Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantum advantage in deciding NP-complete problems

  • Published:
Quantum Information Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Grover’s unstructured quantum search algorithm gives a quadratic speedup over classical linear search, provided that multiple accesses to the oracle are possible. In this paper, we show that in dealing with NP-complete decision-version problems, the quantum computing paradigm still outperforms classical computation, even if only one invocation of the oracle is allowed. The superiority of the quantum approach under such a restrictive condition can often be maintained even if a simple measurement strategy is chosen. A quantum decider utilizing only Hadamard gates and measurements in the computational basis has a better chance of discriminating between a problem with solution(s) and one without, when compared to the best separation achieved by a classical decider. In addition, the simple quantum measurement strategy is remarkably close to the optimal discriminating measurement, which itself is considerably more complex to devise and implement. If we further require the decider to be unambiguous (any definitive answer must be error-free), then a general positive operator-valued measurement can be devised to classify a problem as unsolvable, with some probability, after one consultation of the oracle. Such a feature remains impossible for a classical decider, even after any less than exhaustive oracle invocations. The inherent probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics seems to be at the heart of the advantage quantum computing exhibits over classical computation, in the context of deciding NP-complete problems based on a single oracle query.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Barnett, S., Croke, S.: Quantum state discrimination. Adv. Opt. Photonics 1 (2008)

  2. Bergou, J.A., Herzog, U., Hillery, M.: Optimal unambiguous filtering of a quantum state: an instance in mixed state discrimination. Phys. Rev. A 71, 42314 (2005)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chefles, A.: Unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent quantum states. Phys. Lett. A 239(6), 339–347 (1998)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Chefles, A.: Unambiguous discrimination between linearly dependent states with multiple copies. Phys. Rev. A (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062305

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Chefles, A., Barnett, S.M.: Optimum unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent symmetric states. Phys. Lett. A 250(4), 223–229 (1998)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dieks, D.: Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states. Phys. Lett. A 126(5), 303–306 (1988)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Eldar, Y.: A semidefinite programming approach to optimal unambiguous discrimination of quantum states. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 49(2), 446–456 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Grover, L.K.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 212–219. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 22–24 May 1996 (1996)

  9. Helstrom, C.W.: Quantum detection and estimation theory. J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231–252 (1969)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Herzog, U., Bergou, J.A.: Optimum unambiguous discrimination of two mixed quantum states. Phys. Rev. A 71, 050301 (2005)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Herzog, U., Bergou, J.: Distinguishing mixed quantum states: minimum-error discrimination versus optimum unambiguous discrimination. Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004)

  12. Holevo, A.S.: Statistical decision theory for quantum systems. J. Multivar. Anal. 3, 337–394 (1973)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Ivanovic, I.: How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. Phys. Lett. A 123(6), 257–259 (1987)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaeger, G., Shimony, A.: Optimal distinction between two non-orthogonal quantum states. Phys. Lett. A 197, 83–87 (1995)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Peres, A.: How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. Phys. Lett. A 128(1), 19 (1988)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Peres, A., Terno, D.R.: Optimal distinction between non-orthogonal quantum states. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 31(34), 7105–7111 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/31/34/013

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rudolph, T., Spekkens, R.W., Turner, P.S.: Unambiguous discrimination of mixed states. Phys. Rev. A (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.010301

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun, Y., Bergou, J.A., Hillery, M.: Optimum unambiguous discrimination between subsets of nonorthogonal quantum states. Phys. Rev. A 66, 032315 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun, Y., Hillery, M., Bergou, J.A.: Optimum unambiguous discrimination between linearly independent nonorthogonal quantum states and its optical realization. Phys. Rev. A 64, 022311 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022311

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computer Engineering and Science, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Azeziya, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

    Marius Nagy

  2. Department of Networks and Communications, College of Computer Science and Information Technology, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, 31441, Saudi Arabia

    Naya Nagy

Authors
  1. Marius Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naya Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marius Nagy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagy, M., Nagy, N. Quantum advantage in deciding NP-complete problems. Quantum Inf Process 22, 133 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-03889-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-03889-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation