How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Simon recovery succeeds with probability at least 1-delta
Statement
Fix a Simon oracle with , let , and let . The unbounded rank-collection process terminates almost surely in the sense that its finite-prefix tail probability tends to zero as ; its expected query cost, defined as the supremum over finite query prefixes, is at most . For the finite algorithm with , the probability of returning the hidden mask is at least , and its worst-case query count is at most . For fixed constant , the query count is . The finite algorithm's classical postprocessing has bit cost when is supplied in binary with total numerator/denominator length .
Here the tail probabilities are computed from the finite prefix experiments of the rank process. When , the induced stopping-time law assigns mass to and mass to ; the proof shows the latter is zero. When , and the process is already complete. No measure on an infinite execution-history space is assumed.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A fixed promised Simon oracle, , , and a rational .
Simon independent-sample rank process: samples are fresh and independent, one query is made per sample, and the process stops at rank .
Simon rank growth probability: at every rank , a new sample raises rank with probability , and the finite-prefix expected waiting count at that rank is at most .
Expected query cost from finite execution prefixes: expected query cost is the supremum of the expectations of query counts on finite execution prefixes; query-indexed sample rounds are cofinal.
Budgeted Simon recovery with explicit failure branch: the cap is , rank returns a kernel solution, and a missing rank at the cap returns FAIL.
F2 row reduction returns the unique Simon mask: full-rank independent rows in yield the unique nonzero kernel vector .
Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities: each finite-prefix experiment has a finite outcome set with nonnegative weights summing to one.
Markov's inequality on a finite probability space: for a nonnegative variable on a finite probability space and threshold , .
Classical bit-operation cost: classical bit work is measured by transitions of the stated finite-alphabet Turing-machine model.
Proof
If , the unique nonzero element of is , so the budgeted algorithm returns the correct mask with zero queries. The rank process has already reached its target rank zero.
Suppose . For each finite horizon , use the finite -round experiment of [F1] and let count the samples actually taken before reaching rank , capped at . Decompose , where counts the trials spent at rank and is zero if that rank is not reached within the prefix. Condition on each finite history at the first time rank is reached, with rounds remaining. If , its remaining contribution is zero; if , the rank-growth theorem [F2] gives expected truncated wait at most on that continuation. If rank is not reached, the contribution is zero. Summing over these disjoint first-arrival histories gives for every , hence . Since is the query count on the finite -round prefix, [F3] gives expected query cost at most .
Let be the event, in the finite -round experiment, that the rank is still below after all samples. On the process has used all queries, so and . Therefore for every , which tends to zero. This tail argument uses only finite-prefix events and expectations.
In the finite -sample experiment, failure is the event that rank remains below after all samples. On , , so . The variable is nonnegative and bounded, and Markov's inequality [F7] gives .
For , let be as in step 2.1, with the whole zero-round experiment. By consistency of finite-prefix probabilities, extending the -round experiment to rounds partitions into histories that first reach rank at round and histories in . Define the mass at to be ; these masses are nonnegative. Their partial sums telescope to , and step 2.1 makes the residual mass at infinity zero. The resulting countable masses sum to one. For , step 1.1 gives . Thus the process terminates almost surely without assuming a measure on infinite histories.
If rank is reached, all collected rows are independent and lie in by [F1]–[F2]. The recovery routine therefore returns by [F5]. Combining this with step 2.2 proves success probability at least . The finite cap makes at most sampling rounds. In each round, reducing an incoming row against at most pivot rows and clearing a new pivot from at most rows requires bit operations; so basis maintenance costs . The final reduction costs by [F5]. To compute , the algorithm multiplies binary integers of total length and performs long division on integers of at most that length; the schoolbook multiplication, comparisons, shifts, and long division each use bit operations. These counts use the finite-alphabet Turing-machine convention [F9], giving the stated postprocessing bound.
Depends on
- Budgeted Simon recovery with explicit failure branch
- Simon independent-sample rank process
- Simon rank growth probability
- F2 row reduction returns the unique Simon mask
- Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities
- For $|r| < 1$, $\sum_{k \ge 0} r^k = 1/(1-r)$, and for $|r| \ge 1$ the series diverges
- Expected query cost from finite execution prefixes
- Markov's inequality on a finite probability space
- Classical bit-operation cost
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
52 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes (arXiv:1907.09415v6, 2026) (standard reference, not scraped)
- John Preskill, Quantum Information, Chapter 6: Quantum Algorithms (updated November 2020) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Andrew M. Childs, Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms (17 April 2025) (standard reference, not scraped)