quant-phSep 29, 2026

Optimal Quantum-Classical Separations for Exact Learning

Authors: Srinivasan Arunachalam, Amin Shiraz Gilani, Nikhil S. Mande

Organizations: IBM Research · QuICS, University of Maryland · University of Liverpool

Abstract

We study exact learning with membership queries for concept classes C⊆{0,1}N\mathcal C\subseteq\{0,1\}^N, focusing on the relationships among their deterministic, randomized, and quantum query complexities, denoted D(C)\mathsf{D}(\mathcal C), R(C)\mathsf{R}(\mathcal C), and Q(C)\mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C), respectively. The two canonical quantum speedups in this model are witnessed by Grover search and Bernstein-Vazirani, leading to the longstanding conjecture R(C)=O(Q(C)2+Q(C)log⁡N).\mathsf{R}(\mathcal C)=O(\mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C)^2+\mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C)\log N). We first refute this conjecture by constructing concept classes C\mathcal C and C′\mathcal C' satisfying

R(C)=Ω ⁣(Q(C)3log⁡Nlog⁡Q(C))andD(C′)=Ω(Q(C′)3log⁡N).\mathsf{R}(\mathcal C)=Ω\!\left(\frac{\mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C)^3\log N}{\log \mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C)}\right) \qquad\text{and}\qquad \mathsf{D}(\mathcal C')=Ω(\mathsf{Q}(\mathcal C')^3\log N).

The first bound matches the upper bound of Arunachalam et al.[Quantum'21] up to constant factors, while the second matches the upper bound of Servedio and Gortler[SICOMP'04]. In particular, this shows that the saving in the randomized upper bound of Arunachalam et al. fundamentally relies on randomness. Apart from characterizing the optimal relationship between classical and quantum query complexity, our results are the first to show that quantum speedups for learning can go beyond the Grover and Bernstein-Vazirani paradigms.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

Sep 29, 2026

Advantage of Sample Complexity in Quantum PAC Learning Requires Inverse Access to State-Preparation Unitaries

Whether quantum computation can reduce the amount of data required for conventional machine learning is a central problem in quantum machine learning. In probably approximately correct (PAC) learning, a learner receives training examples sampled from an unknown probability distribution. Quantum PAC learning extends this framework by allowing access to quantum examples, which are quantum states that coherently encode this distribution, or to unitaries that prepare quantum examples, with or without inverse access. When only copies of quantum examples are available, the optimal worst-case sample complexity asymptotically matches that of classical learning. In contrast, access to both a preparation unitary and its inverse can improve the accuracy dependence of query complexity. However, it has remained open whether access to the preparation unitary alone suffices for this improvement. In this work, we resolve this question by determining the optimal query complexity with forward-only access, taking the worst case over compatible preparation unitaries and their dimensions. In both realizable and agnostic PAC learning, this complexity matches, up to constant factors, the optimal sample complexity achievable with classical examples or copies of quantum examples. To prove these results, we construct, for any algorithm with forward-only access, a simulator that approximates the algorithm's Haar-averaged output state using as many copies of the prepared state as the algorithm makes queries. These results show that inverse access is essential for the known improvement in accuracy dependence in this worst-case setting. Beyond PAC learning, our reduction provides a general tool for transferring lower bounds for state copies to query lower bounds for forward-only access to the corresponding preparation unitaries.
Aug 12, 2026

A Quantum/Classical Example Oracle Separation for Making Things Up

Consider two PAC learning algorithms, both having access to quantum computation, but differing in the types of examples they obtain: one is provided with classical samples, while the other is given quantum samples. Are there any learning tasks that can be efficiently performed by the latter, but not by the former? This question, the focus of our work, is surprisingly still open. Our main result is to show that relative to an oracle, there are distributions that can be efficiently generated by a quantum learner with access to quantum samples, but not by a quantum learner with access to only classical samples, making progress to answering this question in the affirmative.
Oct 31, 2024

Interactive proofs for verifying (quantum) learning and testing

We consider the problem of testing and learning from data in the presence of resource constraints, such as limited memory or weak data access, which place limitations on the efficiency and feasibility of testing or learning. In particular, we ask the following question: Could a resource-constrained learner/tester use interaction with a resource-unconstrained but untrusted party to solve a learning or testing problem more efficiently than they could without such an interaction? In this work, we answer this question both abstractly and for concrete problems, in two complementary ways: For a wide variety of scenarios, we prove that a resource-constrained learner cannot gain any advantage through classical interaction with an untrusted prover. As a special case, we show that for the vast majority of testing and learning problems in which quantum memory is a meaningful resource, a memory-constrained quantum algorithm cannot overcome its limitations via classical communication with a memory-unconstrained quantum prover. In contrast, when quantum communication is allowed, we construct a variety of interactive proof protocols, for specific learning and testing problems, which allow memory-constrained quantum verifiers to gain significant advantages through delegation to untrusted provers. These results highlight both the limitations and potential of delegating learning and testing problems to resource-rich but untrusted third parties.