- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Oracle problems as communication tasks and optimization of quantum algorithms

Amit Te’eni1,*, Zohar Schwartzman-Nowik1,2, Marcin Nowakowski3,4,5, Paweł Horodecki6,3, and Eliahu Cohen1,7

  • *Contact author: amit.teeni@biu.ac.il
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033252 – Published 1 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5qsb-5jy5

Abstract

Quantum query complexity studies the number of queries needed to learn some property of a black box. A closely related question is how well an algorithm can succeed with this learning task using only a fixed number of queries. In this work, we propose measuring an algorithm's performance using the mutual information between the output and the actual value. The task of optimizing this mutual information using a single query is similar to a basic task of quantum communication, where one attempts to maximize the mutual information of the sender and receiver. We make this analogy precise by splitting the algorithm between two agents, obtaining a communication protocol. The oracle's target property plays the role of a message that Alice encodes into a quantum state, which is subsequently sent over to Bob. The first part of the algorithm performs this encoding, and the second part measures the state and aims to deduce the message from the outcome. Moreover, we formally consider the oracle as a separate subsystem, whose state records the unknown oracle identity. Within this construction, Bob's optimal measurement basis minimizes the quantum correlations between the two subsystems. We also find a lower bound on the mutual information, which is related to quantum coherence. These results extend to multiple-query nonadaptive algorithms. As a result, we describe the optimal nonadaptive algorithm that uses at most a fixed number of queries, for any oracle classification problem. Crucially, this mutual-information perspective was shown elsewhere [A. Levi et al., Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 015029 (2026)] to have practical utility for algorithmic design, providing the theoretical foundation to optimize iterative subroutines in hybrid quantum-classical schemes. Within the present work, we apply this framework to analyze the stage-by-stage information flow and track partial progress in several standard quantum algorithms, including the Deutsch-Jozsa, Bernstein-Vazirani, and Shor-Kitaev algorithms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (87)

  1. H. Buhrman and R. de Wolf, Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey, Theor. Comput. Sci. 288, 21 (2002).
  2. D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation, Proc. R. Soc. A 439, 553 (1992).
  3. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1411 (1997).
  4. D. R. Simon, On the power of quantum computation, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1474 (1997).
  5. C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani, Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1510 (1997).
  6. R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf, Quantum lower bounds by polynomials, J. ACM 48, 778 (2001).
  7. S. Aaronson and Y. Shi, Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems, J. ACM 51, 595 (2004).
  8. B. W. Reichardt, Reflections for quantum query algorithms, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’11 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2011), pp. 560–569.
  9. C. Zhang and T. Li, Quantum lower bounds for finding stationary points of nonconvex functions, in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2023), pp. 41268–41299.
  10. A. Lombardi, F. Ma, and J. Wright, A one-query lower bound for unitary synthesis and breaking quantum cryptography, in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, NY, 2024), pp. 979–990.
  11. S. Aaronson, Open problems related to quantum query complexity, ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. 2, 1 (2021).
  12. S. Aaronson, How much structure is needed for huge quantum speedups? arXiv:2209.06930.
  13. J. M. Matera, D. Egloff, N. Killoran, and M. B. Plenio, Coherent control of quantum systems as a resource theory, Quantum Sci. Technol. 1, 01LT01 (2016).
  14. M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Contextuality supplies the “magic” for quantum computation, Nature (London) 510, 351 (2014).
  15. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  16. M. Hillery, Coherence as a resource in decision problems: The Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm and a variation, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012111 (2016).
  17. D. Stahlke, Quantum interference as a resource for quantum speedup, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022302 (2014).
  18. J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V. Vedral, and M. Gu, Converting coherence to quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 160407 (2016).
  19. Y. Cai, H. N. Le, and V. Scarani, State complexity and quantum computation, Ann. Phys. 527, 684 (2015).
  20. A. Datta, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, Quantum discord and the power of one qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 050502 (2008).
  21. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  22. M. Van den Nest, Universal quantum computation with little entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 060504 (2013).
  23. E. Biham, G. Brassard, D. Kenigsberg, and T. Mor, Quantum computing without entanglement, Theor. Comput. Sci. 320, 15 (2004).
  24. N. Linden and S. Popescu, Good dynamics versus bad kinematics: Is entanglement needed for quantum computation? Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 047901 (2001).
  25. A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Quantum algorithms: Entanglement-enhanced information processing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 356, 1769 (1998).
  26. R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proc. R. Soc. A 459, 2011 (2003).
  27. N. Anand and A. K. Pati, Coherence and entanglement monogamy in the discrete analogue of analog Grover search, arXiv:1611.04542.
  28. V. Vedral, The elusive source of quantum speedup, Found. Phys. 40, 1141 (2010).
  29. S. Lloyd, Quantum search without entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 010301 (1999).
  30. R. Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation, arXiv:quant-ph/9707034.
  31. A. Brodutch, Discord and quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022307 (2013).
  32. H. Cable and D. E. Browne, Exact and efficient simulation of concordant computation, New J. Phys. 17, 113049 (2015).
  33. K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: Discord and related measures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1655 (2012).
  34. H. Buhrman, Ł. Czekaj, A. Grudka, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Markiewicz, F. Speelman, and S. Strelchuk, Quantum communication complexity advantage implies violation of a Bell inequality, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3191 (2016).
  35. V. Madhok and A. Datta, Quantum discord as a resource in quantum communication, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, 1345041 (2013).
  36. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, and A. Wigderson, Quantum vs. classical communication and computation, in Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, NY, 1998), pp. 63–68.
  37. R. De Wolf, Quantum Computing and Communication Complexity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2001.
  38. R. de Wolf, Quantum communication and complexity, Theor. Comput. Sci. 287, 337 (2002).
  39. G. Brassard, Quantum communication complexity, Found. Phys. 33, 1593 (2003).
  40. T. P. Spiller, K. Nemoto, S. L. Braunstein, W. J. Munro, P. van Loock, and G. J. Milburn, Quantum computation by communication, New J. Phys. 8, 30 (2006).
  41. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Nonlocality and communication complexity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 665 (2010).
  42. W. M. Hoza, Quantum communication-query tradeoffs, arXiv:1703.07768.
  43. S. Chakraborty, A. Chattopadhyay, N. S. Mande, and M. Paraashar, Quantum query-to-communication simulation needs a logarithmic overhead, in Proceedings of the 35th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC ’20 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, DEU, 2020).
  44. S. Chakraborty, A. Chattopadhyay, P. Høyer, N. S. Mande, M. Paraashar, and R. de Wolf, Symmetry and Quantum Query-To-Communication Simulation, in Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2022), edited by P. Berenbrink and B. Monmege, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2022), Volume 219, pp. 20:1–20:23.
  45. J. Blikstad, J. Van Den Brand, Y. Efron, S. Mukhopadhyay, and D. Nanongkai, Nearly optimal communication and query complexity of bipartite matching, in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 1174–1185.
  46. A. Chakraborty, R. K. Patra, K. Agarwal, S. Sen, P. Ghosal, S. G. Naik, and M. Banik, Scalable and noise-robust communication advantage of multipartite quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032617 (2025).
  47. S. Rout, N. Sakharwade, S. S. Bhattacharya, R. Ramanathan, and P. Horodecki, Unbounded quantum advantage in communication with minimal input scaling, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023104 (2025).
  48. A. Levi, Z. Ossi, E. Cohen, and A. Te’eni, Optimal quantum likelihood estimation, Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 015029 (2026).
  49. A. Belovs, Variations on quantum adversary, arXiv:1504.06943.
  50. A. Ambainis, Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 64, 750 (2002).
  51. P. Hoyer, T. Lee, and R. Spalek, Negative weights make adversaries stronger, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, NY, 2007), pp. 526–535.
  52. A. Montanaro, Structure, randomness and complexity in quantum computation, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol, 2007.
  53. A. Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: An overview, npj Quantum Inf. 2, 15023 (2016).
  54. A. Chailloux, A note on the quantum query complexity of permutation symmetric functions, in Proceedings of the 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2019), edited by A. Blum, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 124 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2019), pp. 19:1–19:7.
  55. A. C.-C. Yao, Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity, in Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977) (IEEE Computer Society, USA, 1977), pp. 222–227.
  56. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/5qsb-5jy5 for formal remarks on the problem setup, a discussion of the probability of success, a proof linking Holevo's bound to quantum discord, algebraic conditions for deterministic algorithms, and step-by-step information-theoretic analyses of the Bernstein-Vazirani, Shor-Kitaev, Simon, and phase estimation algorithms.
  57. R. Jozsa, Characterizing classes of functions computable by quantum parallelism, Proc. R. Soc. A 435, 563 (1991).
  58. S. Aaronson, A. Ambainis, J. Iraids, M. Kokainis, and J. Smotrovs, Polynomials, quantum query complexity, and Grothendieck's inequality, in Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC ’16 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, DEU, 2016).
  59. W. Chen, Z. Ye, and L. Li, Characterization of exact one-query quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022325 (2020).
  60. G. Xu and D. Qiu, Partial Boolean functions with exact quantum query complexity one, Entropy 23, 189 (2021).
  61. D. Qiu and G. Xu, Exact quantum 1-query algorithms and complexity, SPIN 11, 2140001 (2021).
  62. Z.-K. Ye and L.-Z. Li, Characterization of exact one-query quantum algorithms for partial Boolean functions, J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 38, 1423 (2023).
  63. A. Ambainis, K. Iwama, A. Kawachi, H. Masuda, R. H. Putra, and S. Yamashita, Quantum identification of Boolean oracles, in Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004), pp. 105–116.
  64. A. Ambainis, K. Iwama, A. Kawachi, R. Raymond, and S. Yamashita, Improved algorithms for quantum identification of Boolean oracles, Theor. Comput. Sci. 378, 41 (2007).
  65. R. Kothari, An Optimal Quantum Algorithm for the Oracle Identification Problem (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Germany, 2014).
  66. L. Taghavi, Simplified quantum algorithm for the oracle identification problem, Quantum Mach. Intell. 4, 19 (2022).
  67. A. Montanaro, Nonadaptive quantum query complexity, Inf. Process. Lett. 110, 1110 (2010).
  68. M. Zwolak and W. H. Zurek, Complementarity of quantum discord and classically accessible information, Sci. Rep. 3, 1729 (2013).
  69. R. Lecamwasam, S. Assad, J. J. Hope, P. K. Lam, J. Thompson, and M. Gu, Relative entropy of coherence quantifies performance in Bayesian metrology, PRX Quantum 5, 030303 (2024).
  70. K. M. Audenaert, Quantum skew divergence, J. Math. Phys. 55, 112202 (2014).
  71. M. E. Shirokov, Upper bounds for the Holevo information quantity and their use, Probl. Inf. Transm. 55, 201 (2019).
  72. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  73. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).
  74. Z. Xi, Y. Li, and H. Fan, Quantum coherence and correlations in quantum system, Sci. Rep. 5, 10922 (2015).
  75. A. Bilobran and R. Angelo, A measure of physical reality, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015).
  76. P. R. Dieguez and R. M. Angelo, Information-reality complementarity: The role of measurements and quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022107 (2018).
  77. A. C. Costa and R. M. Angelo, Information-based approach towards a unified resource theory, Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 325 (2020).
  78. I. L. Paiva, P. R. Dieguez, R. M. Angelo, and E. Cohen, Coherence and realism in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032213 (2023).
  79. C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory, Robust online Hamiltonian learning, New J. Phys. 14, 103013 (2012).
  80. N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. Cory, Hamiltonian learning using imperfect quantum resources, Phys. Rev. A 89, 042314 (2014).
  81. N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190501 (2014).
  82. J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, et al., Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning, Nat. Phys. 13, 551 (2017).
  83. X.-L. Qi and D. C. Ranard, Determining a local Hamiltonian from a single eigenstate, Quantum 3, 159 (2019).
  84. A. Dutt, E. Pednault, C. W. Wu, S. Sheldon, J. Smolin, L. Bishop, and I. L. Chuang, Active learning of quantum system Hamiltonians yields query advantage, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033060 (2023).
  85. H. Barnum and E. Knill, Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity, J. Math. Phys. 43, 2097 (2002).
  86. A. Te’eni, Y. Oz, and E. Cohen, One-query quantum algorithms for the index-q hidden subgroup problem, arXiv:2510.10538.
  87. A. Te'eni, https://github.com/smitke6/Oracle_Problems_as_Communication_Tasks (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033252– Published 1 September, 2026
  • Received 16 October 2025
  • Accepted 14 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation