Advertisement

Abstract

The complexity class NP is quintessential and ubiquitous in theoretical computer science. Two different approaches have been made to define “Quantum NP,” the quantum analogue of NP: NQP by Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang, and QMA by Knill, Kitaev, and Watrous. From an operator point of view, NP can be viewed as the result of the ∃-operator applied to P. Recently, Green, Homer, Moore, and Pollett proposed its quantum version, called the N-operator, which is an abstraction of NQP. This paper introduces the ∃Q-operator, which is an abstraction of QMA, and its complement, the ∀Q-operator. These operators not only define Quantum NP but also build a quantum hierarchy, similar to the Meyer-Stockmeyer polynomial hierarchy, based on two-sided bounded-error quantum computation.

Keywords

quantum quantifier quantum operator quantum polynomial hierarchy 

References

  1. [1]
    L. M. Adleman, J. DeMarrais, and M. A. Huang. Quantum computability, SIAM J. Comput. 26 (1997), 1524–1540.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Beals, H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, M. Mosca, and R. de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials, in Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 352–361, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing, SIAM J. Comput. 26 (1997), 1510–1523.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory, SIAM J. Comput. 26 (1997), 1411–1473.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Du and K. Ko. Theory of Computational Complexity, John Wiley Si Sons, Inc., 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Fenner, F. Green, S. Homer, and R. Pruim. Determining acceptance probability for a quantum computation is hard for the polynomial hierarchy, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Ser.A, 455 (1999), 3953–3966.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Fortnow and J. Rogers. Complexity limitations on quantum computation, J. Comput. System Sci. 59 (1999), 240–252.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Green, S. Homer, C. Moore, and C. Pollett. Counting, fanout, and the complexity of quantum ACC, Quantum Information and Computation, 2 (2002), 35–65.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Kitaev. “Quantum NP”, Public Talk at AQIP’99: the 2nd Workshop on Algorithms in Quantum Information Processing, DePaul University, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Knill. Quantum randomness and nondeterminism, Technical Report LAUR96–2186, 1996. See also LANL quant-ph/9610012.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. Ko. Separating and collapsing results on the relativized probabilistic polynomial-time hierarchy, J. ACM 37 (1990), 415–438.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Kobayashi, K. Matsumoto, and T. Yamakami. Quantum Merlin Arthur proof systems, manuscript, 2001. See also LANL quant-ph/0110006.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. R. Meyer and L. J. Stockmeyer. The equivalence problem for regular expressions with squaring requires exponential time, in Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pp. 125–129, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    U. Schöning. Probabilistic complexity classes and lowness, J. Comput. System and Sci. 39 (1989), 84–100.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. Wagner. The complexity of combinatorial problems with succinct input representation, Acta Inf. 23 (1986), 325–356.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Watrous. Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups, in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 537–546, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    T. Yamakami. A foundation of programming a multi-tape quantum Turing machine, in Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundation of Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.1672, pp. 430–441, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    T. Yamakami. Analysis of quantum functions, in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.1738, pp. 407–419, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    T. Yamakami. Quantum optimization problems, manuscript, 2002. See LANL quant-ph/0204010.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T. Yamakami and A. C. Yao. NQPC = co-C=P, Inf. Process. Let. 71 (1999), 63–69.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoyuki Yamakami
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations