Quantum speedup of classical mixing processes

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2007, Pages

  Richter, Peter C ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION ALGORITHMS; DIMERS; ENERGY GAP; MARKOV PROCESSES; MIXING; MONOMERS;

LOGARITHMIC FACTOR; QUANTUM WALKS; SPECTRAL GAP;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 34948855496     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042306     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. M. Jerrum, A. Sinclair, and E. Vigoda, J. ACM 51, 671 (2004). 0004-5411
2. M. Dyer, A. Frieze, and R. Kannan, J. ACM 38, 1 (1991). 0004-5411
3. M. Jerrum and A. Sinclair, SIAM J. Comput. SMJCAT 0097-5397 10.1137/0218077 18, 1149 (1989).
4. M. Jerrum and A. Sinclair, SIAM J. Comput. SMJCAT 0097-5397 10.1137/0222066 22, 1087 (1993).
5. D. Aldous, J. London Math. Soc. 25 (3), 564 (1982). 0024-6107
6. We say that f (n) =Ω (g (n)) if g (n) =O (f (n)), and f (n) =Θ (g (n)) if f (n) =O (g (n)) and f (n) =Ω (g (n)).
7. F. Chen, L. Lovasz, and I. Pak, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1999).
8. A. Nayak and A. Vishwanath, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0010117.
9. A. Ambainis, E. Bach, A. Nayak, A. Vishwanath, and J. Watrous, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2001).
10. D. Aharonov, A. Ambainis, J. Kempe, and U. Vazirani, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC'01) (2001).
11. C. Moore and A. Russell, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (2002), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0104137.
12. H. Gerhardt and J. Watrous, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Randomization and Computation (2003), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0305182.
13. P. Richter, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/9/3/072 9, 72 (2007).
14. M. Szegedy, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (2004), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0401053.
15. L. Grover, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1996), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/9605043.
16. A. Ambainis, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (2004), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0311001.
17. F. Magniez, M. Santha, and M. Szegedy, Proceedings of the ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (2005), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0310134.
18. H. Buhrman and R. Spalek, Proceedings of the ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (2006), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0409035.
19. F. Magniez and A. Nayak, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (2005), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0506265.
20. V. Kendon and B. Tregenna, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042315 67, 042315 (2003).
21. L. Fedichkin, D. Solenov, and C. Tamon, Quantum Inf. Comput. 6, 263 (2006). 0890-5401
22. D. Solenov and L. Fedichkin, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012313 73, 012313 (2006).
23. D. Solenov and L. Fedichkin, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012308 73, 012308 (2006).
24. G. Alagic and A. Russell, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.062304 72, 062304 (2005).
25. V. Kendon, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0606016.
26. In fact this is not quite true: Kendon and Tregenna conjectured this for the discrete-time Hadamard walk. We prove it for both walks.
27. T. Mackay, S. Bartlett, L. Stephenson, and B. Sanders, J. Phys. A JPHAC5 0305-4470 10.1088/0305-4470/35/12/304 35, 2745 (2002).
28. N. Inui, Y. Konishi, and N. Konno, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.052323 69, 052323 (2004).
29. B. Tregenna, W. Flanagan, R. Maile, and V. Kendon, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/5/1/383 5, 83 (2003).
30. Alagic and Russell exhibit a decoherent quantum walk on the hypercube which converges to the uniform distribution and preserves the quantum mixing speedup proven by Moore and Russell, but in contrast to our work, it is their single (carefully chosen) final measurement that forces uniform convergence, not the decoherence itself (which only adds "noise" that if small enough does not destroy the speedup).
31. Though repeatedly measured quantum walks generate mixed states, our analysis is simplest without the introduction of density matrices. We refer the reader lacking sufficient background in quantum computing to the excellent text of Kitaev, Shen, and Vyalyi.
32. E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.915 58, 915 (1998).
33. D. Aharonov and A. Ta-Shma, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2003), e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0301023.
34. A. Childs, R. Cleve, E. Deotto, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and D. Spielman, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2003) e-print, arXiv:quant-ph/0209131.
35. J. Kempe, Contemp. Phys. CTPHAF 0010-7514 10.1080/00107151031000110776 44, 307 (2003).
36. Similarly, we can retrieve a good approximation to π by generating and then measuring a good approximation to the ground state |π = xS π (x) |x of the Hamiltonian H=DP D-1.
37. F. Magniez, A. Nayak, J. Roland, and M. Santha, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2007) e-print, arXiv:quant-ph/0608026.
38. A. Childs, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 2004.
39. For a walk on the symmetric group Sn, Gerhardt and Watrous showed that 1 2 Π-u 1† 1 1 n - 1 nn! (2n-2 n-1); for a walk on the hypercube Z2n, Moore and Russell showed that there exists an >0 such that 1 2 Π-u 1† 1 =.
40. Π is also positive semidefinite: it is the Gram matrix of { fs } with fs (kl): = s| k l |s if λk = λl, 0 otherwise.
41. For d=1 it does not; the Grover walk on Zn with measurement ω= ν̄ mixes perfectly in T=n time steps.
42. A. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. Vyalyi, Classical and Quantum Computation (AMS, Providence, RI 2002).