Primary source for the univariate bounds: it reports that the d/2 + 1/2 lower bound of Kane and Kutin and of Meyer and Pommersheim is achievable with bounded error, that d/2 + 1 queries reach success probability approaching 1 for large q, that the success probability as a function of the number of queries is precisely optimal, and that gate complexity poly(log q) suffices with negligible decrease in that probability. It ends with a conjecture about the quantum query complexity of multivariate interpolation, which the companion paper below takes up.
arxiv.org/abs/1509.09271 ↗Polynomial interpolation from oracle queries
Given an oracle that returns the value p(x) of an unknown degree-d polynomial p over the finite field GF(q) at any queried point x, determine the coefficients of p using as few queries as possible.
Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.
Given an oracle that returns the value p(x) of an unknown degree-d polynomial p over the finite field GF(q) at any queried point x, determine the coefficients of p using as few queries as possible. Classically the d + 1 coefficients cannot be pinned down with fewer than d + 1 queries, and a lower bound proved independently by Kane and Kutin and by Meyer and Pommersheim puts the quantum cost at d/2 + 1/2 queries. Childs, van Dam, Hung and Shparlinski describe an algorithm that attains that lower bound rather than the d queries of the earlier Boneh and Zhandry algorithm, and they show that its success probability, as a function of the number of queries, is precisely optimal. Their abstract states that the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability. Chen, Childs and Hung carry the same question to a degree-d polynomial in n variables, where their abstract reports a speedup over the classical count (n+d choose d) by a factor of n+1 over ℂ, (n+1)/2 over ℝ and (n+d)/d over GF(q), which it calls a much larger gap than the factor of 2 available in the univariate case.
Circuit & simulation
What this takes and returns
TakesNothingWhat joins here
No input port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.
Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.
ReturnsNothingWhat joins here
No output port at this edge: the record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read one off — and unlike a declared hole, nothing has been recorded about what belongs here.
Nothing in the Atlas meets this end.
This record publishes no gate sequence and no register, so there is nothing here to read an interface off. Absent rather than empty. See all 152 →
How it works
Classically the d + 1 coefficients cannot be pinned down with fewer than d + 1 queries, and a lower bound proved independently by Kane and Kutin and by Meyer and Pommersheim puts the quantum cost at d/2 + 1/2 queries. Childs, van Dam, Hung and Shparlinski describe an algorithm that attains that lower bound rather than the d queries of the earlier Boneh and Zhandry algorithm, and they show that its success probability, as a function of the number of queries, is precisely optimal. Their abstract states that the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability. Chen, Childs and Hung carry the same question to a degree-d polynomial in n variables, where their abstract reports a speedup over the classical count (n+d choose d) by a factor of n+1 over ℂ, (n+1)/2 over ℝ and (n+d)/d over GF(q), which it calls a much larger gap than the factor of 2 available in the univariate case. This record's speedup class, "Varies", is a secondary source's classification of the oracular algorithms it files this under — not a claim its primary paper makes. Not checked against the primary source yet. Reported cost: Univariate over GF(q): d/2 + 1/2 quantum queries suffice to determine a degree-d polynomial with bounded error, which matches the lower bound, and d/2 + 1 queries suffice for success probability approaching 1 at large q, against d + 1 queries necessary and sufficient classically; the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability. Multivariate, for degree d in n variables: ⌈(1/(n+1))·(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice for probability 1 over ℂ and twice that over ℝ, except for d = 2 and four other special cases, and ⌈(d/(n+d))·(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice for probability approaching 1 over GF(q) at large field order, against a classical query complexity of (n+d choose d)..
Implementation
ALGORITHM: Polynomial interpolation from oracle queries
PROBLEM: Given an oracle that returns the value p(x) of an unknown degree-d polynomial p over the finite field GF(q) at any queried point x, determine the coefficients of p using as few queries as possible.
IDEA: Classically the d + 1 coefficients cannot be pinned down with fewer than d + 1 queries, and a lower bound proved independently by Kane and Kutin and by Meyer and Pommersheim puts the quantum cost at d/2 + 1/2 queries. Childs, van Dam, Hung and Shparlinski describe an algorithm that attains that lower bound rather than the d queries of the earlier Boneh and Zhandry algorithm, and they show that its success probability, as a function of the number of queries, is precisely optimal. Their abstract states that the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability. Chen, Childs and Hung carry the same question to a degree-d polynomial in n variables, where their abstract reports a speedup over the classical count (n+d choose d) by a factor of n+1 over ℂ, (n+1)/2 over ℝ and (n+d)/d over GF(q), which it calls a much larger gap than the factor of 2 available in the univariate case.
REPORTED COST: Univariate over GF(q): d/2 + 1/2 quantum queries suffice to determine a degree-d polynomial with bounded error, which matches the lower bound, and d/2 + 1 queries suffice for success probability approaching 1 at large q, against d + 1 queries necessary and sufficient classically; the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability. Multivariate, for degree d in n variables: ⌈(1/(n+1))·(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice for probability 1 over ℂ and twice that over ℝ, except for d = 2 and four other special cases, and ⌈(d/(n+d))·(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice for probability approaching 1 over GF(q) at large field order, against a classical query complexity of (n+d choose d).
BASIS: abstract of arXiv:1509.09271: "A lower bound shown independently by Kane and Kutin and by Meyer and Pommersheim shows that d/2+1/2 quantum queries are needed to solve this problem with bounded error, whereas an algorithm of Boneh and Zhandry shows that d quantum queries are sufficient. We show that the lower bound is achievable: d/2+1/2 quantum queries suffice to determine the polynomial with bounded error. Furthermore, we show that d/2+1 queries suffice to achieve probability approaching 1 for large q", and "the algorithm can be implemented with gate complexity poly(log q) with negligible decrease in the success probability". The classical univariate count is from the Quantum Algorithm Zoo entry "Polynomial interpolation" (LaTeX rendered into plain text): "Classically, d + 1 queries are necessary and sufficient." The multivariate figures are from the abstract of arXiv:1701.03990, with TeX rendered into Unicode, the binomial written as (n+d choose d) and the subscript of k written as C rather than ℂ: "We show that k_C and 2k_C queries suffice to achieve probability 1 for ℂ and ℝ, respectively, where k_C=⌈(1/(n+1))(n+d choose d)⌉ except for d=2 and four other special cases. For 𝔽_q, we show that ⌈(d/(n+d))(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice to achieve probability approaching 1 for large field order q", and "The classical query complexity of this problem is (n+d choose d), so our result provides a speedup by a factor of n+1, (n+1)/2, and (n+d)/d for ℂ, ℝ, and 𝔽_q, respectively." Outside the quotations the finite field is written GF(q) throughout, as in the Zoo entry; the multivariate paper writes the same field as a blackboard-bold F with subscript q, and the Zoo states the multivariate quantum counts in O(·) form rather than as the paper's ceilings.
PRIMARY SOURCE: Andrew M. Childs, Wim van Dam, Shih-Han Hung, Igor E. Shparlinski (2015), Optimal quantum algorithm for polynomial interpolation — https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.09271
This is a literature reference record, not an executable circuit.A reference record, not runnable source. Leona cannot execute it, so it cannot be saved to your Library as a circuit.
Quantum vs classical
Classical baseline
Compare Quantum query algorithm with the strongest classical method for the same instance, input budget, and output metric.
Quantum claim
This reference exposes a quantum circuit pattern; it does not imply an application-level speedup without a matched benchmark.
How to compare
Report input loading, circuit depth, repetitions, classical preprocessing, post-processing, and wall-clock time together.
Declared gaps
Nobody has reviewed this record for gaps yet.
Literature & references
The multivariate half of the same Zoo entry. The authors present and analyze algorithms over GF(q), ℝ and ℂ, report that ⌈(1/(n+1))·(n+d choose d)⌉ and twice that many queries suffice for probability 1 over ℂ and ℝ apart from d = 2 and four other special cases, and that ⌈(d/(n+d))·(n+d choose d)⌉ queries suffice over GF(q) at large field order, giving speedup factors of n+1, (n+1)/2 and (n+d)/d against the classical (n+d choose d). Consult it for the special cases and for the conjecture it leaves open over GF(q).
arxiv.org/abs/1701.03990 ↗