1.3 Related work
The problem studied in this paper is partially inspired by [35], in which Vempala, Wang and
Woodruff studied the classical communication complexity of solving linear regression (and many
other optimization problems) and showed that the naive protocol (of sending the whole information
to others) is close to optimal. Their goal is to output a vector solution, while our goal is to sample
from the solution. Recently, Tang et al. [34] studied quantum communication complexity of solving
linear regression problems. Their focus was on the Alice-Bob model and their goal was to output
an approximate vector solution. The complexity they proved is O(nκ/ε), where nis the dimension,
κis the condition number and εis the precision. Regarding quantum communication complexity
for sampling problems, Ambainis et al. [3] exhibited an exponential gap between the quantum and
classical communication required for a sampling problem related to disjointness. In [25], Montanaro
showed an exponential gap between the quantum and classical communication for a distributed
variant of the Fourier sampling problem. Another linear algebra problem that shows quantum
computers are exponentially better than classical computers is the vector-in-subspace problem
studied by Raz in [28]. This problem is closely related to the two-party linear regression problem
we study in the case where communication is from Bob to Alice, and where the matrix Ais
unitary. It was proved in [19] that the one-way quantum protocol is exponentially better than any
classical protocol, even if the latter is allowed bounded error and two-way communication. When
restricted to finite fields, Sun and Wang [32] studied quantum/classical communication complexity
of matrix singularity and determinant computation problems. Their results suggest that there is
no exponential quantum speedup for those problems in terms of dimension.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Communication complexity
Communication complexity has been studied extensively in the field of classical and quantum
computing [6,21,36,38,39]. It usually deals with the following type of problem. Suppose there are
two separated parties: Alice and Bob. Alice receives some input x∈Xand Bob receives some input
y∈Y. Their goal is to compute f(x, y) together using as little communication as possible. We
usually assume that Alice and Bob have unlimited computational power so that they can perform
any computation as efficiently as they want. The measure of complexity used is the amount of
communication required to solve the problem. All other non-communication operations are treated
as free. A protocol is an algorithm where first Alice does some individual computation, and then
sends a quantum/classical message to Bob, then Bob does some individual computation and sends
a quantum/classical message to Alice, etc. In the end, one of the parties outputs some value that
should be f(x, y). A quantum message usually refers to a quantum state. The cost of sending a
quantum state is described by the number of qubits the quantum state occupies. In contrast, the
cost of sending a classical message is the number of bits the message uses.
The cost of a protocol is the total number of bits/qubits communicated on the worst-case input.
We are more concerned about the minimal amount of communication they need. A deterministic
protocol for falways has to output the right value f(x, y) for all (x, y). In a bounded-error protocol,
the protocol has to output the right value f(x, y) with probability at least 2/3 for all (x, y). In
the randomised model, Alice and Bob share an unlimited supply of uniformly random bits, which
they can use in deciding what messages to send. Also, an error is allowed in randomised protocols,
which means the output of the protocol is correct with probability at least 2/3. In this work, in
5