Results 1  10
of
193
Quantum walk algorithms for element distinctness
 In: 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, OCT 1719, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA
, 2004
"... We use quantum walks to construct a new quantum algorithm for element distinctness and its generalization. For element distinctness (the problem of finding two equal items among N given items), we get an O(N 2/3) query quantum algorithm. This improves the previous O(N 3/4) quantum algorithm of Buhrm ..."
Abstract

Cited by 174 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We use quantum walks to construct a new quantum algorithm for element distinctness and its generalization. For element distinctness (the problem of finding two equal items among N given items), we get an O(N 2/3) query quantum algorithm. This improves the previous O(N 3/4) quantum algorithm of Buhrman et al. [11] and matches the lower bound by [1]. We also give an O(N k/(k+1) ) query quantum algorithm for the generalization of element distinctness in which we have to find k equal items among N items. 1
Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem
 PROCEEDINGS OF SODA’05
, 2005
"... We present two new quantum algorithms that either find a triangle (a copy of K3) in an undirected graph G on n nodes, or reject if G is triangle free. The first algorithm uses combinatorial ideas with Grover Search and makes Õ(n10/7) queries. The second algorithm uses Õ(n13/10) queries, and it is b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 94 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present two new quantum algorithms that either find a triangle (a copy of K3) in an undirected graph G on n nodes, or reject if G is triangle free. The first algorithm uses combinatorial ideas with Grover Search and makes Õ(n10/7) queries. The second algorithm uses Õ(n13/10) queries, and it is based on a design concept of Ambainis [6] that incorporates the benefits of quantum walks into Grover search [18]. The first algorithm uses only O(log n) qubits in its quantum subroutines, whereas the second one uses O(n) qubits. The Triangle Problem was first treated in [12], where an algorithm with O(n + √ nm) query complexity was presented, where m is the number of edges of G.
Polynomial degree vs. quantum query complexity
 Proceedings of FOCS’03
"... The degree of a polynomial representing (or approximating) a function f is a lower bound for the quantum query complexity of f. This observation has been a source of many lower bounds on quantum algorithms. It has been an open problem whether this lower bound is tight. We exhibit a function with pol ..."
Abstract

Cited by 81 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The degree of a polynomial representing (or approximating) a function f is a lower bound for the quantum query complexity of f. This observation has been a source of many lower bounds on quantum algorithms. It has been an open problem whether this lower bound is tight. We exhibit a function with polynomial degree M and quantum query complexity Ω(M 1.321...). This is the first superlinear separation between polynomial degree and quantum query complexity. The lower bound is shown by a new, more general version of quantum adversary method. 1
Quantum Algorithms for Element Distinctness
 SIAM Journal of Computing
, 2001
"... We present several applications of quantum amplitude amplification to finding claws and collisions in ordered or unordered functions. Our algorithms generalize those of Brassard, Høyer, and Tapp, and imply an O(N 3/4 log N) quantum upper bound for the element distinctness problem in the comparison c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 75 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present several applications of quantum amplitude amplification to finding claws and collisions in ordered or unordered functions. Our algorithms generalize those of Brassard, Høyer, and Tapp, and imply an O(N 3/4 log N) quantum upper bound for the element distinctness problem in the comparison complexity model. This contrasts with Θ(N log N) classical complexity. We also prove a lower bound of Ω ( √ N) comparisons for this problem and derive bounds for a number of related problems. 1
Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem
, 2002
"... The collision problem is to decide whether a function X : . . . , n} is onetoone or twotoone, given that one of these is the case. We show a lower bound of on the number of queries needed by a quantum computer to solve this problem with bounded error probability. The best known upper bou ..."
Abstract

Cited by 68 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The collision problem is to decide whether a function X : . . . , n} is onetoone or twotoone, given that one of these is the case. We show a lower bound of on the number of queries needed by a quantum computer to solve this problem with bounded error probability. The best known upper bound is O , but obtaining any lower bound better than# (1) was an open problem since 1997. Our proof uses the polynomial method augmented by some new ideas. We also give a lower bound for the problem of deciding whether two sets are equal or disjoint on a constant fraction of elements. Finally we give implications of these results for quantum complexity theory.
Quantum query complexity of some graph problems
 Proceedings of the 31st International Colloquium on Automata, Lanaguages, and Programming
, 2004
"... Quantum algorithms for graph problems are considered, both in the adjacency matrix model and in an adjacency listlike array model. We give almost tight lower and upper bounds for the bounded error quantum query complexity of Connectivity, Strong Connectivity, Minimum Spanning Tree, and Single Sourc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 58 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Quantum algorithms for graph problems are considered, both in the adjacency matrix model and in an adjacency listlike array model. We give almost tight lower and upper bounds for the bounded error quantum query complexity of Connectivity, Strong Connectivity, Minimum Spanning Tree, and Single Source Shortest Paths. For example we show that the query complexity of Minimum Spanning Tree is in Θ(n 3/2) in the matrix model and in Θ ( √ nm) in the array model, while the complexity of Connectivity is also in Θ(n 3/2) in the matrix model, but in Θ(n) in the array model. The upper bounds utilize search procedures for finding minima of functions under various conditions.
NPcomplete problems and physical reality
 ACM SIGACT News Complexity Theory Column, March. ECCC
, 2005
"... Can NPcomplete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantummechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Mal ..."
Abstract

Cited by 55 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Can NPcomplete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantummechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, MalamentHogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and “anthropic computing. ” The section on soap bubbles even includes some “experimental ” results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NPcomplete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics. 1
Quantum search on boundederror inputs
 In Proc. of 30th ICALP
, 2003
"... Abstract. Suppose we have n algorithms, quantum or classical, each computing some bitvalue with bounded error probability. We describe a quantum algorithm that uses O ( √ n) repetitions of the base algorithms and with high probability finds the index of a 1bit among these n bits (if there is such ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Suppose we have n algorithms, quantum or classical, each computing some bitvalue with bounded error probability. We describe a quantum algorithm that uses O ( √ n) repetitions of the base algorithms and with high probability finds the index of a 1bit among these n bits (if there is such an index). This shows that it is not necessary to first significantly reduce the error probability in the base algorithms to O(1/poly(n)) (which would require O ( √ nlog n) repetitions in total). Our technique is a recursive interleaving of amplitude amplification and errorreduction, and may be of more general interest. Essentially, it shows that quantum amplitude amplification can be made to work also with a boundederror verifier. As a corollary we obtain optimal quantum upper bounds of O ( √ N) queries for all constantdepth ANDOR trees on N variables, improving upon earlier upper bounds of O ( √ Npolylog(N)). 1
All quantum adversary methods are equivalent
 THEORY OF COMPUTING
, 2006
"... The quantum adversary method is one of the most versatile lowerbound methods for quantum algorithms. We show that all known variants of this method are equivalent: spectral adversary (Barnum, Saks, and Szegedy, 2003), weighted adversary (Ambainis, 2003), strong weighted adversary (Zhang, 2005), an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 50 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The quantum adversary method is one of the most versatile lowerbound methods for quantum algorithms. We show that all known variants of this method are equivalent: spectral adversary (Barnum, Saks, and Szegedy, 2003), weighted adversary (Ambainis, 2003), strong weighted adversary (Zhang, 2005), and the Kolmogorov complexity adversary (Laplante and Magniez, 2004). We also present a few new equivalent formulations of the method. This shows that there is essentially one quantum adversary method. From our approach, all known limitations of these versions of the quantum adversary method easily follow.