This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

A seminar report on :

“Quantum Structural Complexity”

Prepared by : Roll No. Class Year : : :

Durga Datta Kandel U07CO264 B.TECH. IV (Computer Engineering) 7th Semester 2010-2011 Dr. Devesh Jinwala

Guided by :

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER

ENGINEERING

SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SURAT - 395 007 (GUJARAT, INDIA)

Certificate

This is to certify that the seminar report entitled “Quantum Structural Complexity” ____________is presented by, U07CO264 , Final prepared and NO : Computer Durga Datta Kandel , bearing Roll Year of Engineering and his/her work is satisfactory.

SIGNATURE :

GUIDE

JURY

HEAD OF DEPT.

Quantum Complexity Theory………………………………………………………........17 4..2 2........ 1 Polynomial Circuit Families and BQP…………………………......12 Polynomial Time Quantum Computation………………………………15 4.3 4..... Quantum Computation: Historical Development ……………………………………1 2.....4 Definition of the subject and Importance & Importance……………….9 4.5 2...6 Quantum Algorithm……………………………………………………. Complexity Theory…………………………………………………………………........7 Complexity Models……………………………………………………..........2.........1 Definition of QMA……………………………………………........2 Qubit…………………………………………………………………….........17 5..11 4.........1 The CNOT gate…………………………………………………6 Quantum Circuits……………………………………………………….3 Quantum Gate …………………………………………………………..............1 3.......9 Computational Complexity…………………………………………….....10 3.3.1 2.11 Basic Complexity Class: Definition……………………………………. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………19 Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………20 Reference..4 3..15 Quantum Proof…………………………………………………………. Elements of Quantum Computing……………………………………………………3 2...2 4.4....3 2....1 4.....Index Title Certificate Abstract List of Figures Notation Used Acknowledgement 1............. 21 .

.. 4.3: The Hadamard Gate………………………………………………………………....List of Figures Fig.14 Fig..1} All the language over Σ A is subset of B Set A intersection Set B Set A union Set B modulus ( Length) X belongs to A Abstract . NP . 2.4 Fig...2: The CNOT Gate……………………………………………………………………5 Fig.2: Suspected relation among P.1 The Bloch Sphere …………………………………………………………………. 2.8 Fig 3..1: An example of a quantum circuit…………………………………………………10 Fig. 4. BQP and QMA…………………………….18 Notations : Pr[A] [ .] ψ i Σ Σ∗ A⊆B A∩B A∪B |x| X∈ A probability of event A reference index Quantum Stare Vector √(-1) alphabet {0.1: Relation among Complexity Class………………………………………………. 2..

Here. create unbreakable codes. Quantum effects like interference and entanglement play no direct role in conventional information processing. . Mathematics and Computer Science with profound implication to all of these. With the discovery of Shor’s Factorization Algorithm [2] and Grover's Search Algorithm [3]. Following the sequences of results [2. a great deal of attention has focused on quantum computing. but they can—in principle now. Several outstanding problems in Theoretical Computer Science can be tackled in a new approach.Quantum Computing generalizes and extend the notion of conventional computation by directly using the quantum mechanical phenomena such as entanglement and superposition to perform operation (quantum rule) on data encoded in physical system [1]. I give a brief introduction to quantum computing and track through the developments in Quantum Computational Complexity along with its implication to Computer Science. Several Important results have been found in Quantum Computational Complexity which can potentially shake the foundations of Theoretical Computer Science. and speed up otherwise intractable computations [5]. 7] suggesting that quantum computers are more powerful than classical probabilistic computers. but probably eventually in practice—be harnessed to break codes. Though practical quantum computing is still in its infancy. both practical and theoretical continues. significant interest has been drawn in the field of Quantum Computing. It has become an attractive interdisciplinary research area in Physics. 6.

thus implicitly asking the converse question: by using quantum mechanics in a computer can you compute more efficiently than on a classical computer? Deutsch [10] was the first to ask this question explicitly. These papers showed that there are problems which quantum computers can quickly solve exactly. he defined both quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits and investigated some of their properties. The first person to look at the interaction between computation and quantum mechanics appears to have been Benioff [9]. This work was fundamental in making later investigation of quantum computers possible. 1 . Feynman [8] seems to have been the first to suggest that quantum mechanics might be more powerful computationally than a Turing machine. In order to study this question. these papers did not show how to solve any problem in quantum polynomial time that was not already known to be solvable in polynomial time with the aid of a random number generator. thus showing that quantum mechanics is at least as powerful computationally as a classical computer. this isthe characterization of the complexity class BPP (defined later). allowing a small probability of error. However. he showed that reversible unitary evolution was sufficient to realize the computational power of a Turing machine. He also raised the possibility of using a computer based on quantum mechanical principles to avoid this problem. The question of whether using quantum mechanics in a computer allows one to obtain more computational power was addressed by Deutsch and Jozsa [11] and Berthiaume and Brassard [12].1 Quantum Computation: Historical Development A nice historical perspective of evolution of computational model as a physical system is given at [2]. He gave arguments as to why quantum mechanics might be intrinsically expensive computationally to simulate on a classical computer. Although he did not ask whether quantum mechanics conferred extra power to computation. which is widely viewed as the class of efficiently solvable problems. but that classical computers can only solve quickly with high probability and the aid of a random number generator.

17]. Two number theory problems which have been studied extensively but for which no polynomial-time algorithms have yet been discovered are finding discrete logarithms and factoring integers [2]. One of the results contained in their paper was an oracle problem (that is. this research does illuminate the problem of simulating quantum mechanics on a classical computer. Simon’s problem looks quite natural. Both of these obstacles become more difficult as the size of the computer grows. while scaling up to machines large enough to do interesting computations may present fundamental difficulties. and the implementation of quantum state transformations with enough precision to give accurate results after many computation steps. although it seems as though it might be possible within the laws of quantum mechanics.Further work on this problem was stimulated by Bernstein and Variani [13]. who gave a much simpler construction of an oracle problem which takes polynomial time on a quantum computer but requires exponential time on a classical computer. Some suggestions have been made as to possible designs for such computers [15]. Even if no useful quantum computer is ever built. This result was improved by Simon [14]. a problem involving a “black box” subroutine that the computer is allowed to perform. 2 2 . Indeed. The most difficult obstacles appear to involve the decoherence of quantum superposition through the interaction of the computer with the environment. It’s been sown that these problems can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum computer with a small probability of error. nobody knows how to build a quantum computer. Any method of doing this for an arbitrary Hamiltonian would necessarily be able to simulate a quantum computer. any general method for simulating quantum mechanics with at most a polynomial slowdown would lead to a polynomial-time algorithm for factoring. while Bernstein and Vaziarni’s problem appears contrived. Simon’s algorithm inspired the work presented in this paper. Thus. but there will be substantial difficulty in building any of these [16.[2].Currently. but for which no code is accessible) which can be done in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine but which requires superpolynomial time on a classical computer. so it may turn out to be possible to build small quantum computers.

when we try to measure the qubit in this basis in order to determine its state. Just as the classical bit has a state (either 0 or 1). In general. Theoretically. According to quantum theory. and form an orthonormal basis for this vector space. This sphere is often called the Bloch sphere. It is a mathematical object with specific properties that can be realized physically in many different ways as an actual physical system.e. Yet contrary to the classical bit. Since α ² + β ² = 1 (i. a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information. thus. This feature of quantum mechanics allows one to manipulate the 3 . a qubit also has a state.Elements of Quantum Computing 2.1 The Qubit The qubit is the quantum analogue of the bit. we may (ignoring the overall phase factor) effectively write its state as ψ = cos(θ) 0 + eiφsin(θ) 1 . “collapsing” it from the superposition to one of its terms. The state of a qubit can be described as a vector in a two-dimensional Hilbert space. as shown here. the amount of “hidden” information it stores is conserved under the dynamic evolution (namely. the qubit is a unit vector in the aforementioned two-dimensional Hilbert state). 0 and 1 are but two possible states of the qubit. the measurement changes the state of the qubit. The crucial point is that unless the qubit is measured. the physical state of a qubit is the superposition ψ =α 0 +β 1 (where α and β are complex numbers).. the classical fundamental unit of information. The special states 0 and 1 are known as the computational basis states. where the numbers θ and φ define a point on the unit three-dimensional sphere. yet when measured it yields only the classical result (0 or 1) with certain probabilities that are specified by the quantum state. a complex vector space . we get either 0 with probability α ² or 1 with probability β ². and any linear combination (superposition) thereof is also physically possible. and it provides a useful means to visualize the state of a single qubit. Schrödinger's equation). In other words.

a pair of qubits can also exist in a superposition of these four basis states. 2. 01 . Quantum Computing[25]) To see why. 01. all four possible states are simultaneously “stored” in a single two-qubit quantum register. Correspondingly. let us suppose we have two qubits at our disposal. 10. 11).information stored in unmeasured qubits with quantum gates. and is one of the sources for the putative power of quantum computers. 10 . 4 . a pair of qubits has four computational basis states ( 00 . is normalized). each of which with its own complex coefficient (whose mod square. If these were classical bits. 0 1 Fig. the amount of information that can be stored in a system of n unmeasured qubits grows exponentially in n. then they could be in four possible states (00. The difficult task. But while a single classical two-bit register can store these numbers only one at a time. 11 ). More generally. however. As long as the quantum system evolves unitarily and is unmeasured. being interpreted as probability.1 The Bloch Sphere (Stanford Encyclopedia. is to retrieve this information efficiently.

. then U†U=I. In 5 .2: The CNOT Gate.e.e. in the sense that a circuit combined from this set can approximate to arbitrary accuracy any unitary transformation of n qubits). In quantum computing these gates are represented by matrices. obtained by transposing and then complex-conjugating U).2. Fig. 2. i. the NAND gate which results from performing an AND gate and then a NOT gate. i. Unitary gates manipulate the information stored in the quantum register. where U† is the adjoint of U. namely. This visualization represents the fact that quantum gates are unitary operators. As in the case of classical computing. and in this sense ordinary (unitary) quantum evolution can be regarded as computation ([2] showed how a small set of single-qubit gates and a two-qubit gate is universal. and thus a quantum gate can always be inverted by another quantum gate. the exclusive OR gate) and single qubit gates. in quantum computing it was shown [18] that any multiple qubit logic gate may be composed from a quantum CNOT gate (which operates on a multiple qubit by flipping or preserving the target bit given the state of the control bit. they preserve the norm of the quantum state (if U is a matrix describing a single qubit gate. and can be visualized as rotations of the quantum state on the Bloch sphere. an operation analogous to the classical XOR.. where there exists a universal gate (the combinations of which can be used to compute any computable function).2 Quantum Gates Classical computational gates are Boolean logic gates that perform manipulations of the information stored in the bits. One feature of quantum gates that distinguishes them from classical gates is that they are reversible: the inverse of a unitary matrix is also a unitary matrix.

Conventionally. they all have been demonstrated to be computationally equivalent to the circuit model (see below). The output state of the circuit is then measured in the computational basis. Indeed. however.20] were constructed in this paradigm. while the gates manipulate it (note that the wires do not correspond to physical wires. The measurement gate is a non-unitary gate that “collapses” the quantum superposition in the register onto one of its terms with the corresponding probability. and some measurements are much more complicated than others.4 Quantum Algorithms Algorithm design is a highly complicated task. The wires are used to carry the information. they may correspond to a physical particle. the quantum register must be measured. the input of the quantum circuit is assumed to be a computational basis state. usually the state consisting of all 0 . in the sense that any computational problem that can be solved by the circuit model can be solved by these new models with only a polynomial overhead in computational resources. however. So far. and in quantum computing it becomes even more complicated due to the attempts to harness quantum mechanical features to reduce the 6 . Usually this measurement is done in the computational basis. one of the difficulties in constructing efficient quantum algorithms stems exactly from the fact that measurement collapses the state.3 Quantum Circuits Quantum circuits are similar to classical computer circuits in that they consist of wires and logical gates. This. 2. Additional paradigms for quantum computing exist today that differ from the quantum circuit model in many interesting ways. provided that the states are orthonormal (a condition that ensures normalization) one can in principle measure the register in any arbitrary orthonormal basis. or in any other arbitrary orthonormal basis. 2. doesn't mean that measurements in different bases are efficiently equivalent. a photon. however. or even to time-evolution). but since quantum mechanics allows one to express an arbitrary state as a linear combination of basis states.3. The first quantum algorithms [2. moving from one location to another in space.order to read the result of this computation.

computation without any “speed-up”.complexity of computational problems and to “speed-up” computation. What about non-deterministic computation? Not surprisingly. Measuring this output state yields 0 or 1 with 50/50 probability. irreversible classical logic gates with quantum reversible ones. namely the Hadamard gate.e. is effectively classical. quantum circuits cannot be used directly to simulate classical computation. This gate has three input bits and three output bits. 7 . we should first convince ourselves that quantum computers can be harnessed to perform standard. The third bit is a target bit that is flipped if both control bits are set to 1. although rather tediously.. Quantum computers are thus capable of performing any computation which a classical deterministic computer can do. using the quantum version of the Toffoli gate one can simulate. a quantum computer can simulate also this type of computation by using another famous quantum gate. unaffected by the action of the gate. and can be used to simulate all the elements of the classical irreversible circuit with a reversible one. classical. and otherwise is left alone. i. but the latter can still be simulated on a quantum computer using an intermediate gate. involves no interference between the qubits. Indeed. which can be used to simulate a fair coin toss. Consequently. namely the Toffoli gate. two of which are control bits. and the observation that any quantum computation that is diagonal in the computational basis. Yet the demonstration that quantum circuits can be used to simulate classical circuits is not straightforward (recall that the former are reversible while the latter use gates which are inherently irreversible). given the belief in the universal character of quantum mechanics. Before attacking this problem. In some sense this is obvious. This gate is reversible (its inverse is itself). which receives as an input the state 0 and produces the state ( 0 + 1 )/√2.

Fig.3 : The Hadamard Gat 3 Complexity Theory 8 . 2.

this latter relationship.Complexity theory is concerned with the inherent cost required to solve information processing problems. Also.1 Complexity Models Computational complexity Query complexity Communication complexity Despite the differences between these models. The usefulness of many currently-known quantum algorithms is ultimately best expressed in the computational complexity model. In this context. which frequently have interesting counterparts in the computational complexity model. there are some intimate relationships among them. Resources are usually measured in terms of: some designated elementary operations. Quantum algorithms in the query complexity model can also be transformed into protocols in the communication complexity model that use quantum information (and sometimes these are more efficient than any classical protocol can be). can be used to prove that some problems are inherently difficult in the query complexity model 3. however. taken in its contra-positive form. For 9 . memory usage. where the cost is measured in terms of various well-defined resources. which must compute an output string corresponding to the input. or communication. virtually all of these algorithms evolved from algorithms in the query complexity model. rather than a function. a problem can usually be thought of as a function whose input is a problem instance and whose corresponding output is the solution to it.2 Computational Complexity In the computational complexity scenario. an input is encoded as a binary string (say) and supplied to an algorithm. which illustrate different advantages of working with quantum information 3. The query complexity model is a natural setting for discovering interesting quantum algorithms. in which case the problem can be thought of as a relation. We consider three specific complexity scenarios. Sometimes the solution is not unique.

. but. that each operation involves a small portion of the data. Fig 3. By this. we do not necessarily mean “local in space”. In other words. .10] and quantum circuits [21] . (J. and also by quantum Turing machines [6. Y3. . . It is more convenient to use quantum circuit model of computation for our purpose here. The above property is satisfied by Turing machines and circuits. X4.example. for input 100011 (representing 35 in binary). .1: An example of a quantum circuit. Watrous. and the gates are labeled by (hypothetical) quantum operations Φ1 . . . . Quantum Computational Complexity[4]) In the input qubits are labelled X1. Φ6 . 4 Quantum Complexity Theory 4. . in the case of the factoring problem. . a local operation is a transformation that is confined to a small number of bits or qubits (such as two or three). The algorithm must produce the required output by a series of local operations. the valid outputs might be 000101 or 000111 (representing the factors of 35). . rather. . the output qubits are labeled Y1.1 Definition & Importance 10 .

and to a significant extent it is their study that motivates and directs research on computational complexity. Hardness is typically formalized in terms of the resources required by different models of computation to solve a given problem.ever. One common feature of the most commonly studied computational models and resource constraint is that they are physically motivated. Many interesting relationships among these different models and resource constraints are known. nondeterministic and probabilistic models. including Richard Feynman [8]. or hardness.atomic computing components within the next two decades [83. it seems only natural that modern physical theories should be considered in the context of computational complexity. The predominant example is the class of polynomial-time computable functions. quantum mechanics is a clear candidate for a physical theory to have the potential for implications. which ultimately derives its relevance from physical considerations. Indeed. In light of its close connection to the physical world. given that computers are physical devices. It is only through the remarkable discoveries and ideas of several researchers. Given the steady decrease in the size of computing components. This is quite natural.actions among models of differing abilities. In particular. of computational problems is a fundamental concept in computational complexity theory. such as the number of steps of a deterministic Turing machine. Other quantum complexity-theoretic concepts. including deterministic. A variety of models and resources are often considered. for it is a mathematical abstraction of the class of functions that can be efficiently computed without error by physical computing devices. it is inevitable that quantum mechanics will become increasingly relevant to the construction of computers—for quantum mechanics provides a remarkably accurate description of extremely small physical systems (on the scale of atoms) where classical physical theories have failed completely. a possibility inconsistent with quantum mechanics as it is currently understood. David Deutsch [10]. if not to computational complexity then at least to computation more generally. In particular. 78]. Shor ’s polynomial-time quantum factoring and discrete-logarithm algorithms [2] give strong support to the conjecture that quantum and classical computers yield differing notions of computational hardness. Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani [13].The inherent difficulty. how. that this potential has become evident. time and space constraints. That quantum mechanics should have implications to computational complexity theory. is much less clear. such as the efficient verification of 11 . and inter. and Peter Shor [2]. an extrapolation of Moore’s Law predicts sub.

2 Definition of Basic Complexity Classes Several classical complexity classes are referred to in this article. and have answers yes and no. classifications of problems based on these models. Ano) is in P if and only if there exists a polynomial- time deterministic Turing machine M that accepts every string x ∈ Ayes and rejects every string x ∈ Ano. It may be said that the principal aim of quantum computational complexity theory is to understand the implications of quantum physics to computational complexity theory. These are decision problems for which the input is assumed to be drawn from some subset of all possible input strings.chine M with 12 . Languages may be viewed as promise problems that obey the additional constraint Ayes ∪ Ano = Σ∗. where Ayes. it considers the hardness of computational problems with respect to models of quantum computation. Ano ) is in NP if and only if there exists a polynomial-bounded function p and a polynomial-time deterministic Turing ma.quantum proofs. and their relationships to classical models and complexity classes The notion of promise problems [17] is central to quantum computational complexity. Karp reductions (also called polynomial-time many-to-one reductions) and the notion of completeness are defined for promise problems in the same way as for languages. are among those discussed[4] P: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. which should hereafter be understood to be classes of promise problems and not just languages. To this end. NP: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. Although complexity theory has traditionally focused on languages rather than promise problems. little is lost and much is gained in shifting one’s focus to promise problems. Ano). suggest a wider extent to which quantum mechanics influences computational complexity. respectively. The strings contained in the sets Ayes and Ano are called the yes-instances and no-instances of the problem. and compared with quantum complexity classes when relations are known. a promise problem is a pair A = ( Ayes. More formally. The following classical complexity classes. Ano ⊆ Σ∗ are sets of strings satisfying Ayes ∩ Ano = ∅. 4.

y) for some string y ∈ Σ p(|x |) . Ano ) is in PP if and only if there exists a polynomial- time probabilistic Turing machine M that accepts every string x ∈ Ayes with prob. and for every string x ∈ Ano. For every string x ∈ Ayes. z). it holds that Pr[ M accepts (x. it holds that M rejects (x. y.the following properties. it holds that Pr[ M accepts (x. 13 . PP: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. y. For every string x ∈ Ayes. PSPACE: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. For every string x ∈ Ayes. Ano ) is in BPP if and only if there exists a polynomial-time probabilistic Turing machine M that accepts every string x ∈ Ayes with probability at least 2/3. and at least 2/3 of all strings y ∈ Σ p(| x |) . z). it holds that M accepts (x. y)] ≤ 1/3 for all strings y ∈ Σ p(|x |). AM: A promise problem A = ( Ayes.ability strictly greater than 1/2. and accepts every string x ∈ Ano with probability at most 1/3. y) for all strings y ∈ Σ p(| x |). there exists a string z ∈ Σq(|x |) such that M accepts (x. and accepts every string x ∈ Ano with probability at most 1/2 MA: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. and for every string x ∈ Ano. there are no strings z ∈ Σq(|x |) such that M accepts (x. y)] ≥ 2/3 for some string y ∈ Σ p(| x |) . and for every string x ∈ Ano. BPP: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. Ano) is in AM if and only if there exist polynomial- bounded functions p and q and a polynomial-time deterministic Turing machine M with the following properties. and at least 2/3 of all strings y ∈ Σ p(| x |) . Ano ) is in PSPACE if and only if there exists a deterministic Turing machine M running in polynomial space that accepts every string x ∈ Ayes and rejects every string x ∈ Ano. Ano) is in MA if and only if there exists a polynomial-bounded function p and a probabilistic polynomial-time Turing machine M with the following properties.

EXP: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. AM is contained in PSPACE. Lines indicate containments going upward.1 Relation among Complexity Class (J. for some polynomial-bounded function p). NEXP: A promise problem A = ( Ayes. “Quantum Computational Complexity” [4]) The above diagram illustrates known inclusions among most of the classical complexity classes discussed in this paper. 4. that accepts every string x ∈ Ayes and rejects every string x ∈ Ano. for example. 4.3 Polynomial time quantum computaton 14 .Watrous.Fig. Ano ) is in NEXP if and only if there exists an exponential-time non-deterministic Turing machine N for A. Ano ) is in EXP if and only if there exists a deterministic Turing machine M running in exponential time (meaning time bounded by 2p .

as it represents the collection of decision problems that can be efficiently solved by quantum computers. it allows one to easily consider the situation in which the input. More precisely. to be efficiently implementable by the means of a quantum computer. which contains those promise problems abstractly viewed to be efficiently solvable using a quantum computer. Intuitively speaking. These are the computations that are viewed. This is the most fundamentally important of all quantum complexity classes.3. For decision problems. but is convenient for other purposes. outputs an encoding of Qx . 4. and then measuring the output 15 . The computation on a given input string is obtained by first applying the circuit Q| x | to the state |x)(x|. In particular. This definition is slightly more general than what is needed to define BQP. For instance. Then a collection {Qx : x ∈ S} of quantum circuits is said to be polynomial-time generated if there exists a polynomial-time deterministic Turing machine that. The complexity class BQP. or some part of the input. the complexity class BQP (short for bounded-error quantum polynomial time) is defined. the number of quantum and classical computation steps required to implement such a computation is polynomial. on every input x ∈ S. for some problem is hard-coded into a collection of circuits. : x ∈ S} has the property that each circuit Qx has size polynomial in | x |. BQP is the class of promise problems that can be solved by polynomial-time quantum computations that may have some small probability to make an error. it should be interpreted that this is a shorthand for {Q1n Notice that every polynomial-time generated family {Qx : n ∈ : n ∈ N}. and so operations induced by the circuits in such a family are viewed as representing polynomial-time quantum computations. where each circuit Qn takes n input qubits. may now be defined. or where a computation for some input may be divided among several circuits. and produces one output qubit. In the most typical case that a polynomial-time generated family of the form {Qn N} is referred to.This section focuses on polynomial-time quantum computations. the notion of a polynomial-time quantum computation is equated with the computation of a polynomial-time generated quantum circuit family Q = {Qn : n ∈ N}.1 Polynomial-time generated circuit families & BQP Let S ⊆ Σ∗ be any set of strings. in an abstract and idealized sense.

b) if and only if there exists a polynomial-time generated family of quantum circuits Q = {Qn : n ∈ N}. BQP Let A = ( Ayes. if x ∈ Ano then Pr[Q accepts x] ≤ b(| x |). Ano ) be a promise problem and let a.4 Quantum proofs 16 . A ∈ BQP(a. are at present the most important and well-known examples. The events that Q accepts x and Q rejects x are understood to have associated probabilities determined in this way. there is nothing special about the particular choice of error probability 1/3. and 2. The class BQP is defined as BQP = BQP(2/3. respectively. Then. The measurement results 0 and 1 are interpreted as yes and no (or accept and reject). There are several problems known to be in BQP but not known (and generally not believed) to be in BPP. shown to be in BQP by Shor [94]. 4. Decision-problem variants of the integer factoring and discrete logarithm problems. 1/3). if x ∈ Ayes then Pr[Q accepts x] ≥ a(| x |). 1] be functions. Similar to BPP.qubit with respect to the standard basis. b : N → [0. that satisfies the following properties: 1. This is made clear in the next section. where each circuit Qn takes n input qubits and produces one output qubit. other than that it is a constant strictly smaller than 1/2.

This definition is of course equivalent to the other well-known definition of NP based on nondeterministic Turing machines. The conditions on M are known as the completeness and soundness conditions. To define QMA. (This is why the class is called QMA rather than QNP. but is much better-suited to consideration in the quantum setting—for non-determinism is arguably a non-physical notion that does not naturally extend to quantum computing.4.1 QMA The definition of QMA is inspired by the standard definition of NP included in Section TT. which derive their names from logic: completeness refers to the condition that true statements have proofs. The class is known as QMA. a bounded probability of error is allowed in the completeness and soundness conditions. as it is really MA and not NP that is the classical analogue of QMA.2. the machine M functions as a verification procedure that treats each possible string y ∈ Σ p(|x |) as a potential proof that x ∈ Ayes. which of course presumes that the verification procedure is quantum. the set of possible proofs is extended to include quantum states. Tnterest in both the class QMA and the general notion of quantum proofs is primarily based on the fundamental importance of efficient verification in computational complexity. 4. In the definition of NP from Section 4.) 17 .l of this article. This section concerns one such class. The notion of a quantum proof was first proposed by Knill [22] and consider more formally by Kitaev (presented at a talk in l999 [23] and later published in [24]). and is based on the notion of a quantum proof: a quantum state that plays the role of a certificate or witness to a quantum computer that functions as a verification procedure. while soundness refers to the condition that false statements do not. which is a quantum computational analogue of NP. As quantum computations are inherently probabilistic. short for quantum Merlin–Arthur.There are many quantum complexity classes of interest beyond BQP.

For all x ∈ Ano and all p(| x |)-qubit quantum states p it holds that Pr[Q accepts (x. p)] ≤ b(| x |).com/nphys/journal/v5/n10/fig_tab/nphys1370_F1.nature. Then A ∈ QMA p (a. For all x ∈ Ayes. 1] be functions. b) if and only if there exists a polynomial-time generated family of circuits Q = {Qn : n ∈ N}. Ano ) be a promise problem. and let a. b : N → [0. such that Pr[Q Also it is defined that QMA =U p QMA p (2/3.html) QMA :Let A = ( Ayes. there exists a p(| x |)-qubit quantum state p accepts (x. BQP and QMA (http://www.2: Suspected relation among P. let p be a polynomial-bounded function. where each circuit Qn takes n + p(n) input qubits and produces one output qubit. 1/3). 4. where the union is over all polynomialbounded functions p Conclusions 18 . with the following properties Completeness.Fig. p)] ≥ a(| x |). NP . Soundness.

e. PP. Two important quantum complexity classes are BQP and QMA which are the boundederror quantum analogues of P and NP.. such as a standard quantum computer or a quantum Turing machine. NP. One of the main aims of quantum complexity theory is to find out where these classes lie with respect to classical complexity classes such as P. non-quantum) complexity classes. one may define a quantum complexity class using a quantum model of computation. It studies complexity classes defined using quantum computers and quantum information which are computational models based on quantum mechanics. Devesh Jinwala. For instance. Thus. Similarly. the complexity class BQP is defined to be the set of problems solvable by a quantum computer in polynomial time with bounded error. PSPACE and other complexity classes. It studies the hardness of problems in relation to these complexity classes. While allowing me to work flexibly he has inculcated in me standard research practices: respecting and acknowledging 19 . and the relationship between quantum complexity classes and classical (i. A complexity class is a collection of problems which can be solved by some computational model under resource constraints. the complexity class P is defined to be the set of problems solvable by a Turing machine in polynomial time.Quantum complexity theory is a part of computational complexity theory in theoretical computer science. Acknowledgement I am very much thankful to my guide Prof.

Shengyu Zhang. Survey paper “Quantum Computational Complexity” by J. Summer and Winter School on Quantum Information Theory which I attended under is guidance helped me quite a lot in understanding the intricate ideas of Quantum Information Theory which are otherwise quite challenging for a person like me – a non-major in Physics/Mathematics. Cambridge University Press (2000). IQC. Peter Shor. Computer Science Department. constant interaction with whom is inspiring me to devote my life in the fundamental research of Quantum Algorithms and Complexity Theory. In every work and endeavor of mine in Quantum Computing. I would also like to thank Prof. “Quantum Computation and Quantum Information" . It’s my honour to remember him here. I have extensively used this Book –“Quantum Computation and Quantum Information” by Nielson and Chuang for this seminar as well as my other work in Quantum Computation. He guided me to select this particular topic among other interesting areas in Quantum Computation." Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations 20 . We had fruitful discussion about complexity theory. Prof.others work and communicating our own ideas in a very clear way.Watrous. Chinese University of Hong Kong. Department of Theoretical Physics. will be reflected in some ways. “Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. Isaac Chuang. I have duly cited all resourceas I have used with gratitude and thanks. IISER-K. research and sruvery paper and othere useful resources I have consulted for my seminar. References [1] [2] Michael Nielsen. Prasanta Panigarihi. Canada also proved extremely useful. I am indebted to authos of various books.

SIAM Journal on Computing.G. Deutsch (1985). The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines. 60-67. “Quantum complexity theory”. CA. Bennett. “On the power of quantum computation”.(2001). the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer”. J.Bennet et al“Quantum Information and Computation” Nature. [12] [13] [14] A. CA. D. IEEE Computer Society Press. A. Watrous. Roy. 400. E. 124-134. pp. Berthiaume and G. Proc. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] J. in Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics of Computation: PhysComp ’94. and Vazirani. 22. London Ser.. pp. 261. Brassard (1992a). pp. ‘Quantum computational complexity". CA. Jozsa (1994). Statist. 1569– 1571. D. “Strengths andweaknesses of quantum computing”. pp. 116–123. [15] S. Berthiaume. 1994. Phys. R. “The stabilisation of quantum computations”.. A. 60–62. pp. C. “The quantum challenge to structural Complexity” Society Press. C. [3] L. 116 – 123. E. “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search" Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 1996). in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. and U. Internat. 563–591. 1997. A potentially realizable quantum computer. pp. 11 – 20. Simon (1994). J.” On the power of quantum computation”.. Vol. pp. Lloyd (1993). Phys. Soc. 404. IEEE Computer Society Press. 96–117. pp. Science.Proceedings of the thirty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC). (1996) 212-219. Theoret. Simulating physics with computers. pp. Bernstein.of Computer Science (1994). Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 21 .. D. 16 March (200) 247-255 Bernstein. 1993. Feynman (1982). Los Alamitos. Vazirani. 21. Los Alamitos. 467–488. P. [Simon. Grover. Los Alamitos. [10] [11] D. Benioff (1980). “Quantum theory. Brassard. Deutsch. U. 132–137. and R. 26(5):1510–1523. Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

Phys. A. Rev.. Deutsch. 352–361. Yao. [23] [24] [25] [26] A.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] R. (1995). DiVicenzo. Trans. volume 47 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. DePaul University. Goldreich. Shen. A. Phys. E. “Quantum NP”. (1995). “Is quantum mechanics useful?” Philos. Hu. R. C. International Press.org e-Print quantph/9610012. IEEE Symp. Talk at AQIP’99: SecondWorkshop on Algorithms in Quantum Information Processing. ‘Rapid solution of problems by quantum computer’. A 51: 1015–1022. January 1999. Report TR05-018.. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 34th Ann. Classical and Quantum Computation. ‘Elementary gates for quantum computation’. Is quantum mechanically coherent computation useful? in Proceedings of the Drexel-4 Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability—Quantum Classical Correspondence. eds. Technical Report LAUR-96. and M. Available as arXiv. Vyalyi. Kitaev. H. Proc. “Quantum circuit complexity”. American Mathematical Society. Knill. Quantum randomness and nondeterminism. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS ’93). Lond. A. Roy. 2002. Soc. Landauer (1995). Proc. A.2186. Feng and B-L.-C. pp. 2005. et al. O. Roy. Soc. A. (1992). ‘Two-bit gates are universal for quantum computation’. 1993. Rev. A 439: 553–558. Kitaev. D. 22 . Barenco. A 52: 3457–3467. 1996. D. Landauer (1995). London Ser. Quantum Computing (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) R. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity.. “On promise problems” (a survey in memory of Shimon Even [1935– 2004]). and Jozsa. D.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Seminar Report
- Anoop Seminar Report
- Seminar Report
- seminar report
- steganography seminar report
- Seminar Report
- NP-Complete Problems and Physical Reality
- notes1.ps
- Midterm2 Solutions
- chap2
- Lecture 02
- Lecture 3
- soi-solutions-1T
- 2016 CSE 259 LPAA Lec2 a Analysis
- Recurrences
- pcasdasd
- Alg Analysis 09
- lec30_2003
- Analysis of Recursive Algorithms
- unit9-sp
- Trac Ng Hiem
- cse101-handout5
- Sariel Har-Peled_ Algorithms
- Np Strategy
- The Limits of Quantum Computers (DRAFT) Scott Aaronson
- Fsamp Problems
- 2010016-assgn1
- algorithm pancake.pdf
- alogitms
- A General Architecture for Decentralized Supervisory Control Of Discrete Event Systems
- seminar report

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd