Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Improved quantum lower and upper bounds for matrix scaling (2109.15282v1)

Published 30 Sep 2021 in quant-ph, cs.DS, and math.OC

Abstract: Matrix scaling is a simple to state, yet widely applicable linear-algebraic problem: the goal is to scale the rows and columns of a given non-negative matrix such that the rescaled matrix has prescribed row and column sums. Motivated by recent results on first-order quantum algorithms for matrix scaling, we investigate the possibilities for quantum speedups for classical second-order algorithms, which comprise the state-of-the-art in the classical setting. We first show that there can be essentially no quantum speedup in terms of the input size in the high-precision regime: any quantum algorithm that solves the matrix scaling problem for $n \times n$ matrices with at most $m$ non-zero entries and with $\ell_2$-error $\varepsilon=\widetilde\Theta(1/m)$ must make $\widetilde\Omega(m)$ queries to the matrix, even when the success probability is exponentially small in $n$. Additionally, we show that for $\varepsilon\in[1/n,1/2]$, any quantum algorithm capable of producing $\frac{\varepsilon}{100}$-$\ell_1$-approximations of the row-sum vector of a (dense) normalized matrix uses $\Omega(n/\varepsilon)$ queries, and that there exists a constant $\varepsilon_0>0$ for which this problem takes $\Omega(n{1.5})$ queries. To complement these results we give improved quantum algorithms in the low-precision regime: with quantum graph sparsification and amplitude estimation, a box-constrained Newton method can be sped up in the large-$\varepsilon$ regime, and outperforms previous quantum algorithms. For entrywise-positive matrices, we find an $\varepsilon$-$\ell_1$-scaling in time $\widetilde O(n{1.5}/\varepsilon2)$, whereas the best previously known bounds were $\widetilde O(n2\mathrm{polylog}(1/\varepsilon))$ (classical) and $\widetilde O(n{1.5}/\varepsilon3)$ (quantum).

Citations (4)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.