Reflections for quantum query algorithms

Proceedings of the Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 560-569

  Reichardt, Ben W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINUOUS TIME SYSTEMS; QUANTUM THEORY;

GENERAL ADVERSARY; INDEPENDENT REFLECTIONS; QUANTUM ALGORITHMS; QUANTUM QUERY ALGORITHM; QUANTUM QUERY COMPLEXITY; QUERY COMPLEXITY; READ-ONCE FORMULAS; SEMI-DEFINITE PROGRAM (SDP);

BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS;

EID: 79955730101     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1137/1.9781611973082.44     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. Scott Aaronson. BQP and the polynomial hierarchy. In Proc. 42nd ACM STOC, pages 141-150, 2010, arXiv:0910.4698 [quant-ph].
2. Scott Aaronson and Andris Ainbainis. The need for structure in quantum speedups. 2009, arXiv:0911.0996.
3. Andris Ambainis. Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 64:750-767, 2002, arXiv:quant-ph/0002066. Earlier version in STOC'OO. (Pubitemid 41161934)
4. Andris Ambainis. Polynomial degree vs. quantum query complexity. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 72(2):220-238, 2006, quant-ph/0305028. Earlier version in FOCS'03. (Pubitemid 43255274)
5. Andris Ambainis. A nearly optimal discrete query quantum algorithm for evaluating NAND formulas. 2007, arXiv:0704.3628 [quant-ph].
6. 1/2+o(1) on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput., 39(6):2513- 2530, 2010. Earlier version in FOCS'07.
7. Howard Barnum and Michael Saks. A lower bound on the quantum query complexity of read-once functions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 69(2):244-258, 2004, quant-ph/0201007.
8. Howard Barnum, Michael Saks, and Mario Szegedy. Quantum query complexity and semidefinite programming. In Proc. 18th IEEE Complexity, pages 179-193, 2003.
9. Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. J. ACM, 48(4):778-797, 2001, quant- ph/9802049. Earlier version in FOCS'98.
10. Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani. Quantum complexity theory. SIAM J. Comput., 26(5):1411-1473, 1997. Earlier version in STOC'93. (Pubitemid 127613098)
11. Michel Boyer, Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp. Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortschritte der Physik, 46(4-5):493-505, 1998. quant-ph/9605034. (Pubitemid 128186540)
12. Harry Buhrman, Ilan Newman, Hein Röhrig, and Ronald de Wolf. Robust polynomials and quantum algorithms. In Proc. 22nd STACS, LNCS vol. 3404, pages 593-604, 2005, arXiv:quant-ph/0309220. (Pubitemid 41241280)
13. Harry Buhrman and Ronald de Wolf. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science, 288(1):21-43, 2002.
14. Richard Cleve, Daniel Gottesman, Michele Mosca, Rolando D. Somma, and David L, Yonge-Mallo. Efficient discrete-time simulations of continuous-time quantum query algorithms. In Proc. 41st ACM STOC, pages 409-416, 2009, arXiv:0811.4428 [quant-ph].
15. Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann, A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree. Theory of Computing, 4:169-190, 2008, quant-ph/0702144.
16. Uriel Feige, Prabhakar Raghavan, David Peleg, and Eli Upfal. Computing with noisy information. SIAM J. Comput., 23(5):1001-1018, 1994. Earlier version in STOC'90.
17. Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proc. 28th ACM STOC, pages 212-219, 1996, arXiv:quant-ph/9605043.
18. Rafi Heiman and Avi Wigderson. Randomized vs. deterministic decision tree complexity for read-once boolean functions. Computational Complexity, 1(4):311- 329, 1991.
19. Peter Høyer, Troy Lee, and Robert Špalek. Negative weights make adversaries stronger. In Proc. 39th ACM STOC, pages 526-535, 2007, arXiv:quant-ph/0611054. (Pubitemid 47630772)
20. Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum search on bounded-error inputs. In Proc. 30th ICALP, pages 291-299, 2003, LNCS 2719. arXiv:quant-ph/0304052.
21. Peter Høyer and Robert Špalek. Lower bounds on quantum query complexity. EATCS Bulletin, 87:78- 103, October 2005, arXiv:quant-ph/ 0509153.
22. Camille Jordan. Essai sur la géométrie à n dimensions. Bulletin de la S. M. F., 3:103-174, 1875.
23. Mauricio Karchmer and Avi Wigderson. On span programs. In Proc. 8th IEEE Symp. Structure in Complexity Theory, pages 102-111, 1993. (Pubitemid 23688021)
24. Sophie Laplante, Troy Lee, and Mario Szegedy. The quantum adversary method and classical formula size lower bounds. Computational Complexity, 15:163-196, 2006, arXiv:quant-ph/0501057. Earlier version in Complexity'05. (Pubitemid 43938399)
25. Sophie Laplante and Frédéric Magniez. Lower bounds for randomized and quantum query complexity using Kolmogorov arguments. In Proc. 19th IEEE Complexity, pages 294-304, 2004, arXiv:quant-ph/0311189.
26. Troy Lee, Rajat Mittal, Ben W. Reichardt, and Robert Špalek. The witness size semi-definite program. In preparation, 2010.
27. Chris Marriott and John Watrous. Quantum Arthur-Merlin games. Computational Complexity, 14(2): 122152, 2005, arXivxs/0506068 [cs.CC].
28. Daniel Nagaj, Pawel Wocjan, and Yong Zhang. Fast amplification of QMA. Quantum Inf. Comput., 9:1053-1068, 2009, arXiv:0904.1549 [quant-ph].
29. Ben W. Reichardt. Faster quantum algorithm for evaluating game trees. To appear in SODA'11, 2011. arXiv:0907.1623 [quant-ph].
30. Ben W. Reichardt. Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating unbalanced formulas. 2009, arXiv:0907.1622 [quant-ph].
31. Ben W. Reichardt. Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every boolean function. 2009, arXiv:0904.2759 [quant-ph]. Extended abstract in Proc. 50th IEEE FOCS, pages 544-551, 2009.
32. Ben W. Reichardt. Least span program witness size equals the general adversary lower bound on quantum query complexity. Technical Report TR10-075, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, http://eccc.hpi-web.de, 2010.
33. Ben W. Reichardt. Span programs and quantum query algorithms. Technical Report TRIO-110, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, http://eccc.hpi-web.de, 2010.
34. Ben W. Reichardt and Robert Spalek. Span-program- based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas. In Proc. 40th ACM STOC, pages 103-112, 2008, arXiv:0710.2630 [quant-ph].
35. Michael Saks and Avi Wigderson. Probabilistic Boolean decision trees and the complexity of evaluating game trees. In Proc. 27th IEEE FOCS, pages 29-38, 1986. (Pubitemid 17535945)
36. Miklos Santha. On the Monte Carlo decision tree complexity of read-once formulae. Random Structures and Algorithms, 6(1):75-87, 1995. Earlier version in Proc. 6th IEEE Structure in Complexity Theory, 1991.
37. Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput., 26(5):1484-1509, 1997, arXiv:quant-ph/0508027. Earlier version in FOCS'94,. (Pubitemid 127613100)
38. Daniel R. Simon. On the power of quantum computation. SIAM J. Computing, 26(5):1474- 1483, 1997. Earlier version in FOCS'94. (Pubitemid 127613099)
39. Marc Snir. Lower bounds on probabilistic linear decision trees. Theoretical Computer Science, 38:69-82, 1985. (Pubitemid 15584051)
40. Robert Špalek and Mario Szegedy. All quantum adversary methods are equivalent. Theory of Computing, 2(1):1-18, 2006. Earlier version in ICALP'05.
41. Mario Szegedy. On the quantum query complexity of detecting triangles in graphs. 2003, arXiv:quant-ph/0310107.
42. Mario Szegedy. Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms. In Proc. 45th IEEE FOCS, pages 32-41, 2004. (Pubitemid 40575264)
43. Shengyu Zhang. On the power of Ambainis's lower bounds. Theoretical Computer Science, 339(2-3):241- 256, 2005. Earlier version in ICALP'04.