Given a classical query algorithm as a decision tree, when does there exist a quantum query algorithm with a speed-up over the classical one? We provide a general construction based on the structure of the underlying decision tree, and prove that this can give us an up-to-quadratic quantum speed-up. In particular, we obtain a bounded-error quantum query algorithm of cost $O(\sqrt{s})$ to compute a Boolean function (more generally, a relation) that can be computed by a classical (even randomized) decision tree of size $s$. Lin and Lin [ToC'16] and Beigi and Taghavi [Quantum'20] showed results of a similar flavor, and gave upper bounds in terms of a quantity which we call the "guessing complexity" of a decision tree. We identify that the guessing complexity of a decision tree equals its rank, a notion introduced by Ehrenfeucht and Haussler [Inf. Comp.'89] in the context of learning theory. This answers a question posed by Lin and Lin, who asked whether the guessing complexity of a decision tree is related to any complexity-theoretic measure. We also show a polynomial separation between rank and randomized rank for the complete binary AND-OR tree. Beigi and Taghavi constructed span programs and dual adversary solutions for Boolean functions given classical decision trees computing them and an assignment of non-negative weights to its edges. We explore the effect of changing these weights on the resulting span program complexity and objective value of the dual adversary bound, and capture the best possible weighting scheme by an optimization program. We exhibit a solution to this program and argue its optimality from first principles. We also exhibit decision trees for which our bounds are asymptotically stronger than those of Lin and Lin, and Beigi and Taghavi. This answers a question of Beigi and Taghavi, who asked whether different weighting schemes could yield better upper bounds.
Main idea
We can construct quantum query algorithms from decision tree using a span program. This paper finds the optimal weight assignments for the span program.
Also, the “guessing complexity” of a decision tree is equal to its rank, which can be much more than its randomized rank.