Advertisement

Quantum Information Processing

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1227–1247 | Cite as

Analysis of quantum particle automata for solving the density classification problem

  • Tina Yu
  • Radel Ben-Av
Article
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

To advance our understanding of quantum cellular automata in problem solving through parallel and distributed computing, this research quantized the density classification problem and adopted the quantum particle automata (QPA) to solve the quantized problem. In order to solve this problem, the QPA needed a unitary operator to carry out the QPA evolution and a boundary partition to make the classification decisions. We designed a genetic algorithm (GA) to search for the unitary operators and the boundary partitions to classify the density of binary inputs with length 5. The GA was able to find more than one unitary operator that can transform the QPA in ways such that when the particle was measured, it was more likely to collapse to the basis states that were on the correct side of the boundary partition for the QPA to decide whether the binary input had majority density 0 or majority density 1. We analyzed these solutions and found that the QPA evolution dynamic was driven by a particular parameter \(\theta \) of the unitary operator: A small \(\theta \) gave the particle small mass hence fast evolution, while large \(\theta \) had the opposite effect. While these results are encouraging, scaling these solutions for binary inputs of arbitrary length of \(n\) requires additional analysis, which we will investigate in our future work.

Keywords

Quantum cellular automata Partitioned cellular automata Quantum particle automata Density classification problem Genetic algorithms Quantum simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. David Meyer for his comments and suggestions on this research. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments to improve this paper. Tina also thanks Department of Mathematics at the University of California San Diego for their help during her visit working on this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Andre, D., Bennett, F.H. III, Koza, J.R.: Discovery by genetic programming of a cellular automata rule that is better than any known rule for the majority classification problem. In: Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, pp. 3–11 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Capcarrere, M.S., Sipper, M., Tomassini, M.: Two-state, r = 1 cellular automaton that classifies density. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(24), 4969–4971 (1996)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deutsch, D.: Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 400, 97–117 (1985)CrossRefADSMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feynman, R.P.: Quantum mechanical computers. Optics News, pp. 11–20, February (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gach, P., Kurdyumov, G.L., Levin, L.A.: One-dimensional uniform arrays that wash out finite islands. Probl. Pereda. Inf. 14(3), 92–98 (1978)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. ISBN: 0-201-15767-5 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray, F.: Pulse code communication, U.S. Patent 2,632,058, March 17 (1953)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grössing, G., Zeilinger, A.: Quantum cellular automata. Complex Syst. 2, 197–208 (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. MIT Press, Boston, MA (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koza, J.: Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Boston, MA (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Land, M., Belew, R.K.: No perfect two-state cellular automate for density classification exists. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(25), 5148–5150 (1995)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer, D.: From quantum cellular automata to quantum lattice gases. J. Stat. Phys. 85(5–6), 554–574 (1996)ADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell, M., Crutchfield, J.P., Hraber, P.T.: Evolving cellular automata to perform computations: mechanisms and impediments. Phys. D 75, 361–391 (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Packard, N.H.: Adaptation toward the edge of chaos. In: Kelso, J.A.S., Mandell, A.J., Shlesinger, M.F. (eds.) Dynamic Patterns in Complex Systems, pp. 293–301. World Scientific, Singapore (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toffoli, T., Margolus, N.H.: Invertible cellular automata: a review. Phys. D 45(1–2), 229–253 (1990)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watrous, J.: On one-dimensional quantum cellular automata. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 528–537, October (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolfram, S.: Statistical mechanics of cellular automata. Rev. Mod. Phys. 55(3), 601–644 (1983)CrossRefADSMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Del MarUSA
  2. 2.Software Engineering DepartmentAzrieli College of Engineering JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations