English

Low-degree approximation of QAC$^0$ circuits

Quantum Physics 2024-11-11 v2 Computational Complexity

Abstract

QAC0^0 is the class of constant-depth quantum circuits with polynomially many ancillary qubits, where Toffoli gates on arbitrarily many qubits are allowed. In this work, we show that the parity function cannot be computed in QAC0^0, resolving a long-standing open problem in quantum circuit complexity more than twenty years old. As a result, this proves QAC0QACwf0{\rm QAC}^0 \subsetneqq {\rm QAC}_{\rm wf}^0. We also show that any QAC circuit of depth dd that approximately computes parity on nn bits requires 2Ω~(n1/d)2^{\widetilde{\Omega}(n^{1/d})} ancillary qubits, which is close to tight. This implies a similar lower bound on approximately preparing cat states using QAC circuits. Finally, we prove a quantum analog of the Linial-Mansour-Nisan theorem for QAC0^0. This implies that, for any QAC0^0 circuit UU with a=poly(n)a={\rm poly}(n) ancillary qubits, and for any x{0,1}nx\in\{0,1\}^n, the correlation between Q(x)Q(x) and the parity function is bounded by 1/2+2Ω~(n1/d){1}/{2} + 2^{-\widetilde{\Omega}(n^{1/d})}, where Q(x)Q(x) denotes the output of measuring the output qubit of Ux,0aU|x,0^a\rangle. All the above consequences rely on the following technical result. If UU is a QAC0^0 circuit with a=poly(n)a={\rm poly}(n) ancillary qubits, then there is a distribution D\mathcal{D} of bounded polynomials of degree polylog(n)(n) such that with high probability, a random polynomial from D\mathcal{D} approximates the function x,0aUZn+1Ux,0a\langle x,0^a| U^\dag Z_{n+1} U |x,0^a\rangle for a large fraction of x{0,1}nx\in \{0,1\}^n. This result is analogous to the Razborov-Smolensky result on the approximation of AC0^0 circuits by random low-degree polynomials.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2411.00976,
  title  = {Low-degree approximation of QAC$^0$ circuits},
  author = {Ashley Montanaro and Changpeng Shao and Dominic Verdon},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00976},
  year   = {2024}
}

Comments

Lemma 2.1 is incorrect, and we need some time to fix it

R2 v1 2026-06-28T19:44:57.855Z