Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem-solving and Quantum Computation

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is quantum computing suitable for modelling problem-solving, a domain which is traditionally reserved for the symbolic approach? We propose a hybrid quantum problem-solving model. Our approach is motivated by several important theories from the fields of physics, computer science and psychology. We demonstrate our approach through a model for a quantum production system, based on the n-puzzle. The developed model can be extended in order to tackle any N-level depth search required by other problems. No preliminary knowledge concerning quantum computation is required.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Another possible strategy would consist in encoding each of the |S 3-puzzle|! = 4! = 24 possible board configurations. This strategy would require \(\lceil \log_{2}{24} \rceil = 5\) bits, allowing for three bits to be saved. However, such an encoding mechanism would make it harder to understand the position of each element.

  2. We could extend this gate in order to receive as an input the desired target board configuration. This addition would be carried out at a cost of 8 additional input and output bits. However, since we are aiming for design simplicity, the target board configuration will be “hard coded” into the gate. In doing so, we loose generality but gain a simpler design.

References

  1. Busemeyer JR, Wang Z, Townsend JT. Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. J Math Psychol. 2006;50(3):220– 241 (Jean-Claude Falmagne: Part II).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Busemeyer JR, Trueblood J. Comparison of Quantum and Bayesian Inference Models. In: Bruza P, Sofge D, Lawless W, van Rijsbergen K, Klusch M, editors. Quantum interaction. Volume 5494 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer; 2009. pp. 29–43. 10.1007/978-3-642-00834-4-5.

  3. Busemeyer JR, Wang Z, Lambert-Mogiliansky A. Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. J Math Psychol. 2009;53(5):423–433 (Special Issue: Quantum Cognition).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR. A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009.

  5. Trueblood J, Busemeyer JR. A comparison of the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. In: COGSCI 2010 the annual meeting of the cognitive science society; 2010. pp. 1166–1171.

  6. Luger GF, Stubblefield WA. Artificial intelligence: structures and strategies for complex problem solving: second edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc; 1993.

  7. Campbell M, Hoane Jr AJ, Hsu Fh. Deep blue. Artif Intell. 2002;134:57–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Manin YI. Classical computing, quantum computing, and Shor’s factoring algorithm. ArXiv Quantum Physics e-prints; 1999.

  9. Ying M. Quantum computation, quantum theory and AI. Artif Intell. 2010;174:162–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Post E. Formal reductions of the general combinatorial problem. Am J Math. 1943;65:197–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brownston L, Farell R, Kant E, Martin N. Programming expert systems in OPS5: an introduction to rule-based programming. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA. Report on a general problem-solving program. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information processing; 1959. pp. 256–264.

  13. Newell A. A guide to the general problem-solver program GPS-2-2. Santa Monica, CA, USA: RAND Corporation; 1963 (RM-3337-PR).

  14. Ernst GW, Newell A. GPS: a case study in generality and problem solving. USA: Academic Press; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving, 1st ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson JR. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Laird JE, Rosenbloom PS, Newell A. Chunking in soar: the anatomy of a general learning mechanism. Mach Learn. 1986;1(1):11–46.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Laird JE, Newell A, Rosenbloom PS. SOAR: an architecture for general intelligence. Artif Intell. 1987;33(1):1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Markov A (1954) A theory of algorithms. USSR: National Academy of Sciences.

  20. Turing AM. On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc Lond Math Soc. 1936;42(2):230–265

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson JR. The architecture of cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klahr P, Waterman DA. Expert systems: techniques, tools and applications. USA: Addison-Wesley; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Newell A. Unified theories of cognition. Harvard: Harvard University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hart TP, Edwards DJ. The tree prune (TP) algorithm. Artificial Intelligence project memo 30. Cambridge: Massschusetts Institute of Technology; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shor PW. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science; 1994. pp. 124–134.

  27. Grover LK. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In: STOC ’96. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 1996. pp. 212–219.

  28. Hogg T, Huberman BA, Williams CP. Phase transitions and the search problem. Artif Intell. 1996;81(1-2):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hogg T. Quantum computing and phase transitions in combinatorial search. J Artif Int Res 1996;4(1):91–128.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hogg T. A framework for structured quantum search. PHYSICA D. 1998;120:102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hogg T. Quantum search heuristics. Phys Rev A. 2000;61(5):052311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Feynman RP. Simulating physics with computers. Int J Theor Phys. 1982;21(6):467–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Feynman RP. Quantum mechanical computers. Found Phys. 1986;16(6):507–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Deutsch D. Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci. 1985;400:97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Deutsch D. Quantum computational networks. In: Proc R Soc Lond A. 1989;425:73–90.

  36. Bennett CH. Logical reversibility of computation. IBM J Res Dev. 1973;17:525–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Toffoli T. Computation and construction universality of reversible cellular automata. J Comput Syst Sci. 1977;15(2):213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Toffoli T. Reversible computing. In: Proceedings of the 7th colloquium on automata, languages and programming. London: Springer; 1980. pp. 632–644.

  39. Fredkin E, Toffoli T. Conservative logic. Int J Theor Phys. 1982;21:219–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hirvensalo M. Quantum computing. Berlin: Springer; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mano MM, Kime CR. Logic and computer design fundamentals: 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Toffoli T (1980) Reversible computing. Massschusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Computer Science.

  43. Kaye PR, Laflamme R, Mosca M. An introduction to quantum computing. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Dirac PAM. A new notation for quantum mechanics. In: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 35; 1939. pp. 416–418.

  45. Dirac PAM. The principles of quantum mechanics—volume 27 of international series of monographs on physics (Oxford, England) Oxford science publications. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hordern E. Sliding piece puzzles. Recreations in mathematics, No 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gardner M. The hypnotic fascination of sliding-block puzzles. Sci Am. 1964;210:122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hearn RA, Demaine ED. PSPACE-completeness of sliding-block puzzles and other problems through the nondeterministic constraint logic model of computation. Theor Comput Sci. 2005;343(1-2):72–96 (Game Theory Meets Theoretical Computer Science).

  49. Hearn RA. The complexity of sliding-block puzzles and plank puzzles. In: Tribute to a mathemagician. A K Peters; 2005. pp. 1–11.

  50. Tarrataca L, Wichert A. Tree search and quantum computation. Quant Inf Process. 2010;1–26. 10.1007/s11128-010-0212-z. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11128-010-0212-.

  51. Grover LK. A framework for fast quantum mechanical algorithms. In: STOC ’98. Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. New York: ACM; 1998. pp. 53–62.

  52. Chuang IL, Gershenfeld N, Kubinec M. Experimental implementation of fast quantum searching. Phys Rev Lett. 1998;80(15):3408–3411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Edmonds J. Paths, trees, and flowers. Can J Math. 1965;17:449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Grover LK. Trade-offs in the quantum search algorithm. Phys Rev A. 2002;66(5):052314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Grover LK. Fixed-point quantum search. Phys Rev Lett. 2005;95(15):150501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Grover LK. Quantum computers can search rapidly by using almost any transformation. Phys Rev Lett. 1998;80(19):4329–4332.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Grover LK. Quantum search on structured problems. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 1999;10(10):1695–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by FCT (INESC-ID multiannual funding) through the PIDDAC Program funds and FCT grant DFRH - SFRH/BD/61846/2009.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, INESC-ID / IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Luís Tarrataca & Andreas Wichert

Authors
  1. Luís Tarrataca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Wichert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Wichert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tarrataca, L., Wichert, A. Problem-solving and Quantum Computation. Cogn Comput 3, 510–524 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-011-9103-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-011-9103-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation