Much has been written about theory and practice in the law, and the tension between practitioners and theorists. Judges do not cite theoretical articles often; they rarely "apply" theories to particular cases. These arguments are not revisited. Instead the Essay explores the working and interaction of theory and practice, practitioners and theorists. The Essay starts with a story about solving a legal issue using our intellectual tools - theory, practice, and their progenies: experience and "gut." Next the Essay elaborates on the nature of theory, practice, experience and "gut." The third part of the Essay discusses theories that are helpful to practitioners and those that are less helpful. The Essay concludes that practitioners theorize, and theorists practice. They use these intellectual tools differently because the goals and orientations of theorists and practitioners, and the constraints under which they act, differ. Theory, practice, experience and "gut" help us think, remember, decide and create. They complement each other like the two sides of the same coin: distinct but inseparable.

Of Theory and Practice

In this paper, we consider the question of determining whether a function f has property P or is e-far from any function with property P. A property testing algorithm is given a sample of the value of f on instances drawn according to some distribution. In some cases, it is also allowed to query f on instances of its choice. We study this question for different properties and establish some connections to problems in learning theory and approximation.In particular, we focus our attention on testing graph properties. Given access to a graph G in the form of being able to query whether an edge exists or not between a pair of vertices, we devise algorithms to test whether the underlying graph has properties such as being bipartite, k-Colorable, or having a p-Clique (clique of density p with respect to the vertex set). Our graph property testing algorithms are probabilistic and make assertions that are correct with high probability, while making a number of queries that is independent of the size of the graph. Moreover, the property testing algorithms can be used to efficiently (i.e., in time linear in the number of vertices) construct partitions of the graph that correspond to the property being tested, if it holds for the input graph.

Property Testing and its connection to Learning and Approximation

a ) p. 131 The discussion between eqs. (5.14) and (5.15) is incorrect (dA should be made as large as possible!). b ) p. 256 In the figure, the numbers 6) and 7) occur twice. c ) p. 292 At the end of section 12.5, it should be the space of isospectral 0Hermitian matrices. d ) p. 306 A ”Tr” is missing in eq. (13.43). e ) p. 327, Eq. (14.64b) is 〈Trρ〉B = N(14N+10) (5N+1)(N+3) should be 〈Trρ〉B = 8N+7 (N+2)(N+4)

https://chaos.if.uj.edu.pl/~karol/erratum10.pdf

Geometry of Quantum States

Quantum computers are designed to outperform standard computers by running quantum algorithms. Areas in which quantum algorithms can be applied include cryptography, search and optimisation, simulation of quantum systems and solving large systems of linear equations. Here we briefly survey some known quantum algorithms, with an emphasis on a broad overview of their applications rather than their technical details. We include a discussion of recent developments and near-term applications of quantum algorithms.

/pdf/quantum-algorithms-an-overview-3mbngnqis4.pdf

Quantum algorithms: an overview

Property testing is concerned with the design of super-fast algorithms for the structural analysis of large quantities of data. The aim is to unveil global features of the data, such as determining whether the data has a particular property or estimating global parameters. Remarkably, it is possible for decisions to be made by accessing only a small portion of the data. Property testing focuses on properties and parameters that go beyond simple statistics. This book provides an extensive and authoritative introduction to property testing. It provides a wide range of algorithmic techniques for the design and analysis of tests for algebraic properties, properties of Boolean functions, graph properties, and properties of distributions.

Introduction to Property Testing

Besides the Hidden Subgroup Problem, the second large class of quantum speed-ups is for functions with constant-sized 1-certificates. This includes the OR function, solvable by the Grover algorithm, the distinctness, the triangle and other problems. The usual way to solve them is by quantum walk on the Johnson graph. 
We propose a solution for the same problems using span programs. The span program is a computational model equivalent to the quantum query algorithm in its strength, and yet very different in its outfit. 
We prove the power of our approach by designing a quantum algorithm for the triangle problem with query complexity $O(n^{35/27})$ that is better than $O(n^{13/10})$ of the best previously known algorithm by Magniez et al.

Span Programs for Functions with Constant-Sized 1-certificates

We present a quantum algorithm solving the k-distinctness problem in a less number of queries than the previous algorithm by Ambainis. The construction uses a modified learning graph approach. Compared to the recent paper by Belovs and Lee, the algorithm doesn't require any prior information on the input, and the complexity analysis is much simpler.

http://conference.iiis.tsinghua.edu.cn/QIP2013/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/kdist_qip.pdf

Learning-Graph-Based Quantum Algorithm for k-Distinctness

We show that every algorithm for testing n-variate Boolean functions for monotonicityhas query complexity Ω(n1/4). All previous lower bounds for this problem were designed for non-adaptive algorithms and, as a result, the best previous lower bound for general (possibly adaptive) monotonicity testers was only Ω(logn). Combined with the query complexity of the non-adaptive monotonicity tester of Khot, Minzer, and Safra (FOCS 2015), our lower bound shows that adaptivity can result in at most a quadratic reduction in the query complexity for testing monotonicity. By contrast, we show that there is an exponential gap between the query complexity of adaptive and non-adaptive algorithms for testing regular linear threshold functions (LTFs) for monotonicity. Chen, De, Servedio, and Tan (STOC 2015)recently showed that non-adaptive algorithms require almost Ω(n1/2) queries for this task. We introduce a new adaptive monotonicity testing algorithm which has query complexity O(logn) when the input is a regular LTF.

/pdf/a-polynomial-lower-bound-for-testing-monotonicity-3ymfxh9gxy.pdf

A polynomial lower bound for testing monotonicity

We use span programs to develop quantum algorithms for several graph problems. We give an algorithm that uses $O(n \sqrt d)$ queries to the adjacency matrix of an n-vertex graph to decide if vertices s and t are connected, under the promise that they either are connected by a path of length at most d, or are disconnected. We also give O(n)-query algorithms that decide if a graph contains as a subgraph a path, a star with two subdivided legs, or a subdivided claw. These algorithms can be implemented time efficiently and in logarithmic space. One of the main techniques is to modify the natural st-connectivity span program to drop along the way "breadcrumbs," which must be retrieved before the path from s is allowed to enter t.

Span programs and quantum algorithms for st -connectivity and claw detection

In 1986, Saks and Wigderson conjectured that the largest separation between deterministic and zero-error randomized query complexity for a total boolean function is given by the function f on n=2k bits defined by a complete binary tree of NAND gates of depth k, which achieves R0(f) = O(D(f)0.7537…). We show this is false by giving an example of a total boolean function f on n bits whose deterministic query complexity is Ω(n/log(n)) while its zero-error randomized query complexity is O(√n). We further show that the quantum query complexity of the same function is O(n1/4), giving the first example of a total function with a super-quadratic gap between its quantum and deterministic query complexities. We also construct a total boolean function g on n variables that has zero-error randomized query complexity Ω(n/log(n)) and bounded-error randomized query complexity R(g) = O(√n). This is the first super-linear separation between these two complexity measures. The exact quantum query complexity of the same function is QE(g) = O(√n). These functions show that the relations D(f) = O(R1(f)2) and R0(f) = O(R(f)2) are optimal, up to poly-logarithmic factors. Further variations of these functions give additional separations between other query complexity measures: a cubic separation between Q and R0, a 3/2-power separation between QE and R, and a 4th power separation between approximate degree and bounded-error randomized query complexity. All of these examples are variants of a function recently introduced by Goos, Pitassi, and Watson which they used to separate the unambiguous 1-certificate complexity from deterministic query complexity and to resolve the famous Clique versus Independent Set problem in communication complexity.

/pdf/separations-in-query-complexity-based-on-pointer-functions-1gb1vay8n1.pdf

Aleksandrs Belovs

Papers

Span Programs for Functions with Constant-Sized 1-certificates

Learning-Graph-Based Quantum Algorithm for k-Distinctness

A polynomial lower bound for testing monotonicity

Span programs and quantum algorithms for st -connectivity and claw detection

Separations in query complexity based on pointer functions