B$) classical communication

878: protocol is a 

879: $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ ($[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^B$)

880: classical protocol, where assuming

881: Alice (Bob) starts, $l_i = a$ for $i$ odd and $l_i = b$ for

882: $i$ even ($l_i = b$ for $i$ odd and $l_i = a$ for $i$ even).

883: A $(t,c,a,b)^A$ ($(t,c,a,b)^B$) quantum communication

884: protocol is a 

885: $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ ($[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^B$)

886: safe quantum protocol, where assuming

887: Alice (Bob) starts, $l_i = a$ for $i$ odd and $l_i = b$ for

888: $i$ even ($l_i = b$ for $i$ odd and $l_i = a$ for $i$ even).

889: \end{definition}

890: 

891: \begin{definition}[Rank parity]

892: In the {\em rank parity} communication

893: game $\PAR_{p,q}$,

894: Alice is given a bit string $x$ of

895: length $p$, Bob is given a set $S$ of bit strings of length $p$,

896: $|S| \leq q$, and they have to communicate and decide

897: whether the rank of $x$ in $S$ (treating the bit 

898: strings as integers) is odd or even. 

899: By the rank of $x$ in $S$, we mean the cardinality of the

900: set $\{y \in S \mid y \leq x \}$.

901: In the communication game $\PAR^{(k),A}_{p,q}$,

902: Alice is given $k$ bit strings $x_1,\ldots,x_k$ each of 

903: length $p$, Bob is given a set $S$ of bit strings of length $p$,

904: $|S| \leq q$, an index $i \in [k]$, 

905: and copies of $x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}$;

906: they have to communicate and decide 

907: whether the rank of $x_i$ in $S$ is odd or even.

908: In the communication game $\PAR^{(k),B}_{p,q}$,

909: Alice is given a bit string $x$ of 

910: length $p$ and an index $i \in [k]$, Bob is given $k$ sets

911: $S_1,\ldots,S_k$ of bit strings of length $p$,

912: $|S_j| \leq q, 1 \leq j \leq k$;

913: they have to communicate and decide 

914: whether the rank of $x$ in $S_i$ is odd or even.

915: \end{definition}

916: 

917: \begin{fact}

918: \label{fact:pred2rank}

919: Let $m$ be a positive integer such that $m$ is a power of $2$.

920: Suppose that there is a $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ 

921: randomised (address-only quantum) cell 

922: probe scheme for the $(m, n)$-static predecessor problem.

923: Then the rank parity communication game $\PAR_{\log m, n}$ has a

924: $\left(2t+O(1), O(\log n), (\log m)^{O(1)} \right)^A$ 

925: private coin randomised (safe coinless quantum) protocol.

926: The error probability of the communication protocol is the same as

927: that of the cell probe scheme.

928: \end{fact}

929: \begin{proof}

930: Consider the static rank parity data structure problem where 

931: the storage scheme has to store a set $S \subseteq [m]$, $|S| \leq n$,

932: and the query scheme, given a query $x \in [m]$, has to decide whether

933: the rank of $x$ in $S$ is odd or even.

934: Fredman, Koml\'{o}s and Szemer\'{e}di~\cite{fredman:hashing}

935: have shown the existence of two-level 

936: perfect hash tables containing, for each member $y$ of the

937: stored subset $S$, $y$'s rank in $S$, and

938: using $O(n)$ cells of word size $O(\log m)$ and requiring

939: only $O(1)$ deterministic cell probes.

940: Combining a $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ 

941: cell probe solution to the static predecessor problem with such

942: a perfect hash table gives us a 

943: $(n^{O(1)} + O(n), \max((\log m)^{O(1)}, O(\log m)), t + O(1))$ 

944: cell probe solution to the static rank parity problem.

945: The error probability of the cell probe scheme for the rank

946: parity problem is the same as the error probability of the cell

947: probe scheme for the predecessor problem.

948: Converting the cell probe scheme for the rank parity problem

949: into a communication protocol by \cite{miltersen:union} 

950: (by Lemma~\ref{fact:pred2rank}), we get a

951: $(2t+O(1), O(\log n), (\log m)^{O(1)})^A$ private coin 

952: randomised (safe coinless quantum) protocol for the rank

953: parity communication game $\PAR_{\log m, n}$. 

954: The error probability of the communication protocol is the same as

955: that of the cell probe scheme for the predecessor problem.

956: \end{proof}

957: 

958: \begin{fact}

959: \label{fact:rankred1}

960: Let $k, p$ be positive integers such that $k \mid p$.

961: A communication protocol with Alice starting for $\PAR_{p,q}$

962: gives us a communication protocol with 

963: Alice starting for $\PAR^{(k),A}_{p/k,q}$ with the 

964: same message complexity, number of rounds 

965: and error probability.

966: \end{fact}

967: \begin{proof}

968: Consider the problem $\PAR^{(k),A}_{p/k,q}$.

969: Alice, who is given $x_1,\ldots,x_k$, computes the concatenation

970: $\widehat{x} \defeq x_1 \cdot x_2 \cdots x_k$. Bob, who is given

971: $S$, $i$ and $x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}$, computes 

972: \begin{displaymath}

973: \widehat{S} \defeq 

974:             \left\{x_1 \cdot x_2 \cdots x_{i-1} 

975:                        \cdot y \cdot 0^{p(1 - i/k)}:  y \in S

976:             \right\}.

977: \end{displaymath}

978: After this, Alice and Bob run the protocol for $\PAR_{p,q}$ on inputs

979: $\widehat{x}$, $\widehat{S}$ to solve the 

980: problem $\PAR^{(k),A}_{p/k,q}$.

981: \end{proof}

982: 

983: \begin{fact}

984: \label{fact:rankred2}

985: Let $k, q$ be positive integers such that 

986: $k \mid q$ and $k$ is a power of $2$.

987: A communication protocol with Bob starting for $\PAR_{p,q}$

988: gives us a communication protocol with Bob starting for 

989: $\PAR^{(k),B}_{p - \log k - 1,q/k}$ with the same message complexity, 

990: number of rounds and error probability.

991: \end{fact}

992: \begin{proof}

993: Consider the problem $\PAR^{(k),B}_{p - \log k - 1,q/k}$.

994: Alice, who is given $x$ and $i$, 

995: computes the concatenation $\hat{x} \defeq (i-1) \cdot 0 \cdot x$.

996: Bob, who is given $S_1,\ldots,S_k$, computes the sets 

997: $S'_1,\ldots,S'_k$ where

998: \begin{displaymath}

999: S'_j \defeq  

1000:        \left\{ \begin{array}{l}

1001:                  \left\{(j-1) \cdot 0 \cdot y: y \in S_j \right\}\\

1002:                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{if $|S_j|$ is even}, \\

1003:                  \left\{(j-1) \cdot 0 \cdot y: y \in S_j \right\} 

1004:                   \bigcup \left\{(j-1) \cdot 1^{p - \log k} \right\}\\

1005:                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{if $|S_j|$ is odd}.

1006:                \end{array}

1007:        \right.

1008: \end{displaymath}

1009: Above, the integers $(i-1), (j-1)$ are to be thought of as 

1010: bit strings of length $\log k$.

1011: Bob also computes $\hat{S} \defeq \bigcup_{j=1}^k S'_j$.

1012: Alice and Bob then run the protocol for $\PAR_{p,q}$ on inputs

1013: $\hat{x}$, $\hat{S}$ to solve the problem 

1014: $\PAR^{(k),B}_{p - \log k - 1,q/k}$.

1015: \end{proof}

1016: 

1017: \subsection{Some classical information theoretic facts}

1018: \label{sec:classicalinfoprelim}

1019: In this subsection, we discuss some classical

1020: information theoretic facts

1021: which will be used in the proof of our improved classical

1022: round elimination lemma.

1023: For a good account of classical information theory, see 

1024: the book by Cover and Thomas~\cite{cover:infotheory}.

1025: 

1026: In this paper, all random variables have finite range and all

1027: sample spaces have finite cardinality.

1028: Let $X,Y,Z$ be random variables with some joint distribution.

1029: The {\em Shannon entropy} of $X$ is defined as

1030: $H(X) \defeq -\sum_x \Pr[X=x] \log \Pr[X=x]$. 

1031: The {\em mutual information} of $X$ and $Y$ is defined

1032: as $I(X:Y) \defeq H(X) + H(Y) - H(XY)$. If the range of $X$

1033: has cardinality at most $d$, $I(X:Y) \leq \log d$. 

1034: $I(X:Y) = 0$ iff $X$ and $Y$ are independent.

1035: Let $I((X:Y) \mid Z = z)$ denote the mutual information of 

1036: $X$ and $Y$ conditioned on the event $Z=z$.

1037: 

1038: The next fact follows easily from the definitions.

1039: \begin{fact}

1040: \label{fact:classicalaveraging}

1041: Let $X,Y,Z$ be random variables with some joint distribution.

1042: Then, 

1043: \begin{enumerate}

1044: \item[(a)] $I(XY:Z) = I(X:Z) + I(Y:ZX) - I(X:Y)$. 

1045:            In particular, if $X, Y$ are independent 

1046:            $I(XY:Z) = I(X:Z) + I(Y:ZX)$. 

1047: \item[(b)] $\displaystyle 

1048:             I(Y:ZX) = I(X:Y) + \E_{X} [I((Y:Z) \mid X=x)]$, where

1049:            is expectation is over the marginal distribution of $X$. 

1050: \end{enumerate}

1051: \end{fact}

1052: 

1053: We use total variation distance to quantify the distance between

1054: two probability distributions.

1055: \begin{definition}[Total variation distance]

1056: Let $P,Q$ be probability distributions on the same 

1057: sample space $\Omega$. 

1058: The {\em total variation distance} (also known as the

1059: $\ell_1$-distance) between

1060: $P$ and $Q$, denoted by $\ellone{P - Q}$, is defined as

1061: $\displaystyle \ellone{P - Q} \defeq \sum_{x \in \Omega} |P(x)-Q(x)|$.

1062: \end{definition}

1063: 

1064: We will need the {\em average encoding} theorem of

1065: Klauck, Nayak, Ta-Shma and Zuckerman~\cite{klauck:interaction}. 

1066: Klauck et al. actually prove a quantum version of this

1067: theorem in their paper, but we will use the classical version

1068: in the proof of our round elimination lemma.

1069: Intuitively speaking, the theorem says that if the mutual information 

1070: between a random variable and its randomised encoding is small, 

1071: then the probability distributions on the code words 

1072: for various values of the random variable

1073: are close to the average probability distribution on the code words.

1074: \begin{fact}[Average encoding theorem, \cite{klauck:interaction}]

1075: \label{fact:averageencodingclassical}

1076: Let $X, M$ be correlated 

1077: random variables. Let $p_x$ denote the (marginal) probability

1078: that $X=x$, and $\Pi^x$ denote the conditional distribution of $M$

1079: given that $X=x$.

1080: Let $\Pi$ denote the (marginal) probability distribution of $M$ i.e.

1081: $\Pi = \sum_x p_x \Pi^x$. 

1082: Then,

1083: \begin{displaymath}

1084: \sum_x p_x \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi} \leq \sqrt{(2 \ln 2) I(X:M)}.

1085: \end{displaymath}

1086: \end{fact}

1087: A self-contained classical

1088: proof, without using quantum information theory,

1089: of this fact can be found in the appendix for completeness.

1090: 

1091: \subsection{Some quantum information theoretic facts}

1092: \label{sec:quantinfoprelim}

1093: In this subsection, we discuss some quantum

1094: information theoretic facts

1095: which will be used in the proof of our quantum

1096: round elimination lemma.

1097: For a good account of quantum information theory, see 

1098: the book by Nielsen and Chuang~\cite{nielsen:quant}.

1099: 

1100: In this paper, all quantum systems, Hilbert spaces and superoperators

1101: are finite dimensional.

1102: Let $X,Y$ be quantum systems with some joint density matrix 

1103: $\rho_{XY}$.

1104: If $\rho_X$ is the reduced density matrix of $X$,

1105: the {\em von Neumann entropy} of $X$ is defined as

1106: $S(X) \defeq -\Tr \rho_X \log \rho_X$. 

1107: The {\em mutual information} of $X$ and $Y$ is defined

1108: as $I(X:Y) \defeq S(X) + S(Y) - S(XY)$. If $X$

1109: is at most $d$-dimensional, $I(X:Y) \leq 2 \log d$. 

1110: $I(X:Y) = 0$ iff $X$ and $Y$ are independent i.e.

1111: $\rho_{XY} = \rho_X \otimes \rho_Y$.

1112: Suppose $X,Y,Z$ are quantum systems with some joint density matrix

1113: where $Z$ is a classical random variable i.e. the reduced density

1114: matrix of $Z$ is diagonal in the computational basis.

1115: Let $I((X:Y) \mid Z = z)$ denote the mutual information of 

1116: $X$ and $Y$ conditioned on the event $Z=z$.

1117: 

1118: The next fact follows easily from the definitions.

1119: \begin{fact}

1120: \label{fact:quantaveraging}

1121: Let $X,Y,Z,W$ be quantum systems with some joint density matrix,

1122: where $X$ and $Y$ are classical random variables. 

1123: Then, 

1124: \begin{enumerate}

1125: \item[(a)] $I(XY:Z) = I(X:Z) + I(Y:ZX) - I(X:Y)$. 

1126:            In particular, if $X, Y$ are independent 

1127:            $I(XY:Z) = I(X:Z) + I(Y:ZX)$. 

1128: \item[(b)] $\displaystyle 

1129:             I(Y:ZX) = I(X:Y) + \E_{X} [I((Y:Z) \mid X=x)]$, where

1130:            is expectation is over the marginal distribution of $X$. 

1131: \item[(c)] Suppose $W$ is independent of $X$ and $Z$ is supported

1132:            on $m$ qubits. Then, $I(X:ZW) \leq 2m$.

1133: \end{enumerate}

1134: \end{fact}

1135: 

1136: \paragraph{Remarks:} \ \\

1137: 1. \ \ Fact~\ref{fact:quantaveraging}(c) is the key observation 

1138: allowing us to

1139: ``ignore'' the size of the ``safe'' overhead $W$ 

1140: in quantum round elimination applications.

1141: In these applications, the complexity of the first message

1142: in the protocol increases quickly, but the blow up is confined to

1143: the ``safe'' overhead. Earlier round reduction arguments were unable

1144: to handle this large blow up in the complexity of the first message.\\

1145: 2. \ \ In Fact~\ref{fact:quantaveraging}(c), if $Z$ is a 

1146: classical random variable, we get the improved

1147: inequality $I(X:ZW) \leq m$.

1148: 

1149: We use trace distance to quantify the distance between

1150: two density matrices.

1151: \begin{definition}[Trace distance]

1152: Let $\rho,\sigma$ be density matrices in the same Hilbert space.

1153: The {\em trace distance} between

1154: $\rho$ and $\sigma$, denoted by $\ellone{\rho - \sigma}$, 

1155: is defined as

1156: $\ellone{\rho - \sigma} \defeq 

1157:  \Tr \sqrt{(\rho - \sigma)^\dagger (\rho - \sigma)}$.

1158: \end{definition}

1159: If $\rho$ is a density matrix in a Hilbert space $\cH$ and

1160: $\cM$ is a general measurement i.e. a POVM on $\cH$, let

1161: $\cM \rho$ denote the probability distribution on

1162: the (classical) outcomes of $\cM$ got by performing measurement

1163: $\cM$ on $\rho$. 

1164: The importance of the trace distance as a metric on density 

1165: matrices stems from the following fundamental fact 

1166: (see e.g.~\cite{aharonov:mixed}).

1167: \begin{fact}

1168: \label{fact:l1tracedist}

1169: Let $\rho_1,\rho_2$ be two density matrices in the same Hilbert

1170: space $\cH$. Let $\cM$ be a POVM on $\cH$. Then,

1171: $\ellone{\cM\rho_1 - \cM\rho_2} \leq \ellone{\rho_1 - \rho_2}$.

1172: \end{fact}

1173: 

1174: Let $\cH, \cK$ be disjoint Hilbert spaces such that 

1175: $\dim(\cK) \geq \dim(\cH)$. Let $\rho$ be a density matrix in

1176: $\cH$ and $\ket{\psi}$ be a pure state in $\cH \otimes \cK$.

1177: $\ket{\psi}$ is said to be a {\em purification} of $\rho$

1178: if $\Tr_{\cK} \ketbra{\psi} = \rho$. We will require the following

1179: basic fact about two purifications of the same density matrix.

1180: \begin{fact}

1181: \label{fact:localtransition}

1182: Let $\cH, \cK$ be disjoint Hilbert spaces such that 

1183: $\dim(\cK) \geq \dim(\cH)$. Let $\rho$ be a density matrix in

1184: $\cH$ and $\ket{\psi}, \ket{\phi}$ be two purifications of

1185: $\rho$ in $\cH \otimes \cK$. Then there is a local

1186: unitary transformation $U$ on $\cK$ such that

1187: $\ket{\psi} = (I \otimes U) \ket{\phi}$, where $I$ is the

1188: identity operator on $\cH$.

1189: \end{fact}

1190: 

1191: We now state an improved version of the quantum 

1192: {\em average encoding} theorem of

1193: Klauck, Nayak, Ta-Shma and Zuckerman~\cite{klauck:interaction}. 

1194: This improved

1195: version follows from a direct connection between fidelity and

1196: relative entropy described in \cite{dacunha:BgeqS}, and was 

1197: also independently observed by Klauck (private communication).

1198: Intuitively speaking, the theorem says that if the mutual information 

1199: between a random variable and its quantum encoding is small, 

1200: then given any purifications of the quantum code words

1201: for various values of the random variable,

1202: one can find purifications of the average code word that are close

1203: to the respective purifications of the quantum code words.

1204: \begin{fact}

1205: \label{fact:averageencodingquant}

1206: Let $X, M$ be quantum systems with some joint density matrix.

1207: Let $X$ be a classical random variable

1208: and $p_x$ denote the (marginal) probability

1209: that $X=x$. Let $\cH$ denote the Hilbert space of $M$

1210: and $\rho^x$ denote the conditional density matrix

1211: of $M$ given that $X=x$. 

1212: Let $\rho$ denote the reduced density matrix of $M$. Note that

1213: $\rho = \sum_x p_x \rho^x$. 

1214: Let $\cK$ denote a disjoint 

1215: Hilbert space such that $\dim(\cK) \geq \dim(\cH)$.

1216: Let $\ket{\psi^x}$ be purifications of $\rho^x$ in

1217: $\cH \otimes \cK$. Then there exist purifications $\ket{\phi^x}$

1218: of $\rho$ in $\cH \otimes \cK$ such that 

1219: \begin{displaymath}

1220: \sum_x p_x \ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}} \leq 

1221: \sqrt{(4 \ln 2) I(X:M)}.

1222: \end{displaymath}

1223: \end{fact}

1224: A proof of this fact can be found in the appendix

1225: for completeness.

1226: 

1227: \section{Reducing the number of rounds}

1228: \label{sec:rndreduce}

1229: In this section, we prove an intermediate result

1230: which will be required to prove our strong round elimination lemmas. 

1231: In Section~\ref{subsec:classicalrndreduce} we prove the

1232: intermediate result in its classical version 

1233: (Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundreduce}), 

1234: whereas in Section~\ref{subsec:quantrndreduce} we prove the

1235: intermediate result in its quantum version

1236: (Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce}).

1237: The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundreduce}

1238: is similar to the proof of Lemma~4.4 in 

1239: \cite{klauck:interaction} (see also \cite{maneva:interaction}), 

1240: but much simpler since we are in the classical setting. 

1241: The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce}

1242: is a slight refinement of the proof of Lemma~4.4 in 

1243: ~\cite{klauck:interaction}, and is included here for completeness.

1244: Intuitively speaking, the intermediate result

1245: says that if the first message

1246: in a communication protocol

1247: carries little information about the sender's

1248: input, under some probability

1249: distribution on Alice's and Bob's inputs, 

1250: then it can be eliminated, giving rise

1251: to a protocol where the other player starts, with one less 

1252: round of communication, smaller message complexity, and with similar

1253: average error probability with respect to the same probability

1254: distribution on Alice's and Bob's inputs. 

1255: 

1256: Consider a communication protocol $\cP$ computing

1257: a function $f: \cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$.

1258: For an input $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$, we define the error 

1259: $\epsilon^{\cP}_{x,y}$ of 

1260: $\cP$ on $(x,y)$ to be the probability 

1261: that the result of $\cP$ on input $(x,y)$ is not 

1262: equal to $f(x,y)$. For

1263: a protocol $\cP$, given a probability distribution

1264: $D$ on $\cX \times \cY$, we define the 

1265: average error 

1266: $\epsilon^{\cP}_D$ of $\cP$ with respect to $D$ as the expectation

1267: over $D$ of the error of $\cP$ on inputs $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. 

1268: We define $\epsilon^\cP$ to be the maximum error of $\cP$ on inputs 

1269: $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$ i.e. 

1270: $\epsilon^\cP$ is the error of protocol $\cP$.

1271: 

1272: \subsection{Classical}

1273: \label{subsec:classicalrndreduce}

1274: \begin{lemma}

1275: \label{lem:classicalroundreduce}

1276: Suppose $f: \cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ is a function. Let $D$ be

1277: a probability distribution on $\cX \times \cY$, and

1278: $\cP$ be a $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ private coin

1279: randomised protocol for $f$. 

1280: Let $X$ stand for the classical random variable denoting 

1281: Alice's input,

1282: $M$ stand for the random variable denoting the

1283: first message of Alice in $\cP$, and 

1284: $I(X:M)$ denote the mutual information between $X$ and $M$ when

1285: the inputs to $\cP$ are distributed according to $D$. 

1286: Then there exists a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ 

1287: deterministic protocol $\cQ$ for $f$, such that

1288: $\epsilon^\cQ_D \leq \epsilon^\cP_D + (1/2) ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1289: \end{lemma}

1290: \begin{proof}

1291: We first give an overview of the idea of the proof before

1292: getting down to the details. The proof proceeds in stages. 

1293: 

1294: \paragraph{Idea of Stage 1:} Starting from protocol $\cP$, we 

1295: construct a 

1296: $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ private coin protocol $\cP'$

1297: where the first message

1298: is independent of Alice's input, and $\epsilon^{\cP'}_D 

1299: \leq \epsilon^{\cP}_D + (1/2) ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1300: The important idea here is to first generate Alice's 

1301: message using a new private coin without `looking' at her input, 

1302: and after that,

1303: to adjust Alice's old private coin in a suitable manner so as to

1304: be consistent with her message and input. 

1305: 

1306: \paragraph{Idea of Stage 2:} Since the first message of 

1307: $\cP'$ is independent

1308: of Alice's input, Bob can generate it himself. 

1309: Doing this and setting coin tosses appropriately gives us a 

1310: $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ deterministic protocol

1311: $\cQ$ for $f$ such that 

1312: $\epsilon^\cQ_D \leq \epsilon^{\cP'}_D 

1313:    \leq \epsilon^\cP_D + (1/2) ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1314: 

1315: \bigskip

1316: 

1317: We now give the details of the proof.

1318: Let $\Pi^x$ be the probability distribution of the first message 

1319: $M$ of protocol $\cP$ when Alice's input $X=x$. 

1320: Define $\Pi \defeq \sum_x d_x \Pi^x$, where

1321: $d_x$ is the marginal probability of $X=x$ under distribution $D$.

1322: $\Pi$ is the probability distribution of the average first

1323: message of $\cP$ under distribution $D$.

1324: For $x \in \cX$ and an instance $m$ of the first message of Alice, let 

1325: $q^{xm}_r$ denote the conditional probability that the private

1326: coin toss of Alice results in $r$, given that Alice's input is $x$

1327: and her first message in $\cP$ is $m$. 

1328: If in $\cP$ message $m$ cannot occur when Alice's 

1329: input is $x$, then we

1330: define $q^{xm}_r \defeq 0$.

1331: Let $\pi_m^x$ 

1332: denote the probability that the first message of 

1333: Alice in $\cP$ is $m$,

1334: given that her input is $x$. Let $\pi_m$ denote the 

1335: probability that the first message of Alice in $\cP$ is $m$, when

1336: Alice's and Bob's inputs are distributed according to $D$.

1337: Then, $\pi_m = \sum_x d_x \pi_m^x$.

1338: 

1339: \paragraph{Stage 1: }

1340: We construct a $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ private coin 

1341: randomised protocol $\cP'$ for $f$ with average error under 

1342: distribution $D$

1343: $\epsilon^{\cP'}_D \leq \epsilon^\cP_D + 

1344:                         (1/2) ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$,

1345: and where the probability distribution of

1346: the first message is independent of the input to Alice.

1347: We now describe the protocol $\cP'$.

1348: Suppose Alice is given

1349: $x \in \cX$ and Bob is given $y \in \cY$. Alice tosses a fresh private

1350: coin to pick $m$ with probability $\pi_m$ and set

1351: her old private coin to $r$ with probability $q^{xm}_r$. 

1352: After this, Alice and Bob behave as in protocol $\cP$ (henceforth,

1353: Alice ignores the new private coin which she had tossed to generate

1354: her first message $m$). 

1355: Hence in $\cP'$ the probability distribution of the first message

1356: is independent of Alice's input. 

1357: 

1358: Let us now compare the situations in protocols

1359: $\cP$ and $\cP'$ when Alice's input is $x$, Bob's input is $y$, 

1360: Alice has finished tossing her private coins (both old and new),

1361: but no communication has taken place as yet. 

1362: In protocol $\cP$, the probability that Alice's private coin toss 

1363: results in $r$ is $\sum_m \pi_m^x q^{xm}_r$.

1364: In protocol $\cP'$, the probability that Alice's old private coin 

1365: is set to $r$ is $\sum_m \pi_m q^{xm}_r$.

1366: Thus, the total variation distance between the probability 

1367: distributions on Alice's old private coin is

1368: \begin{eqnarray*}

1369: \sum_r \left|\sum_m q^{xm}_r (\pi_m^x - \pi_m)\right| 

1370: & \leq & \sum_r \sum_m q^{xm}_r \left| \pi_m^x - \pi_m\right| \\

1371: &   =  & \sum_m \left(\left| \pi_m^x - \pi_m \right| 

1372:                             \sum_r q^{xm}_r  

1373:                 \right) \\

1374: &   =  & \sum_m \left| \pi_m^x - \pi_m \right| \\

1375: &   =  & \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi}.

1376: \end{eqnarray*}

1377: Hence, the error probability of $\cP'$ on input $x,y$ 

1378: $\epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y} \leq \epsilon^\cP_{x,y} + 

1379:                          (1/2) \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi}$.

1380: Let $d_{xy}$ be the probability that $(X,Y)=(x,y)$ under distribution

1381: $D$. Then, the average error of $\cP'$ under distribution $D$

1382: \begin{eqnarray*}

1383: \epsilon^{\cP'}_D 

1384:   &   =  & \sum_{x,y} d_{xy} \epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y} \\

1385:   & \leq & \sum_{x,y} d_{xy} \left(\epsilon^\cP_{x,y} + \frac{1}{2} 

1386:                                    \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi}\right) \\

1387:   &   =  & \epsilon^\cP_D + 

1388:            \frac{1}{2} \sum_x d_x \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi}   \\

1389:   & \leq & \epsilon^\cP_D + \frac{1}{2} ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}.

1390: \end{eqnarray*}

1391: The last inequality follows from 

1392: Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingclassical}.

1393: 

1394: \paragraph{Stage 2:} 

1395: We now construct our desired $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ 

1396: deterministic protocol $\cQ$ for $f$ with

1397: $\epsilon^\cQ_D \leq \epsilon^{\cP'}_D$. 

1398: Suppose all the coin tosses 

1399: of Alice and Bob in $\cP'$ are done publicly before any communication

1400: takes place. Now there is no need for the first message from 

1401: Alice to Bob, because Bob can reconstruct the message by looking

1402: at the public coin tosses. 

1403: This gives us a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ public coin

1404: protocol $\cQ'$ such that

1405: $\epsilon^{\cQ'}_{x,y} = \epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y}$ for

1406: every $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. By setting the public coin tosses of

1407: $\cQ'$ to an appropriate value, we get a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$

1408: deterministic protocol

1409: $\cQ$ such that 

1410: $\epsilon^\cQ_D \leq \epsilon^{\cQ'}_D = \epsilon^{\cP'}_D

1411:    \leq \epsilon^\cP_D + (1/2) ((2 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$. 

1412: 

1413: This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundreduce}.

1414: \end{proof}

1415: 

1416: \subsection{Quantum}

1417: \label{subsec:quantrndreduce}

1418: \begin{lemma}

1419: \label{lem:quantroundreduce}

1420: Suppose $f: \cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ is a function. Let $D$ be

1421: a probability distribution on $\cX \times \cY$, and

1422: $\cP$ be a $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ safe coinless

1423: quantum protocol for $f$. 

1424: Let $X$ stand for the classical random variable denoting 

1425: Alice's input, $M$ denote the

1426: first message of Alice in $\cP$, and 

1427: $I(X:M)$ denote the mutual information between $X$ and $M$ when

1428: the inputs to $\cP$ are distributed according to $D$. 

1429: Then there exists a $[t-1;c+l_1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ 

1430: safe coinless quantum protocol $\cQ$ for $f$, such that

1431: $\epsilon^\cQ_D \leq \epsilon^\cP_D + (1/2) ((4 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1432: \end{lemma}

1433: \begin{proof}

1434: We first give an overview of the plan of the proof, before

1435: getting down to the details. The proof proceeds in stages.

1436: Stage~1 of the quantum proof corresponds to

1437: Stage~1 of the classical proof, and

1438: Stages~2A and 2B of the quantum proof together correspond to

1439: Stage~2 of the classical proof.

1440: 

1441: \paragraph{Idea of Stage 1:}

1442: Starting from protocol $\cP$, we construct a 

1443: $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ safe coinless quantum protocol $\cP'$

1444: where the first message

1445: is independent of Alice's input, and 

1446: $\epsilon^{\cP'}_D \leq 

1447:  \epsilon^{\cP}_D + (1/2)((4 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1448: The important idea here is to generate a purification $\ket{\phi^x}$

1449: of the average first 

1450: message $\rho$ of Alice in $\cP$ that is close to

1451: the purification $\ket{\psi^x}$ of the message $\rho^x$ of Alice

1452: in $\cP$ when her input is $x$. The existence of such a purification

1453: $\ket{\phi^x}$ is guaranteed by Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingquant}.

1454: 

1455: \paragraph{Idea of Stage 2A:}

1456: Since the first message of $\cP'$ is independent of

1457: Alice's input (in fact its density matrix is $\rho$), 

1458: Bob can generate it himself. This suffices if $\cP'$ is a one-round

1459: protocol, and completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce}

1460: for such protocols.

1461: But if $\cP'$ has more than one round, it is also necessary for Bob

1462: to achieve the correct entanglement between

1463: Alice's work qubits and the first message i.e. it is necessary that

1464: the joint state of Alice's work qubits and the qubits of the first

1465: message be $\ket{\phi^x}$. 

1466: Bob achieves this by first sending a safe message of $l_1+c$ qubits.

1467: If Alice's input is $x$, she then applies a unitary transformation 

1468: $V_x$ on her work qubits in order to make 

1469: the joint state of her work qubits and the qubits of the first

1470: message $\ket{\phi^x}$. 

1471: The existence of such a $V_x$ follows from

1472: Fact~\ref{fact:localtransition}.

1473: Doing all this gives us a 

1474: $[t+1;c+l_1;0,0,l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe coinless quantum

1475: protocol $\cQ'$ for $f$ such that  

1476: $\epsilon^{\cQ'}_{x,y} = \epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y}$ for

1477: every $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. 

1478: 

1479: \paragraph{Idea of Stage 2B:}

1480: Since the first message of Alice in $\cQ'$ is zero qubits

1481: long, Bob can concatenate his first two messages, giving

1482: us a $[t-1;c+l_1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe coinless quantum

1483: protocol $\cQ$ for $f$ such that

1484: $\epsilon^{\cQ}_{x,y} = \epsilon^{\cQ'}_{x,y}$ for

1485: every $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. The technical reason

1486: behind this is that unitary transformations on disjoint

1487: sets of qubits commute. 

1488: Note that

1489: $\epsilon^{\cQ}_D = \epsilon^{\cQ'}_D = \epsilon^{\cP'}_D 

1490:  \leq \epsilon^{\cP}_D + (1/2)((4 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$.

1491: 

1492: We now give the details of the proof.

1493: Let $\rho^x$ be the density matrix of the first message $M$ of

1494: protocol $\cP$ when Alice's input $X=x$. 

1495: Let $A$ and $B$ 

1496: denote Alice's work qubits excluding the qubits of $M$

1497: and Bob's work qubits respectively. 

1498: Let $\ket{\psi^x}_{AM}$ be the joint pure state of $AM$

1499: in $\cP$ when Alice's input $X=x$, she has finished preparing

1500: her first message, but no communication has taken place as yet.

1501: Without loss of generality, the number of 

1502: qubits in $A$ is at least the number of qubits in $M$.

1503: Define $\rho \defeq \sum_x p_x \rho^x$, where

1504: $p_x$ is the marginal probability of $X=x$ under distribution $D$.

1505: $\rho$ is the density

1506: matrix of the average first message of $\cP$ under distribution $D$. 

1507: 

1508: \paragraph{Stage 1:} 

1509: We construct a $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ safe coinless quantum

1510: protocol $\cP'$ for $f$ with average error under distribution $D$

1511: $\epsilon^{\cP'}_D \leq \epsilon^{\cP}_D + 

1512:  (1/2)((4 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2}$,

1513: and where the density matrix of

1514: the first message is independent of the input $x$ to Alice.

1515: We now describe the protocol $\cP'$.

1516: Suppose Alice is given

1517: $x \in \cX$ and Bob is given $y \in \cY$.

1518: The qubits of $AM$ are initialised to zero. Alice applies

1519: a unitary transformation $U'_x$ on $AM$

1520: in order to prepare a purification $\ket{\phi^x}$

1521: of $\rho$. She then sends the qubits of $M$ as her first message

1522: to Bob. After this, Alice and Bob behave as in protocol $\cP$.

1523: Hence in $\cP'$ the density matrix of the first message

1524: is independent of Alice's input.

1525: 

1526: Let us now compare the situation in protocols

1527: $\cP$ and $\cP'$ when Alice's input is $x$, Bob's input is $y$,

1528: Alice has finished preparing the state $\ket{\phi^x}$, but no

1529: communication has taken place as yet. 

1530: In protocol $\cP$, the state of $A M B$ at this point in time

1531: is $\ket{\psi^x}_{AM} \ket{\bzero}_B$.

1532: In protocol $\cP'$, the state of $A M B$ at this point in time

1533: is $\ket{\phi^x}_{AM} \ket{\bzero}_B$.

1534: Hence, 

1535: $\epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y} \leq \epsilon^{\cP}_{x,y} +

1536:  (1/2)\ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}}$.

1537: Let $q_{xy}$ denote

1538: the probability that $(X,Y)=(x,y)$ under distribution

1539: $D$. Then, the average error of $\cP'$ under distribution $D$

1540: \begin{eqnarray*}

1541: \epsilon^{\cP'}_D 

1542:   &   =  & \sum_{x,y} q_{xy} \epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y} \\

1543:   & \leq & \sum_{x,y} q_{xy} 

1544:            \left(\epsilon^{\cP}_{x,y} + \frac{1}{2}

1545:                  \ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}}

1546:            \right)  \\

1547:   &   =  & \epsilon^{\cP}_D + \frac{1}{2}

1548:            \sum_x p_x \ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}} \\

1549:   & \leq & \epsilon^{\cP}_D + \frac{1}{2} ((4 \ln 2) I(X:M))^{1/2} 

1550: \end{eqnarray*}

1551: The last inequality follows by taking $\ket{\phi^x}$ to be the

1552: purifications promised by Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingquant}.

1553: 

1554: \paragraph{Stage 2A:} 

1555: We now construct a $[t+1;c+l_1;0,0,l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe 

1556: coinless quantum protocol $\cQ'$ for $f$ with

1557: $\epsilon^{\cQ'}_{x,y} = \epsilon^{\cP'}_{x,y}$, for all

1558: $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. 

1559: Suppose

1560: Alice is given $x \in \cX$ and Bob is given $y \in \cY$. 

1561: Let $A_1$ denote

1562: all the qubits of $A$, except the last $l_1+c$ qubits.

1563: Let $A_2$ denote the last $l_1+c$ qubits of $A$. Thus, $A = A_1 A_2$.

1564: In protocol $\cQ'$, Alice initially starts with work qubits $A_1$

1565: only, and Bob initially starts with work qubits $B M A_2$.

1566: The work qubits of Alice and Bob are initialised to zero.

1567: Bob commences protocol $\cQ'$ by constructing

1568: a canonical purification $\ket{\eta}_{M A_2}$ of $\rho$, where

1569: the reduced density matrix of $M$ is $\rho$.

1570: Bob then sends $A_2$ to Alice. 

1571: The density matrix of $A_2$ is independent 

1572: of the inputs $x,y$ (in fact, if $\ket{\eta}_{M A_2}$

1573: is the Schmidt purification then the reduced

1574: density matrix of $A_2$ is also $\rho$). 

1575: After receiving $A_2$, Alice applies a unitary transformation

1576: $V_x$ on $A$ so that the state vector of $A M$ becomes

1577: $\ket{\phi^x}_{AM}$. The existence of such

1578: a $V_x$ follows from Fact~\ref{fact:localtransition}.

1579: The global state of Alice's and Bob's qubits at this point

1580: in protocol $\cQ'$ is the same as the global state of

1581: Alice's and Bob's qubits at the point in protocol $\cP'$ just

1582: after Alice has sent her first message to Bob.

1583: Bob now treats $M$ as if

1584: it were the first message of Alice in $\cP'$, and proceeds to compute

1585: his response $N$ (the qubits of $N$ are a subset of the qubits

1586: of $M B$) of length $l_2$. Bob sends $N$ to Alice and 

1587: after this protocol $\cQ'$ proceeds as protocol $\cP'$. In $\cQ'$

1588: Bob starts the communication, the communication

1589: goes on for $t+1$ rounds, the first message of Bob of length

1590: $l_1+c$ viz. $A_2$ is a safe message, and the first

1591: message of Alice is zero qubits long. 

1592: 

1593: \paragraph{Stage 2B:} 

1594: We finally construct our desired $[t-1;c+l_1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe 

1595: coinless quantum protocol $\cQ$ for $f$ with

1596: $\epsilon^{\cQ}_{x,y} = \epsilon^{\cQ'}_{x,y}$, for all

1597: $(x,y) \in \cX \times \cY$. 

1598: In protocol $\cQ$ Bob, after doing the same computations as 

1599: in $\cQ'$, first sends as a single

1600: message the $(l_1+c)+l_2$ qubits $A_2 N$.

1601: After receiving $A_2 N$,

1602: Alice applies $V_x$ on $A$ followed by her appropriate

1603: unitary transformation 

1604: on $A N$ viz. the unitary transformation of Alice in $\cQ'$ on

1605: the qubits of $A N$ after she has received the first two 

1606: messages of Bob.

1607: The global state of all the qubits of

1608: Alice and Bob at this point in protocol $\cQ$ 

1609: is the same as the global state of all the qubits of Alice

1610: and Bob at the point in protocol $\cQ'$ just after Alice has finished

1611: generating her second message but before she has sent it to Bob.

1612: This is because

1613: unitary transformations on disjoint sets of qubits commute.

1614: After this, protocol $\cQ$ proceeds as protocol $\cQ'$. 

1615: In protocol $\cQ$ Bob starts the communication, the 

1616: communication

1617: goes on for $t-1$ rounds, and the first message of Bob of length

1618: $(l_1+c)+l_2$ viz. $A_2 N$ contains a safe overhead viz. $A_2$ of 

1619: $l_1+c$ qubits. 

1620: 

1621: This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce}.

1622: \end{proof}

1623: 

1624: \paragraph{Remark:}

1625: The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce} requires the global

1626: state of all the qubits of Alice and Bob to be pure at all times

1627: during the execution of protocol $\cP$, when Alice's and Bob's

1628: inputs are in computational basis states. This is because we use

1629: the machinery of purifications in the proof. The proof also ensures

1630: that the purity property holds for the final protocol $\cQ$.

1631: 

1632: \section{The round elimination lemma}

1633: \label{sec:roundelim}

1634: We now prove the classical and quantum versions of

1635: our strong round elimination lemma in 

1636: Sections~\ref{subsec:classicalroundelim} and 

1637: \ref{subsec:quantroundelim} respectively. The round elimination

1638: lemma is stated for public coin protocols

1639: only. Since a public coin classical randomised protocol can

1640: be converted to a private coin classical randomised

1641: protocol at the expense of an

1642: additive increase in the communication complexity by at most

1643: logarithm of the total bit size of the inputs~\cite{newman:private},

1644: we also get a similar round elimination lemma for private 

1645: coin classical randomised protocols. A similar statement about

1646: round elimination can

1647: be made for safe coinless quantum protocols; for such protocols

1648: the safe overhead increases by an additional additive term

1649: that is at most

1650: logarithm of the total bit size of the inputs.

1651: But since the statement of the round elimination lemma is cleanest

1652: for public coin protocols, we give it below 

1653: for such protocols only. 

1654: 

1655: \subsection{Classical}

1656: \label{subsec:classicalroundelim}

1657: \begin{lemma}[Round elimination lemma, classical version] 

1658: \label{lem:classicalroundelim}

1659: Suppose $f:\cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ is a function.

1660: Suppose the communication game $f^{(n),A}$ has a 

1661: $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ public coin randomised protocol

1662: with error less than $\delta$.

1663: Then there is a $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ public coin

1664: randomised protocol for $f$ with error less than 

1665: $\epsilon \defeq \delta + (1/2) (2 l_1 \ln 2 /n)^{1/2}$.

1666: \end{lemma}

1667: \begin{proof} 

1668: Suppose the given protocol for $f^{(n),A}$ has error

1669: $\tilde{\delta} < \delta$. Define 

1670: $\tilde{\epsilon} \defeq \tilde{\delta} + 

1671:  (1/2) (2 l_1 \ln 2 /n)^{1/2}$.

1672: To prove the round elimination lemma

1673: it suffices to give,

1674: by the harder direction of Yao's minimax lemma~\cite{yao:minimax},

1675: for any probability distribution $D$ on $\cX \times \cY$, a 

1676: $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ deterministic 

1677: protocol $\cP$ for $f$ with 

1678: $\epsilon^\cP_D \leq \tilde{\epsilon} < \epsilon$. 

1679: To this end, we will first construct a probability distribution 

1680: $D^\ast$ on $\cX^n \times [n] \times \cY$ as follows:

1681: Choose $i \in [n]$ uniformly at random. Choose independently, for 

1682: each $j \in [n]$,

1683: $(x_j,y_j) \in \cX \times \cY$ according to distribution $D$. Set

1684: $y=y_i$ and throw away $y_j, j \neq i$.

1685: By the easier direction of Yao's minimax lemma, we get a 

1686: $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ deterministic protocol $\cP^\ast$

1687: for $f^{(n),A}$ with 

1688: $\epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast} \leq \tilde{\delta} < \delta$. 

1689: In $\cP^\ast$, Alice gets $x_1,\ldots,x_n \in \cX$, Bob gets

1690: $i \in [n]$, $y \in \cY$ and copies of $x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}$.

1691: We shall construct the desired protocol $\cP$

1692: from the protocol $\cP^\ast$.

1693: 

1694: In $\cP^\ast$, let Alice's and Bob's inputs be distributed according

1695: to $D^\ast$. Let the input to Alice be denoted by

1696: the random variable $X \defeq X_1 \cdots X_n$, where $X_i$ is the 

1697: random variable corresponding to the $i$th input to Alice. 

1698: Let the random variables $Y, \cI$ correspond to the inputs $y, i$

1699: respectively of Bob. 

1700: Let $M$ denote the random variable corresponding to

1701: the first message of Alice in $\cP^\ast$. 

1702: Define probability distribution $D^\ast_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ on

1703: $\cX^n \times [n] \times \cY$ to be the distribution $D^\ast$

1704: conditioned on $\cI=i$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1}=x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}$. 

1705: Define probability distribution $D^\ast_{i;y;x_1,\ldots,x_i}$ on

1706: $\cX^n \times [n] \times \cY$ to be the distribution $D^\ast$

1707: conditioned on $\cI=i$, $Y=y$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_i=x_1,\ldots,x_i$. 

1708: Let $\epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ denote

1709: the average 

1710: error of $\cP^\ast$ under distribution 

1711: $D^\ast_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$.

1712: Using Fact~\ref{fact:classicalaveraging} and the fact that 

1713: under distribution $D^\ast$ 

1714: $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ are independent random variables, we get that 

1715: \begin{equation}

1716: \label{eq:info1classical}

1717: \begin{array}{lrl}

1718: \E_{i,X}\, [I((X_i:M) \mid  X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1}=x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1})] 

1719: &   =  & \displaystyle \E_i\, [I (X_i:M X_1 \cdots X_{i-1})] \\

1720: &   =  & \frac{I(X:M)}{n} \\

1721: & \leq & \frac{l_1}{n}. 

1722: \end{array}

1723: \end{equation}

1724: Also,

1725: \begin{equation}

1726: \label{eq:error1classical}

1727: \tilde{\delta} \geq \epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast} =

1728:     \E_{i,X}\, \left[\epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}

1729: 	       \right].

1730: \end{equation}

1731: Above, the expectations are under distribution $D^\ast$ and the

1732: mutual informations are for protocol $\cP^\ast$ with its inputs

1733: distributed according to $D^\ast$.

1734: 

1735: For any $i \in [n]$, $x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1} \in \cX$, let us now define

1736: the $[t;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$

1737: private coin randomised protocol $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$

1738: for the function $f$ in terms of protocol $\cP^\ast$ as follows:

1739: Alice is given

1740: $x \in \cX$ and Bob is given $y \in \cY$. Bob sets

1741: $\cI=i$, and both Alice and Bob set

1742: $X_1, \ldots, X_{i-1} = x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1}$. 

1743: Alice tosses a fresh private coin

1744: to choose $X_{i+1},\ldots,X_n \in \cX$, where each

1745: $X_j, i+1 \leq j \leq n$ is chosen independently according to the

1746: marginal distribution on $\cX$ induced by $D$.

1747: Alice sets $X_i=x$ and Bob sets 

1748: $Y=y$. They then run protocol $\cP^\ast$ on these inputs. 

1749: The probability that $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$

1750: makes an error for an input $(x,y)$,

1751: $\epsilon^{\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_{x,y}$,

1752: is the average probability of

1753: error of $\cP^\ast$ under distribution $D^\ast_{i;y;x_1,\ldots,x_i}$.

1754: Hence, the average probability of error of 

1755: $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ 

1756: under distribution $D$,

1757: \begin{equation}

1758: \label{eq:error2classical}

1759: \epsilon^{\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_D = 

1760:        \epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}.

1761: \end{equation}

1762: Let $M'$ denote the random variable corresponding to Alice's 

1763: first message 

1764: and $X'$ denote the random variable $X_i$, when Alice's and Bob's

1765: inputs are distributed according

1766: to $D$ in $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$.

1767: Then

1768: \begin{equation}

1769: \label{eq:info2classical}

1770: I((X_i:M) \mid  X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1}=x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}) = I (X':M'),

1771: \end{equation}

1772: where the left hand side refers to

1773: the mutual information in protocol $\cP^\ast$ when its inputs are

1774: distributed according to $D^\ast$ and 

1775: the right hand side refers to the mutual information in

1776: protocol $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ when its inputs are distributed

1777: according to $D$.

1778: 

1779: Using Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundreduce} and equations 

1780: (\ref{eq:error2classical}) and (\ref{eq:info2classical}), we get a 

1781: $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ 

1782: deterministic protocol $\cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ for 

1783: $f$ with

1784: \begin{equation}

1785: \label{eq:average1classical}

1786: \begin{array}{lcl}

1787: \epsilon^{\cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_D

1788: & \leq & \epsilon^{\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_D +

1789:          \frac{1}{2} ((2 \ln 2) I(X':M'))^{1/2} \\

1790: &   =  & \epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}} +

1791:          \frac{1}{2} ((2 \ln 2) 

1792:                       I((X_i:M) \mid X_1,\ldots, X_{i-1} =

1793:                                      x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}))^{1/2}.

1794: \end{array}

1795: \end{equation}

1796: We have that

1797: (note that the expectations below are under distribution $D^\ast$ and

1798: the mutual informations are for protocol $\cP^\ast$ with its

1799: inputs distributed according to $D^\ast$)

1800: \begin{eqnarray*}

1801: \E_{i,X} \left[\epsilon^{\cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_D\right]

1802: & \leq & \E_{i,X} \left[\epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;

1803:                                              x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}

1804:                   \right] + \\

1805: &      & \frac{1}{2} \E_{i,X}\, \left[

1806:          ((2 \ln 2) I((X_i:M) \mid X_1,\ldots,X_{i-1} = 

1807:                                    x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}))^{1/2}

1808:          \right] \\

1809: & \leq & \E_{i,X} \left[\epsilon^{\cP^\ast}_{D^\ast;i;

1810:                                              x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}

1811:                   \right] + \\

1812: &      & \frac{1}{2} \left(

1813:          (2 \ln 2) \E_{i,X} 

1814:          [I((X_i:M) \mid X_1,\ldots, X_{i-1}=

1815:                          x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1})]

1816:          \right)^{1/2} \\

1817: & \leq & \tilde{\delta} + \frac{1}{2} 

1818:          \left(\frac{2 l_1 \ln 2}{n} \right)^{1/2} \\

1819: &   =  & \tilde{\epsilon}.

1820: \end{eqnarray*}

1821: The first inequality follows from (\ref{eq:average1classical}), 

1822: the second

1823: inequality follows from the concavity of the square root function

1824: and the last inequality from (\ref{eq:info1classical}) and

1825: (\ref{eq:error1classical}).

1826: 

1827: Thus, we can immediately 

1828: see that there exist $i \in [n]$ and 

1829: $x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1} \in \cX$ such that 

1830: $\epsilon^{\cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}}_D \leq \tilde{\epsilon}$. 

1831: Let $\cP \defeq \cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$. $\cP$ is 

1832: our desired $[t-1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ 

1833: deterministic protocol for $f$ with 

1834: $\epsilon^\cP_D \leq \tilde{\epsilon}$, thus completing the proof

1835: of the round elimination lemma.

1836: \end{proof}

1837: 

1838: \subsection{Quantum}

1839: \label{subsec:quantroundelim}

1840: \begin{lemma}[Round elimination lemma, quantum version] 

1841: \label{lem:quantroundelim}

1842: Suppose $f:\cX \times \cY \rightarrow \cZ$ is a function.

1843: Suppose the communication game $f^{(n),A}$ has a 

1844: $[t;c;l_1,\ldots,l_t]^A$ safe public coin quantum protocol

1845: with error less than $\delta$.

1846: Then there is a $[t-1;c+l_1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe public coin

1847: quantum protocol for $f$ with error less than 

1848: $\epsilon \defeq \delta + (1/2) (8 l_1 \ln 2 /n)^{1/2}$.

1849: \end{lemma}

1850: \begin{proof} {\bf (Sketch)}

1851: The proof is very similar to the proof

1852: of Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundelim}.

1853: We just point out some important things below. Note

1854: that in the quantum setting, the upper bound in 

1855: (\ref{eq:info1classical}) is 

1856: $\frac{2 l_1}{n}$ by Fact~\ref{fact:quantaveraging}(c).

1857: Also, in the definition of protocol $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$,

1858: instead of feeding probabilistic mixtures for the inputs

1859: $X_{i+1}, \ldots, X_n$, Alice feeds appropriate pure states 

1860: (pure states that would give the correct probabilistic mixture

1861: were they to be measured in the computational basis).

1862: Equations~\ref{eq:error2classical} and \ref{eq:info2classical} 

1863: continue to hold because protocol $\cP^\ast$ is secure. 

1864: Since the global

1865: state of all the qubits of Alice and Bob is pure at all times

1866: during the execution of protocol $\cP'_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ 

1867: when Alice's and Bob's

1868: inputs are in computational basis states, 

1869: Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce} can now be used to get the 

1870: $[t-1;c+l_1;l_2,\ldots,l_t]^B$ safe coinless quantum protocol

1871: $\cP_{i;x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}}$ for $f$.

1872: \end{proof}

1873: 

1874: \section{Optimal lower bounds for predecessor}

1875: \label{sec:predlb}

1876: In this section, we prove our (optimal) lower bounds on the query 

1877: complexity of static

1878: predecessor searching in the 

1879: cell probe model with randomised or address-only quantum query

1880: schemes.

1881: 

1882: \begin{theorem}

1883: \label{thm:classicalpredlb}

1884: Suppose there is a $(n^{O(1)}, (\log m)^{O(1)}, t)$ randomised 

1885: cell probe

1886: scheme for the $(m, n)$-static predecessor problem with error 

1887: probability less than $1/3$.

1888: Then, 

1889: \begin{enumerate}

1890: \item[(a)]

1891: $t = \Omega \left( \frac{\log \log m}{\log \log \log m} \right)$ 

1892: as a function of $m$; 

1893: \item[(b)]

1894: $t = \Omega \left( \sqrt{\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}} \, \right)$ 

1895: as a function of $n$.

1896: \end{enumerate}

1897: The same lower bound also holds for address-only quantum cell 

1898: probe schemes for static predecessor searching.

1899: \end{theorem}

1900: \begin{proof}

1901: The proof is similar to the proof of the lower bound for predecessor

1902: in \cite{miltersen:roundelim},

1903: but with different parameters, and using our stronger round

1904: elimination lemma in its classical version

1905: (Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundelim}).

1906: 

1907: By Fact~\ref{fact:pred2rank}, it suffices to consider 

1908: communication protocols for the

1909: rank parity communication game $\PAR_{\log m, n}$.

1910: Let $n = 2^{(\log \log m)^2 / \log \log \log m}$. 

1911: Let $c_1 \defeq (2 \ln 2) 6^2$.

1912: For any given constants $c_2, c_3 \geq 1$, define

1913: \begin{displaymath}

1914: a \defeq c_2 \log n ~~~~~~~~~~ b \defeq (\log m)^{c_3} 

1915: \end{displaymath}

1916: \begin{displaymath}

1917: t \defeq \frac{\log \log m}{(c_1 + c_2 + c_3) \log \log \log m}.

1918: \end{displaymath}

1919: We will show that $\PAR_{\log m, n}$ does not have 

1920: $(2t,a,b)^A$ public coin randomised communication

1921: protocols with error less than $1/3$, 

1922: thus proving both the desired lower bounds for the 

1923: predecessor problem.

1924: 

1925: Given a $(2t,a,b)^A$ public coin protocol for 

1926: $\PAR_{\log m, n}$ with error probability at most $\delta$,

1927: we can get a $(2t,a,b)^A$ public coin protocol for 

1928: $\PAR^{(c_1 a t^2),A}_{\frac{\log m}{c_1 a t^2}, n}$

1929: with error probability at most $\delta$

1930: by Fact~\ref{fact:rankred1}. Using 

1931: Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundelim}, we get a 

1932: $(2t-1,a,b)^B$ public coin protocol for

1933: $\PAR_{\frac{\log m}{c_1 a t^2}, n}$,

1934: but the error probability increases to at most $\delta + (12t)^{-1}$.

1935: By Fact~\ref{fact:rankred2}, we get

1936: a $(2t-1,a,b)^B$ public coin protocol for

1937: $\PAR^{(c_1 b t^2),B}_{\frac{\log m}{c_1 a t^2} - 

1938:                      \log (c_1 b t^2) - 1, \frac{n}{c_1 b t^2}}$

1939: with error probability at most $\delta + (12t)^{-1}$.

1940: From the given values of the parameters, we see that

1941: $\frac{\log m}{(2 c_1 a t^2)^t} \geq \log (c_1 b t^2) + 1$.

1942: This implies that we also have a $(2t-1,a,b)^B$ public 

1943: coin protocol for

1944: $\PAR^{(c_1 b t^2),B}_{\frac{\log m}{2 c_1 a t^2}, 

1945: \frac{n}{c_1 b t^2}}$

1946: with error probability at most $\delta + (12t)^{-1}$.

1947: Using Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundelim} again, we get a 

1948: $(2t-2,a,b)^A$ public coin protocol for

1949: $\PAR_{\frac{\log m}{2 c_1 a t^2}, \frac{n}{c_1 b t^2}}$,

1950: but the error probability increases to at most 

1951: $\delta + 2 (12t)^{-1}$.

1952: 

1953: We do the above steps repeatedly. We start off with a 

1954: $(2t,a,b)^A$ public coin protocol for

1955: $\PAR_{\log m, n}$ with error probability less than $1/3$. 

1956: After applying the above steps

1957: $i$ times, we get a 

1958: $(2t-2i,a,b)^A$ public coin protocol for

1959: $\PAR_{\frac{\log m}{(2 c_1 a t^2)^i}, \frac{n}{(c_1 b t^2)^i}}$

1960: with error probability less than $1/3 + 2i (12t)^{-1}$.

1961: 

1962: By applying the above steps $t$ times, we finally get a 

1963: $(0,a,b)^A$ public coin randomised protocol for the problem

1964: $\PAR_{\frac{\log m}{(2 c_1 a t^2)^t}, \frac{n}{(c_1 b t^2)^t}}$

1965: with error probability less than $1/3 + 2t (12t)^{-1} = 1/2$.

1966: From the given values of the parameters, we see that

1967: $\frac{\log m}{(2 c_1 a t^2)^t} \geq (\log m)^{\Omega(1)}$ and

1968: $\frac{n}{(c_1 b t^2)^t} \geq n^{\Omega(1)}$.

1969: Thus, we get a zero round protocol for a rank parity problem on a

1970: non-trivial domain with error probability less than $1/2$, which

1971: is a contradiction.

1972: 

1973: In the above proof, we are tacitly ignoring ``rounding off'' problems.

1974: We remark that this does not affect the correctness of the proof.

1975: 

1976: Finally we observe that by using Lemma~\ref{lem:quantroundreduce},

1977: one can prove that the same lower bound holds for address-only

1978: quantum cell probe schemes for static predecessor.

1979: \end{proof}

1980: 

1981: \section{The `greater-than' problem}

1982: \label{sec:gt}

1983: We illustrate another application of the round elimination

1984: lemma to communication complexity by proving

1985: improved rounds versus communication tradeoffs for the 

1986: `greater-than' problem. 

1987: \begin{theorem}

1988: The bounded error public coin randomised $t$-round

1989: communication complexity of $\GT_n$ 

1990: is lower bounded by $\Omega(n^{1/t}t^{-2})$.

1991: For bounded error quantum protocols with input-independent

1992: prior entanglement for

1993: $\GT_n$, we have a lower bound of $\Omega(n^{1/t}t^{-1})$.

1994: \end{theorem}

1995: \begin{proof}

1996: We recall the following reduction from $\GT_{n/k}^{(k),A}$ to 

1997: $\GT_n$ (see \cite{miltersen:roundelim}): In $\GT_{n/k}^{(k),A}$, 

1998: Alice is given 

1999: $x_1,\ldots,x_k \in \{0,1\}^{n/k}$, Bob is given $i \in [k]$,

2000: $y \in \{0,1\}^{n/k}$, and copies of $x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}$, and

2001: they have to communicate and decide if $x_i > y$. To reduce 

2002: $\GT_{n/k}^{(k),A}$ to $\GT_n$, Alice constructs 

2003: $\hat{x} \in \{0,1\}^n$ by concatenating $x_1,\ldots,x_k$, 

2004: Bob constructs $\hat{y} \in \{0,1\}^n$ by concatenating 

2005: $x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1},y,1^{n(1 - i/k)}$. It is

2006: easy to see that $\hat{x} > \hat{y}$ iff $x_i > y$.

2007: 

2008: Suppose there is a $t$-round bounded error public

2009: coin randomised protocol for $\GT_n$ with communication 

2010: complexity $c$.

2011: We can think of the protocol as a $(t,c,c)^A$ public coin randomised

2012: protocol with error probability less than $1/3$.

2013: Suppose $n \geq k^t$, where $k \defeq (2 \ln 2) (3 t)^2 c$.

2014: Applying the self-reduction and Lemma~\ref{lem:classicalroundelim}

2015: alternately for $t$ stages gives us a zero round protocol

2016: for the `greater-than' problem on a non-trivial domain 

2017: with error probability less than $1/2$, 

2018: which is a contradiction. 

2019: Thus, $c = \Omega(n^{1/t} t^{-2})$. 

2020: 

2021: In the above proof, we are tacitly ignoring ``rounding off'' problems.

2022: We remark that this does not affect the correctness of the proof.

2023: 

2024: Finally, we observe that for bounded error quantum protocols with

2025: input-independent prior entanglement for $\GT_n$, one can

2026: improve the lower bound to $\Omega(n^{1/t} t^{-1})$ by exploiting

2027: the fact that by definition, a quantum protocol sends fixed length

2028: messages independent of the input.

2029: \end{proof}

2030: 

2031: \section{Conclusion and open problems}

2032: \label{sec:conclusion}

2033: In this paper, we proved a lower bound for the randomised and

2034: address-only quantum query

2035: complexity of a cell probe scheme for the static predecessor

2036: searching problem. Our lower bound matches the deterministic

2037: cell probe upper bound of Beame and Fich. 

2038: We proved our lower bound by proving a strong

2039: round elimination lemma in communication 

2040: complexity. Our round elimination lemma improves on the round

2041: elimination lemma of Miltersen, Nisan, Safra and Wigderson, and is

2042: crucial to proving our optimal lower bound for predecessor searching.

2043: Our strong round elimination lemma also gives us improved 

2044: rounds versus communication 

2045: tradeoffs for the `greater-than' problem. 

2046: We believe that

2047: our round elimination lemma is of independent interest and should have

2048: other applications.

2049: In fact recently, Chakrabarti and Regev~\cite{chakrabarti:ann} 

2050: have proved an optimal lower bound for randomised cell probe schemes 

2051: for the {\em approximate nearest neighbour} searching problem 

2052: on the Hamming cube $\{0, 1\}^d$. Their proof uses the classical

2053: version of our round

2054: elimination lemma and combines it with a {\em message switching}

2055: argument, drawing on the message compression

2056: ideas of Jain, Radhakrishnan and Sen~\cite{jain:compress},

2057: for classical communication protocols that 

2058: further exploits the

2059: asymmetry in the message lengths of Alice of Bob. 

2060: 

2061: We believe

2062: that our work brings out an interesting fact. Sometimes,

2063: in order to prove lower bound results, it helps to work in a more

2064: general model of computation. Of course, this 

2065: makes the task of proving

2066: lower bounds harder, but also we now 

2067: have more tools and techniques at 

2068: our disposal. This sometimes enables us to attack the problem

2069: in a clearer fashion, without letting irrelevant details about the

2070: restricted model distract us.

2071: In our case, our attempt to prove a lower bound result in the more

2072: general address-only quantum cell probe model led us

2073: to make better use of powerful tools from information theory,

2074: which finally enabled us to prove optimal lower bounds for predecessor

2075: in the randomised cell probe model! Also, the 

2076: information-theoretic approach gives us a simpler

2077: and clearer lower bound proof as compared to previous lower bound

2078: proofs for predecessor.

2079: 

2080: The lower bound for predecessor searching for quantum cell probe

2081: schemes works only if the query scheme 

2082: is {\em address-only}. If the query scheme is not address-only, the

2083: asymmetry in the message lengths of Alice and Bob in the 

2084: corresponding quantum communication protocol breaks down.

2085: For a general quantum query scheme, it is an open problem

2086: to prove non-trivial lower bounds for static data structure problems.

2087: 

2088: The {\em message switching} idea of Chakrabarti 

2089: and Regev~\cite{chakrabarti:ann}

2090: works for classical communication protocols only. Thus, their lower

2091: bound for approximate nearest neighbour searching 

2092: on the Hamming cube

2093: holds for classical cell probe schemes only. Our round elimination

2094: lemma alone does not seem to be able to fully exploit the asymmetry

2095: in the message lengths of Alice and Bob in a communication protocol

2096: for this problem. Proving a non-trivial lower bound for this

2097: problem in the address-only quantum cell probe model remains an

2098: open problem.

2099: 

2100: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2101: We thank Rahul Jain, Hartmut

2102: Klauck and Peter Bro Miltersen for helpful discussions and feedback,

2103: and Amit Chakrabarti for sending us a copy of \cite{chakrabarti:ann}.

2104: We also thank Ashwin Nayak for helpful discussions and for

2105: pointing out the reference \cite{maneva:interaction},

2106: and Jaikumar Radhakrishnan for reading an early draft of 

2107: \cite{sen:quantcell} and for enlightening discussions.

2108: 

2109: \bibliography{pred}

2110: 

2111: \appendix

2112: 

2113: \section{The average encoding theorem}

2114: 

2115: \subsection{Classical}

2116: In this subsection, we give a self-contained classical proof,

2117: without using quantum information theory, of 

2118: Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingclassical}.

2119: We first recall the definition of a classical information-theoretic

2120: quantity called {\em relative entropy}, also known as

2121: {\em Kullback-Leibler divergence}.

2122: \begin{definition}[Relative entropy]

2123: Let $P$ and $Q$ be probability distributions on the same 

2124: sample space $\Omega$. The {\em relative entropy} between

2125: $P$ and $Q$ is defined as

2126: \begin{displaymath}

2127: S(P \| Q) \defeq 

2128: \sum_{x \in \Omega} P(x) \log \left(\frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}\right).

2129: \end{displaymath}

2130: \end{definition}

2131: 

2132: We now require a non-trivial fact from classical information

2133: theory, which upper bounds the total variation distance of a pair

2134: of probability distributions in terms of their relative entropy.

2135: A proof of the fact can be found in 

2136: \cite[Lemma~12.6.1]{cover:infotheory}.

2137: \begin{fact}

2138: \label{thm:divell1}

2139: Let $P$ and $Q$ be probability distributions on the same finite

2140: sample space $\Omega$. Then,

2141: \[

2142: \ellone{P - Q} \leq \sqrt{(2 \ln 2) S(P \| Q)}.

2143: \]

2144: \end{fact}

2145: 

2146: We can now prove

2147: Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingclassical}.

2148: 

2149: \ \\

2150: {\bf Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingclassical} (Average encoding

2151: theorem, classical version)}

2152: {\it

2153: Let $X, M$ be correlated 

2154: random variables. Let $p_x$ denote the (marginal) probability

2155: that $X=x$, and $\Pi^x$ denote the conditional distribution of $M$

2156: given that $X=x$.

2157: Let $\Pi$ denote the (marginal) probability distribution of $M$ i.e.

2158: $\Pi = \sum_x p_x \Pi^x$. 

2159: Then,

2160: \begin{displaymath}

2161: \sum_x p_x \ellone{\Pi^x - \Pi} \leq \sqrt{(2 \ln 2) I(X:M)}.

2162: \end{displaymath}

2163: \/} 

2164: \begin{proof} 

2165: Let $\cX$, $\cM$ be the finite ranges of random 

2166: variables $X$, $M$ respectively.

2167: We define two probability distributions $P$, $Q$ on 

2168: $\cX \times \cM$.

2169: In distribution $P$, the probability of 

2170: $(x,m) \in \cX  \times \cM$ is

2171: $p_x \cdot \pi_m^x$, where $\pi_m^x$ is the conditional probability

2172: that $M = m$ given that $X = x$. In distribution $Q$, the

2173: probability of $(x,m) \in \cX \times \cM$ is $p_x \cdot \pi_m$, where

2174: $\pi_m$ is the (marginal) probability that $M=m$

2175: i.e. $\pi_m = \sum_x p_x \pi_m^x$.

2176: 

2177: It is easy to check that 

2178: $S(P \| Q) = I(X:M)$ and

2179: $\ellone{P - Q} = \sum_x p_x \ellone{\Pi_x - \Pi}$.

2180: The result now follows by applying Fact~\ref{thm:divell1} to $P$

2181: and $Q$.

2182: \end{proof}

2183: 

2184: \subsection{Quantum}

2185: In this subsection, we give a proof of 

2186: Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingquant}.

2187: We first recall some basic definitions and facts from quantum 

2188: information theory.

2189: Let $\rho$ and $\sigma$ be density matrices in the

2190: same finite dimensional Hilbert space $\cH$. 

2191: The {\em fidelity} (also called Uhlmann's transition probability

2192: or the Bhattacharya coefficient) of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ is defined as

2193: $B(\rho, \sigma) \defeq \ellone{\sqrt{\rho} \sqrt{\sigma}}$.

2194: The {\em von Neumann relative entropy} between

2195: $\rho$ and $\sigma$ is defined as

2196: $S(\rho \| \sigma) \defeq \Tr (\rho (\log \rho - \log \sigma))$.

2197: 

2198: Jozsa~\cite{jozsa:fidelity} gave an elementary proof for finite

2199: dimensional Hilbert spaces of the following basic and remarkable

2200: property about fidelity.

2201: \begin{fact}

2202: \label{fact:jozsa}

2203: Let $\rho, \sigma$ be density matrices in the same 

2204: Hilbert space $\cH$. Let $\cK$ be a disjoint

2205: Hilbert space such that $\dim (\cK) \geq \dim (\cH)$. Then

2206: for any purification $\ket{\psi}$ of $\rho$ in $\cH \otimes \cK$,

2207: there exists a purification $\ket{\phi}$ of $\sigma$ 

2208: in $\cH \otimes \cK$ such that

2209: $B(\rho, \sigma) = |\braket{\psi}{\phi}|$.

2210: \end{fact}

2211: 

2212: For two probability distributions $P, Q$ on the same sample space

2213: $\Omega$, their fidelity is defined as

2214: $B(P, Q) \defeq \sum_{x \in \Omega} \sqrt{P(x) Q(x)}$.

2215: We will need the following result about 

2216: fidelity proved by Fuchs and Caves~\cite{fuchs:fidelity}.

2217: \begin{fact}

2218: \label{fact:fuchscaves}

2219: Let $\rho, \sigma$ be density matrices in the same 

2220: Hilbert space $\cH$. Then

2221: $\displaystyle B(\rho, \sigma)=\inf_{\cM} B(\cM \rho, \cM \sigma)$,

2222: where $\cM$ ranges over POVM's on $\cH$.

2223: In fact, the infimum above can be attained by a complete 

2224: von Neumann measurement on $\cH$.

2225: \end{fact}

2226: 

2227: The following fundamental fact (see e.g~\cite{nielsen:quant}) 

2228: states that the relative entropy can only decrease on performing

2229: a measurement.

2230: \begin{fact}[Monotonicity of relative entropy]

2231: \label{fact:monorelentropy}

2232: Let $\rho, \sigma$ be density matrices in the same finite

2233: dimensional Hilbert space $\cH$. Let $\cM$ be a

2234: POVM on $\cH$. Then, 

2235: $S(\cM \rho \| \cM \sigma) \leq S(\rho \| \sigma)$.

2236: \end{fact}

2237: 

2238: We require the following explicit expression for the 

2239: trace distance of two pure states (see e.g.~\cite{nielsen:quant}).

2240: \begin{fact}

2241: \label{fact:trdistpure}

2242: For pure states $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\phi}$ in the same Hilbert

2243: space, 

2244: $\ellone{\ketbra{\psi} - \ketbra{\phi}} = 

2245:  2 \sqrt{1 - |\braket{\psi}{\phi}|^2}$.

2246: \end{fact}

2247: 

2248: The following information-theoretic fact follows easily from the

2249: definitions.

2250: \begin{fact}

2251: \label{fact:inforelentropy}

2252: Let $X, M$ be quantum systems with some joint density matrix, where

2253: $X$ is a classical random variable. Let

2254: $p_x$ denote the (marginal) probability that $X=x$ 

2255: and $\rho^x$ denote the conditional density matrix

2256: of $M$ given that $X=x$. 

2257: Let $\rho$ denote the reduced density matrix of $M$. Note that

2258: $\rho = \sum_x p_x \rho^x$. 

2259: Then, $I(X:M) = \sum_x p_x S(\rho^x \| \rho)$.

2260: \end{fact}

2261: 

2262: We now recall the following direct connection between relative

2263: entropy and fidelity observed in the classical setting by

2264: \cite{dacunha:BgeqS}, and in the quantum setting by Klauck (private

2265: communication).

2266: \begin{fact}

2267: \label{fact:BleqS}

2268: Let $\rho$ and $\sigma$ be two density matrices in the same

2269: Hilbert space. Then, 

2270: \begin{displaymath}

2271: 1 - B(\rho , \sigma) \leq \frac{(\ln 2) S(\rho \| \sigma)}{2}.

2272: \end{displaymath}

2273: \end{fact}

2274: \begin{proof}

2275: Let $\cM$ be the complete von Neumann measurement that 

2276: achieves the infimum 

2277: in Fact~\ref{fact:fuchscaves}. Let $\Omega$ denote the set of

2278: possible (classical) outcomes of $\cM$.

2279: Define probability distributions $P \defeq \cM \rho$ and

2280: $Q \defeq \cM \sigma$.

2281: From Fact~\ref{fact:monorelentropy} and concavity of the $\log$ 

2282: function it follows that

2283: \begin{displaymath}

2284: \begin{array}{c}

2285: \displaystyle

2286: -\frac{S(\rho \| \sigma)}{2} \leq -\frac{S(P \| Q)}{2} 

2287: = \sum_{x \in \Omega} P(x) \log  \sqrt{\frac{Q(x)}{P(x)}} \\

2288: \displaystyle

2289: \leq \log \sum_{x \in \Omega} \sqrt{Q(x) P(x)} 

2290: = \log B(P, Q) = \log B(\rho,\sigma).

2291: \end{array}

2292: \end{displaymath}

2293: Thus, 

2294: $B(\rho , \sigma) 

2295: \geq 2^{- S(\rho \| \sigma) / 2} 

2296:   =  \exp (- (\ln 2) S(\rho \| \sigma) / 2) 

2297: \geq  1 - ((\ln 2) S(\rho \| \sigma) / 2)$.

2298: \end{proof}

2299: 

2300: We can now prove

2301: Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingquant}.

2302: 

2303: \ \\

2304: {\bf Fact~\ref{fact:averageencodingquant} (Average encoding

2305: theorem, quantum version)}

2306: {\it

2307: Let $X, M$ be quantum systems with some joint density matrix.

2308: Let $X$ be a classical random variable

2309: and $p_x$ denote the (marginal) probability

2310: that $X=x$. Let $\cH$ denote the Hilbert space of $M$

2311: and $\rho^x$ denote the conditional density matrix

2312: of $M$ given that $X=x$. 

2313: Let $\rho$ denote the reduced density matrix of $M$. Note that

2314: $\rho = \sum_x p_x \rho^x$. 

2315: Let $\cK$ denote a disjoint 

2316: Hilbert space such that $\dim(\cK) \geq \dim(\cH)$.

2317: Let $\ket{\psi^x}$ be purifications of $\rho^x$ in

2318: $\cH \otimes \cK$. Then there exist purifications $\ket{\phi^x}$

2319: of $\rho$ in $\cH \otimes \cK$ such that 

2320: \begin{displaymath}

2321: \sum_x p_x \ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}} \leq 

2322: \sqrt{(4 \ln 2) I(X:M)}.

2323: \end{displaymath}

2324: \/} \\

2325: {\bf Proof:}

2326: Using the concavity of the square root function,

2327: Facts~\ref{fact:inforelentropy}, 

2328: \ref{fact:jozsa}, \ref{fact:trdistpure}, \ref{fact:BleqS}, 

2329: and the fact that fidelity is always at most $1$, we get

2330: \begin{displaymath}

2331: \begin{array}{c}

2332: \displaystyle

2333: \sqrt{I(X:M)} 

2334:     =    \sqrt{\sum_x p_x S(\rho^x \| \rho)} 

2335:   \geq   \sum_x p_x \sqrt{S(\rho^x \| \rho)} 

2336:   \geq   \sum_x p_x \sqrt{\frac{2 (1 - B(\rho^x, \rho))}{\ln 2}} \\

2337: \displaystyle

2338:   \geq   \sum_x p_x \sqrt{\frac{1 - (B(\rho^x, \rho))^2}{\ln 2}} 

2339:     =    \sum_x p_x \sqrt{\frac{1 - |\braket{\psi^x}{\phi^x}|^2}

2340:                                {\ln 2}} 

2341:     =    \sum_x p_x \frac{\ellone{\ketbra{\psi^x} - \ketbra{\phi^x}}}

2342:                          {\sqrt{4 \ln 2}}.

2343: \end{array}

2344: \end{displaymath}

2345: \qed

2346: 

2347: \end{document}

2348: 

2349: