5
program roles
1
organizing role
29
collaborators
2012–2026
years active
Contributions
QIP QCrypt TQC talk poster presenter award · △program ◇steering ○organizing · filled = chair
16 Talks
| Title | Conference | Type | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|---|
| On the quantum time complexity of divide and conquer | QIP 2024 | regular | ▸Jonathan Allcock, Jinge Bao, Troy Lee, Miklos Santha |
| An Exponential Separation Between Quantum Query Complexity and the Polynomial Degree | QIP 2024 | plenary_short | ▸Andris Ambainis |
| A Direct Reduction from the Polynomial to the Adversary Method | TQC 2024 | regular ▸ presenter | — |
| Taming Quantum Time Complexity | TQC 2024 | regular ▸ presenter | Stacey Jeffery, Duyal Yolcu |
Quantum query complexity has several nice properties with respect to composition. First, bounded-error quantum query algorithms can be composed without incurring log factors through error reduction (emphexactness). Second, through careful accounting (emphthriftiness), the total query complexity is smaller if subroutines are mostly run on cheaper inputs – a property that is much less obvious in quantum algorithms than in their classical counterparts. While these properties were previously seen through the model of span programs (alternatively, the dual adversary bound), a recent work by two of the authors (Belovs, Yolcu 2023) showed how to achieve these benefits without converting to span programs, by defining emphquantum Las Vegas query complexity. Independently, recent works, including by one of the authors (Jeffery 2022), have worked towards bringing thriftiness to the more practically significant setting of quantum emphtime complexity. In this work, we show how to achieve both exactness and thriftiness in the setting of time complexity. We generalize the quantum subroutine composition results of Jeffery 2022 so that, in particular, no error reduction is needed. We give a time complexity version of the well-known result in quantum query complexity, Q(fcirc g)=ØO(Q(f)cdot Q(g)), without log factors. We achieve this by employing a novel approach to the design of quantum algorithms based on what we call emphtransducers, and which we think is of large independent interest. While a span program is a completely different computational model, a transducer is a direct generalisation of a quantum algorithm, which allows for much greater transparency and control. Transducers naturally characterize general state conversion, rather than only decision problems; provide a very simple treatment of other quantum primitives such as quantum walks; and lend themselves well to time complexity analysis. |
|||
| One-Way Ticket to Las Vegas and the Quantum Adversary | QIP 2023 | plenary_short ▸ presenter | Duyal Yolcu |
| Tight Quantum Lower Bound for Approximate Counting with Quantum States | TQC 2020 | regular ▸ presenter | Ansis Rosmanis |
We prove tight lower bounds for the following variant of the counting problem considered by Aaronson \etal. The task is to distinguish whether an input set $x\subseteq [n]$ has size either $k$ or $k’=(1+\epsilon)k$. We assume the algorithm has access to |
|||
| Quantum Coupon Collector | TQC 2020 | regular | Srinivasan Arunachalam, Andrew Childs, Robin Kothari, Ansis Rosmanis, ▸Ronald de Wolf |
We study how efficiently a k-element set S subseteq [n] can be learned from a uniform superposition ket{S} of its elements. One can think of ket{S}=sum_{i in S} ket{i}/sqrt{|S|} as the quantum version of a uniformly random sample over S, as in the classical analysis of the “coupon collector problem.” We show that if k is close to n, then we can learn S using asymptotically fewer quantum samples than random samples. In particular, if there are n-k=O(1) missing elements then O(k) copies of ket{S} suffice, in contrast to the Theta(k log k) random samples needed by a classical coupon collector. On the other hand, if n-k=Omega(k), then Omega(k log k) quantum samples are necessary. More generally, we give tight bounds on the number of quantum samples needed for every k and n, and we give efficient quantum learning algorithms. We also give tight bounds in the model where we can additionally reflect through ket{S}. Finally, we relate coupon collection to a known example separating proper and improper PAC learning that turns out to show no separation in the quantum case. |
|||
| Quantum Lower Bounds for Tripartite Versions of the Hidden Shift and the Set Equality Problems | TQC 2018 | regular | Ansis Rosmanis |
| Provably secure key establishment against quantum adversaries | QCRYPT 2017 | regular | Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Marc Kaplan, Sophie Laplante, Louis Salvail |
| Separations in communication complexity using cheat sheets and information complexity | QIP 2017 | regular | ▸Anurag Anshu, Shalev Ben-David, Mika Goos, Rahul Jain, Robin Kothari, Troy Lee, Miklos Santha |
| Provably Secure Key Establishment Against Quantum Adversaries | TQC 2017 | regular | Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Marc Kaplan, Sophie Laplante, Louis Salvail |
| Efficient Quantum Algorithms for (Gapped) Group Testing and Junta Testing | QIP 2016 | regular | ▸Andris Ambainis, Oded Regev, Ronald de Wolf |
| Separations in Query Complexity Based on Pointer Functions | QIP 2016 | plenary | ▸Andris Ambainis, Kaspars Balodis, Troy Lee, Juris Smotrovs, Miklos Santha |
|
“Adversary Lower Bound for the k-sum Problem.” ↗
|
QIP 2013 | invited | Robert Spalek |
|
“Learning-Graph-Based Quantum Algorithm for k-distinctness.” ↗
|
QIP 2013 | regular | — |
|
Span Programs for Functions with Constant-Sized 1-certificates ↗
|
QIP 2012 | plenary | — |
4 Posters
| Title | Conference | Co-authors |
|---|---|---|
| Time and Space Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Detecting Cycles and Testing Bipartiteness | QIP 2017 | Christopher Cade, Ashley Montanaro |
| Can one quantum bit separate any pair of words with zero-error? | QIP 2017 | Juan Andres Montoya, Abuzer Yakaryılmaz |
| Time and Space Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Detecting Cycles and Testing Bipartiteness | TQC 2016 | Christopher Cade, Ashley Montanaro |
| On Adversary Lower Bounds for the Collision and the Set Equality Problems | QIP 2014 | Ansis Rosmanis |
Committee service
| Conference | Committee | Position | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| QIP 2026 | organizing | member | — |
| QIP 2026 | program | member | — |
| TQC 2025 | program | member | — |
| QIP 2020 | program | member | — |
| TQC 2018 | program | member | — |
| QIP 2015 | program | member | — |
Collaborators
| Co-author | Joint talks |
|---|---|
| Ansis Rosmanis | 4 |
| Andris Ambainis | 3 |
| Miklos Santha | 3 |
| Troy Lee | 3 |
| Ashley Montanaro | 2 |
| Christopher Cade | 2 |
| Duyal Yolcu | 2 |
| Gilles Brassard | 2 |
| Louis Salvail | 2 |
| Marc Kaplan | 2 |
| Peter Høyer | 2 |
| Robin Kothari | 2 |
| Ronald de Wolf | 2 |
| Sophie Laplante | 2 |
| Abuzer Yakaryılmaz | 1 |
| Andrew Childs | 1 |
| Anurag Anshu | 1 |
| Jinge Bao | 1 |
| Jonathan Allcock | 1 |
| Juan Andres Montoya | 1 |