Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem

SIAM Journal on Computing

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 413-424

  Magniez, Frédéric ^a   Santha, Miklos ^a   Szegedy, Mario ^b  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

05C85; 68R10; 68W99

Indexed keywords

GRAPH THEORY; PROBLEM SOLVING; QUANTUM THEORY; QUERY PROCESSING;

GROVER SEARCH; QUANTUM ALGORITHMS; QUANTUM WALKS; TRIANGLE PROBLEMS;

ALGORITHMS;

EID: 38549152759     PISSN: 00975397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1137/050643684     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. S. AARONSON AND Y. SHI, Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems, J. ACM, 51 (2004), pp. 595-605.
2. D. AHARONOV, A. AMBAINIS, J. KEMPE, AND U. VAZIRANI, Quantum walks on graphs, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2001, pp. 50-59.
3. N. ALON, R. YUSTER, AND U. ZWICK, Finding and counting given length cycles, Algorithmica, 17 (1997), pp. 209-223.
4. A. AMBAINIS, Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments, J. Comput. System Sci., 64 (2002), pp. 750-767.
5. A. AMBAINIS, Polynomial degree vs. quantum query complexity, J. Comput. System Sci., 72 (2006), pp. 220-238.
6. A. AMBAINIS, Quantum walk algorithrn for element distinctness, in Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2004, pp. 22-31.
7. A. AMBAINIS, E. BACH, A. NAYAK, A. VISHWANATH, AND J. WATROUS, One-dimensional quantum walks, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2001, pp. 37-49.
8. H. BARNUM, M. SAKS, AND M. SZEGEDY, Quantum decision trees and semidefinite programming, in Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2003, pp. 179-193.
9. R. BEALS. H. BUHRMAN, R. CLEVE, M. MOSCA, AND R. DE WOLF, Quantum lower bounds by polynomials, J. ACM, 48 (2001), pp. 778-797.
10. G. BRASSARD. P. HøYER, M. MOSCA, AND A. TAPP, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, in Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A Millennium Volume, Contemp. Math. 305, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002, pp. 53-74.
11. H. BUHRMAN, R. CLEVE, R. DE WOLF, AND C. ZALKA, Bounds for small-error and zero-error quantum algorithms, in 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1999, pp. 358-368.
12. H. BUHRMAN, C. DÜRR. M. HEILIGMAN. P. HØYER, F. MAGNIEZ, M. SANTHA, AND R. DE WOLF, Quantum algorithms for element distinctness, SIAM J. Comput., 34 (2005), pp. 1324-1330.
13. A. CHAKRABARTI AND S. KHOT, Improved lower bounds on the randomized complexity of graph properties, in Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 2076, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, pp. 285-296.
14. A. CHILDS AND J. EISENBERG, Quantum Algorithms for Subset Finding, Tech. report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2003; available online from http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ 0311038.
15. D. DEUTSCH, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97-117.
16. D. DEUTSCH AND R. JOZSA, Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 439 (1992), pp. 553-558.
17. M. ETTINGER, P. HOYER. AND E. KNILL, The quantum query complexity of the hidden subgroup problem is polynomial, Inform. Process. Lett., 91 (2004), pp. 43-48.
18. L. GROVER, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1996, pp. 212-219.
19. 4/3 lower bound on the randomized complexity of graph properties, Combinatorica, 11 (1991), pp. 131-143.
20. A. KITAEV, A. SHEN, AND M. VYALYI, Classical and Quantum Computation, Grad. Stud. Math. 47, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002.
21. S. LAPLANTE AND F. MAGNIEZ, Lower bounds for randomized and quantum query complexity using Kolmogorov arguments, in Proceedings of 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004, pp. 214-304.
22. M. NIELSEN AND I. CHUANG, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.
23. R. RIVEST AND J. VUILLEMIN, On recognizing graph properties from adjacency matrices, Theoret. Comput. Sci., 3 (1976), pp. 371-384.
24. A. ROSENBERG, On the time required to recognize properties of graphs: A problem, SIGACT News, 5 (1973), pp. 15-16.
25. D. R. SIMON, On the power of quantum computation, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1474-1483.
26. R. ŠPALEK AND M. SZFXIEDY, All quantum adversary methods are equivalent, in Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3580, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, pp. 1299-1311.
27. M. SZEGEDV, On the Quantum Query Complexity of Detecting Triangles in Graphs, Tech. report, 2003; available online from http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310107.
28. E. SZEMERÉDI, Regular partitions of graphs, in Problèmes combinatoires et théorie des graphes (1976), Colloq. Internat. CNRS 260, CNRS, Paris, 1978, pp. 399-401.
29. J. WATROUS, Quantum simulations of classical random walks and undirected graph connectivity, J. Comput. System Sci., 62 (2001), pp. 376-391.
30. A. YAO, Lower bounds to randomized algorithms for graph properties, J. Comput. System Sci., 42 (1991), pp. 267-287.
31. A. YAO, private communication, 2003.
32. S. ZHANG, On the power of Ambainis's lower bounds, in Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3142, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, pp. 1238-1250.