Adptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and arthur-merlin games

Quantum Information and Computation

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 134-145

  Terhal, Barbara M ^a   DiVincenzo, David P ^a  

^a IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Constant Depth Quantum Circuits; Quantum Computation by teleportation

Indexed keywords

TIMING CIRCUITS;

ARTHUR-MERLIN GAMES; HIGH-ACCURACY; QUANTUM CIRCUIT;

QUANTUM COMPUTERS;

EID: 2442419277     PISSN: 15337146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, G. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:1895-1899, 1993.
2. D. Gottesman and I. Chuang. Demonstrating the viability of universal quantum computation using teleportation and single qubit operations. Nature, 402(6760), pp390-393, 1999.
3. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5), pp1411-1473, 1997.
4. R. Raussendorf and H. Briegel. A one-way quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, pp5188-5191, 2001.
5. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. Milburn. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. Nature, 409, pp46-52, 2001.
6. D. Gottesman, A.Yu. Kitaev, and J. Preskill. Encoding a qubit in an oscillator. Phys. Rev. A, 64, pp012310, 2001.
7. Frederic Green, Steven Homer, Christopher Moore, and Christopher Pollett. Counting, fanout, and the complexity of quantum ACC. Quantum Information and Computation, 2(1):35-65, 2002.
8. 0. Information Processing Letters, 26, pp153-155, 1987.
9. L. Babai. Trading group theory for randomness. In Proceedings of 17th STOC, pp421-429, 1985.
10. L. Babai and S. Moran. Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system and a hierarchy of complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 36, pp254-276, 1988.
11. L. Valiant. Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time. SIAM J. Comput., 31(4), pp1229-1254, 2002.
12. C. Lautemann. BPP and the polynomial hierarchy. Information Processing Letters, 17(4), pp215-217, 1983.
13. Stephen A. Fenner, Frederic Green, Steven Homer, and Randall Pruim. Determining acceptance possibility for a quantum computation is hard for the polynomial hierarchy. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 455, pp3953-3966, 1999.
14. S. Goldwasser and M. Sipser. Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems. In Proceedings of 18th STOC, pp59-68, 1986.
15. S. Fenner, F. Green, S. Homer, and Y. Zhang. Bounds on the power of constant-depth quantum circuits. Preprint quant-ph/0312209 December 2003.
16. J. L. Carter and M. N. Wegman. Universal classes of hash functions. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences, 18(2), pp143-154, 1979.
17. S. Goldwasser and M. Sipser. Private coins versus public coins in interactive proof systems. Advances in Computing Research: a research annual, 5:73-90, 1989.