Advertisement

Recent Developments in Quantum Algorithms and Complexity

  • Andris Ambainis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8614)

Abstract

We survey several recent developments in quantum algorithms and complexity:
  • Reichardt’s characterization of quantum query algorithms via span programs [15];

  • New bounds on the number of queries that are necessary for simulating a quantum algorithm that makes a very small number of queries [2];

  • Exact quantum algorithms with superlinear advantage over the best classical algorithm [4].

Keywords

Boolean Function Quantum Algorithm Query Model Classical Query Quantum Query Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaronson, S.: BQP and the Polynomial Hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 2010), pp. 141–150 (2010); Also arXiv:0910.4698Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaronson, S., Ambainis, A.: Forrelation: a problem capturing the power of quantum algorithms. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambainis, A.: Quantum Lower Bounds by Quantum Arguments. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 64(4), 750–767 (2002) Also quant-ph/0002066Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambainis, A.: Superlinear advantage for exact quantum algorithms. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 2013), pp. 891–890 (2013); Also arXiv:1211.0721Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambainis, A., Gruska, J., Zheng, S.: Exact query complexity of some special classes of Boolean functions. arXiv:1404.1684Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ambainis, A., Iraids, J., Smotrovs, J.: Exact Quantum Query Complexity of EXACT and THRESHOLD. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2013), pp. 263–269 (2013); Also arXiv:1302.1235Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambainis, A., Childs, A., Reichardt, B., Spalek, R., Zhang, S.: Any AND-OR formula of size N can be evaluated in time N 1/2 + o(1) on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(6), 2513–2530 (2010); Also FOCS 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belovs, A.: Span programs for functions with constant-sized 1-certificates: extended abstract. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 2012), pp. 77–84 (2012); Also arXiv:1103.0842Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belovs, A.: Learning-Graph-Based Quantum Algorithm for k-Distinctness. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2012), pp. 207–216 (2012); Also arXiv:1205.1534Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buhrman, H., de Wolf, R.: Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: a survey. Theoretical Computer Science 288(1), 21–43 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutman, S.: A Quantum Algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND Tree. Theory of Computing 4(1), 169–190 (2008); Also quant-ph/0702144Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grover, L.: A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 1996), pp. 212–219 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Høyer, P., Lee, T., Špalek, R.: Negative weights make adversaries stronger. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 2007), pp. 526–535 (2007); Also quant-ph/0611054Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magniez, F., Nayak, A., Santha, M., Sherman, J., Tardos, G., Xiao, D.: Improved bounds for the randomized decision tree complexity of recursive majority. arXiv:1309.7565. Earlier version: ICALP 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reichardt, B.: Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every boolean function. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2009), pp. 544–551 (2009); Also arXiv:0904.2759Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reichardt, B.: Reflections for quantum query algorithms. In: Proceedings of SIAM-ACM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2011), pp. 560–569 (2011); Also arXiv:1005.1601Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reichardt, B., Špalek, R.: Span-Program-Based Quantum Algorithm for Evaluating Formulas. Theory of Computing 8(1), 291–319 (2012); Also arXiv:0710.2630Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simon, D.: On the Power of Quantum Computation. SIAM Journal on Computing 26(5), 1474–1483 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shor, P.: Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. SIAM Journal on Computing 26(5), 1484–1509 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andris Ambainis
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ComputingUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations