Algorithmen
Eine Übersicht zu Algorithmen und deren Beschreibung: Eine Herausragende Sammlung an Quantum-Algorithmen, die ihres Gleichen sucht.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00287-020-01309-9
Quelle: https://quantumalgorithmzoo.org/
Algorithm: Factoring Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Given an n-bit integer, find the prime factorization. The quantum algorithm of Peter Shor solves this in time [82,125]. The fastest known classical algorithm for integer factorization is the general number field sieve, which is believed to run in time . The best rigorously proven upper bound on the classical complexity of factoring is via the Pollard-Strassen algorithm [252, 362]. Shor's factoring algorithm breaks RSA public-key encryption and the closely related quantum algorithms for discrete logarithms break the DSA and ECDSA digital signature schemes and the Diffie-Hellman key-exchange protocol. A quantum algorithm even faster than Shor's for the special case of factoring “semiprimes”, which are widely used in cryptography, is given in [271]. If small factors exist, Shor's algorithm can be beaten by a quantum algorithm using Grover search to speed up the elliptic curve factorization method [366]. Additional optimized versions of Shor's algorithm are given in [384, 386]. There are proposed classical public-key cryptosystems not believed to be broken by quantum algorithms, cf. [248]. At the core of Shor's factoring algorithm is order finding, which can be reduced to the Abelian hidden subgroup problem, which is solved using the quantum Fourier transform. A number of other problems are known to reduce to integer factorization including the membership problem for matrix groups over fields of odd order [253], and certain diophantine problems relevant to the synthesis of quantum circuits [254].
Algorithm: Discrete-log Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: We are given three n-bit numbers a, b, and N, with the promise that b=as_mod_N for some s. The task is to find s. As shown by Shor [82], this can be achieved on a quantum computer in poly(n) time. The fastest known classical algorithm requires time superpolynomial in n. By similar techniques to those in [82], quantum computers can solve the discrete logarithm problem on elliptic curves, thereby breaking elliptic curve cryptography [109, 14]. A further optimization to Shor's algorithm is given in [385]. The superpolynomial quantum speedup has also been extended to the discrete logarithm problem on semigroups [203, 204]. See also Abelian hidden subgroup. Algorithm: Pell's Equation Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Given a positive nonsquare integer d, Pell's equation is _x_2−_dy_2=1. For any such d there are infinitely many pairs of integers (x,y) solving this equation. Let (_x_1,y_1) be the pair that minimizes x+yd_−−√. If d is an n-bit integer (i.e. 0≤_d<2_n ), (_x_1,_y_1) may in general require exponentially many bits to write down. Thus it is in general impossible to find (_x_1,_y_1) in polynomial time. Let R=log(_x_1+_y_1_d_−−√). ⌊R⌉ uniquely identifies (_x_1,_y_1). As shown by Hallgren [49], given a n-bit number d, a quantum computer can find ⌊R⌉ in poly(n) time. No polynomial time classical algorithm for this problem is known. Factoring reduces to this problem. This algorithm breaks the Buchman-Williams cryptosystem. See also Abelian hidden subgroup.
Algorithm: Principal Ideal Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: We are given an n-bit integer d and an invertible ideal I of the ring Z[_d_−−√]. I is a principal ideal if there exists _α_∈Q(_d_−−√) such that I=α_Z[d_−−√]. α may be exponentially large in d. Therefore α cannot in general even be written down in polynomial time. However, ⌊log_α⌉ uniquely identifies α. The task is to determine whether I is principal and if so find ⌊log_α⌉. As shown by Hallgren, this can be done in polynomial time on a quantum computer [49]. A modified quantum algorithm for this problem using fewer qubits was given in [131]. A quantum algorithm solving the principal ideal problem in number fields of arbitrary degree (i.e. scaling polynomially in the degree) was subsequently given in [329]. Factoring reduces to solving Pell's equation, which reduces to the principal ideal problem. Thus the principal ideal problem is at least as hard as factoring and therefore is probably not in P. See also Abelian hidden subgroup. Algorithm: Unit Group Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: The number field Q(θ) is said to be of degree d if the lowest degree polynomial of which θ is a root has degree d. The set O of elements of Q(θ) which are roots of monic polynomials in Z[x] forms a ring, called the ring of integers of Q(θ). The set of units (invertible elements) of the ring O form a group denoted O∗. As shown by Hallgren [50], and independently by Schmidt and Vollmer [116], for any Q(θ) of fixed degree, a quantum computer can find in polynomial time a set of generators for O∗ given a description of θ. No polynomial time classical algorithm for this problem is known. Hallgren and collaborators subsequently discovered how to achieve polynomial scaling in the degree [213]. See also [329]. The algorithms rely on solving Abelian hidden subgroup problems over the additive group of real numbers.
Algorithm: Class Group Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: The number field Q(θ) is said to be of degree d if the lowest degree polynomial of which θ is a root has degree d. The set O of elements of Q(θ) which are roots of monic polynomials in Z[x] forms a ring, called the ring of integers of Q(θ), which is a Dedekind domain. For a Dedekind domain, the nonzero fractional ideals modulo the nonzero principal ideals form a group called the class group. As shown by Hallgren [50], a quantum computer can find a set of generators for the class group of the ring of integers of any constant degree number field, given a description of θ, in time poly(log(|O|)). An improved quantum algorithm, whose runtime is also polynomial in d was subsequently given in [329]. No polynomial time classical algorithm for these problems are known. See also Abelian hidden subgroup. Algorithm: Gauss Sums Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let F_q_ be a finite field. The elements other than zero of F_q_ form a group F×_q_ under multiplication, and the elements of F_q_ form an (Abelian but not necessarily cyclic) group F+q under addition. We can choose some character χ_× of F×_q and some character χ+ of F+q. The corresponding Gauss sum is the inner product of these characters: ∑_x_≠0∈F_qχ_+(x)_χ_×(x) As shown by van Dam and Seroussi [90], Gauss sums can be estimated to polynomial precision on a quantum computer in polynomial time. Although a finite ring does not form a group under multiplication, its set of units does. Choosing a representation for the additive group of the ring, and choosing a representation for the multiplicative group of its units, one can obtain a Gauss sum over the units of a finite ring. These can also be estimated to polynomial precision on a quantum computer in polynomial time [90]. No polynomial time classical algorithm for estimating Gauss sums is known. Discrete log reduces to Gauss sum estimation [90]. Certain partition functions of the Potts model can be computed by a polynomial-time quantum algorithm related to Gauss sum estimation [47]. **Algorithm:**Primality Proving **Speedup:**Polynomial Description: Given an n-bit number, return a proof of its primality. The fastest classical algorithms are AKS, the best versions of which [393, 394] have essentially-quartic complexity, and ECPP, where the heuristic complexity of the fastest version [395] is also essentially quartic. The fastest known quantum algorithm for this problem is the method of Donis-Vela and Garcia-Escartin [396], with complexity O(_n_2(log n)3log log n). This improves upon a prior factoring-based quantum algorithm for primality proving [397] that has complexity O(_n_3log n log log n). A recent result of Harvey and Van Der Hoeven [398] can be used to improve the complexity of the factoring-based quantum algorithm for primality proving to O(n_3log_n) and it may be possible to similarly reduce the complexity of the Donis-Vela-Garcia-Escartin algorithm to O(_n_2(log n)3) [399].
**Algorithm:**Solving Exponential Congruences **Speedup:**Polynomial Description: We are given a,b,c,f,g_∈F_q. We must find integers x,y such that afx+bgy=c. As shown in [111], quantum computers can solve this problem in _O_˜(_q_3/8) time whereas the best classical algorithm requires _O_˜(_q_9/8) time. The quantum algorithm of [111] is based on the quantum algorithms for discrete logarithms and searching. Algorithm: Matrix Elements of Group Representations Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: All representations of finite groups and compact linear groups can be expressed as unitary matrices given an appropriate choice of basis. Conjugating the regular representation of a group by the quantum Fourier transform circuit over that group yields a direct sum of the group's irreducible representations. Thus, the efficient quantum Fourier transform over the symmetric group [196], together with the Hadamard test, yields a fast quantum algorithm for additively approximating individual matrix elements of the arbitrary irreducible representations of Sn. Similarly, using the quantum Schur transform [197], one can efficiently approximate matrix elements of the irreducible representations of SU(n) that have polynomial weight. Direct implementations of individual irreducible representations for the groups U(n), SU(n), SO(n), and An by efficient quantum circuits are given in [106]. Instances that appear to be exponentially hard for known classical algorithms are also identified in [106]. Algorithm: Verifying Matrix Products Speedup: Polynomial Description: Given three n_×_n matrices, A,B, and C, the matrix product verification problem is to decide whether AB=C. Classically, the best known algorithm achieves this in time O(_n_2), whereas the best known classical algorithm for matrix multiplication runs in time O(_n_2.373). Ambainis et al. discovered a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n_7/4) [6]. Subsequently, Buhrman and Špalek improved upon this, obtaining a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n_5/3) [19]. This latter algorithm is based on results regarding quantum walks that were proven in [85]. Algorithm: Subset-sum Speedup: Polynomial Description: Given a list of integers x_1,…,xn, and a target integer s, the subset-sum problem is to determine whether the sum of any subset of the given integers adds up to s. This problem is NP-complete, and therefore is unlikely to be solvable by classical or quantum algorithms with polynomial worst-case complexity. In the hard instances the given integers are of order 2_n and much research on subset sum focuses on average case instances in this regime. In [178], a quantum algorithm is given that solves such instances in time 20.241_n, up to polynomial factors. This quantum algorithm works by applying a variant of Ambainis's quantum walk algorithm for element-distinctness [7] to speed up a sophisticated classical algorithm for this problem due to Howgrave-Graham and Joux. The fastest known classical algorithm for such instances of subset-sum runs in time 20.291_n, up to polynomial factors [404]. \
Algorithm: Decoding Speedup: Varies Description: Classical error correcting codes allow the detection and correction of bit-flips by storing data reduntantly. Maximum-likelihood decoding for arbitrary linear codes is NP-complete in the worst case, but for structured codes or bounded error efficient decoding algorithms are known. Quantum algorithms have been formulated to speed up the decoding of convolutional codes [238] and simplex codes [239]. Algorithm: Quantum Cryptanalysis Speedup: Various Description: It is well-known that Shor's algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithms [82,125] completely break the RSA and Diffie-Hellman cryptosystems, as well as their elliptic-curve-based variants [109, 14]. (A number of "post-quantum" public-key cryptosystems have been proposed to replace these primitives, which are not known to be broken by quantum attacks.) Beyond Shor's algorithm, there is a growing body of work on quantum algorithms specifically designed to attack cryptosystems. These generally fall into three categories. The first is quantum algorithms providing polynomial or sub-exponential time attacks on cryptosystems under standard assumptions. In particular, the algorithm of Childs, Jao, and Soukharev for finding isogenies of elliptic curves breaks certain elliptic curve based cryptosystems in subexponential time that were not already broken by Shor's algorithm [283]. The second category is quantum algorithms achieving polynomial improvement over known classical cryptanalytic attacks by speeding up parts of these classical algorithms using Grover search, quantum collision finding, etc. Such attacks on private-key [284, 285, 288, 315, 316] and public-key [262, 287] primitives, do not preclude the use of the associated cryptosystems but may influence choice of key size. The third category is attacks that make use of quantum superposition queries to block ciphers. These attacks in many cases completely break the cryptographic primitives [286, 289, 290, 291, 292]. However, in most practical situations such superposition queries are unlikely to be feasible.
Oracular Algorithms
Algorithm: Searching Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are given an oracle with N allowed inputs. For one input w ("the winner") the corresponding output is 1, and for all other inputs the corresponding output is 0. The task is to find w. On a classical computer this requires Ω(N) queries. The quantum algorithm of Lov Grover achieves this using O(_N_−−√) queries [48], which is optimal [216]. This has algorithm has subsequently been generalized to search in the presence of multiple "winners" [15], evaluate the sum of an arbitrary function [15,16,73], find the global minimum of an arbitrary function [35,75, 255], take advantage of alternative initial states [100] or nonuniform probabilistic priors [123], work with oracles whose runtime varies between inputs [138], approximate definite integrals [77], and converge to a fixed-point [208, 209]. Considerations on optimizing the depth of quantum search circuits are given in [405]. The generalization of Grover's algorithm known as amplitude estimation [17] is now an important primitive in quantum algorithms. Amplitude estimation forms the core of most known quantum algorithms related to collision finding and graph properties. One of the natural applications for Grover search is speeding up the solution to NP-complete problems such as 3-SAT. Doing so is nontrivial, because the best classical algorithm for 3-SAT is not quite a brute force search. Nevertheless, amplitude amplification enables a quadratic quantum speedup over the best classical 3-SAT algorithm, as shown in [133]. Quadratic speedups for other constraint satisfaction problems are obtained in [134]. For further examples of application of Grover search and amplitude amplification see [261, 262]. A problem closely related to, but harder than, Grover search, is spatial search, in which database queries are limited by some graph structure. On sufficiently well-connected graphs, O(_n_−−√) quantum query complexity is still achievable [274,275,303, 304, 305, 306, 330]. Algorithm: Abelian Hidden Subgroup Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let G be a finitely generated Abelian group, and let H be some subgroup of G such that G/H is finite. Let f be a function on G such that for any _g_1,g_2∈_G, f(_g_1)=f(_g_2) if and only if _g_1 and g_2 are in the same coset of H. The task is to find H (i.e. find a set of generators for H) by making queries to f. This is solvable on a quantum computer using O(log|G|) queries, whereas classically Ω(|G|) are required. This algorithm was first formulated in full generality by Boneh and Lipton in [14]. However, proper attribution of this algorithm is difficult because, as described in chapter 5 of [76], it subsumes many historically important quantum algorithms as special cases, including Simon's algorithm [108], which was the inspiration for Shor's period finding algorithm, which forms the core of his factoring and discrete-log algorithms. The Abelian hidden subgroup algorithm is also at the core of the Pell's equation, principal ideal, unit group, and class group algorithms. In certain instances, the Abelian hidden subgroup problem can be solved using a single query rather than order log(|G|), as shown in [30]. It is normally assumed in period finding that the function f(x)≠_f(y) unless x_−_y=s, where s is the period. A quantum algorithm which applies even when this restiction is relaxed is given in [388]. Period finding has been generalized to apply to oracles which provide only the few most significant bits about the underlying function in [389].
Algorithm: Non-Abelian Hidden Subgroup Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let G be a finitely generated group, and let H be some subgroup of G that has finitely many left cosets. Let f be a function on G such that for any _g_1,_g_2, f(g_1)=f(g_2) if and only if g_1 and g_2 are in the same left coset of H. The task is to find H (i.e. find a set of generators for H) by making queries to f. This is solvable on a quantum computer using O(log(|G|) queries, whereas classically Ω(|G|) are required [37,51]. However, this does not qualify as an efficient quantum algorithm because in general, it may take exponential time to process the quantum states obtained from these queries. Efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem are known for certain specific non-Abelian groups [81,55,72,53,9,22,56,71,57,43,44,28,126,207,273]. A slightly outdated survey is given in [69]. Of particular interest are the symmetric group and the dihedral group. A solution for the symmetric group would solve graph isomorphism. A solution for the dihedral group would solve certain lattice problems [78]. Despite much effort, no polynomial-time solution for these groups is known, except in special cases [312]. However, Kuperberg [66] found a time 2_O(log_N_√)) algorithm for finding a hidden subgroup of the dihedral group DN. Regev subsequently improved this algorithm so that it uses not only subexponential time but also polynomial space [79]. A further improvement in the asymptotic scaling of the required number of qubits is obtained in [218]. Quantum query speedups (though not necessarily efficient quantum algorithms in terms of gate count) for somewhat more general problems of testing for isomorphisms of functions under sets of permutations are given in [311] Algorithm: Bernstein-Vazirani Speedup: Polynomial Directly, Superpolynomial Recursively Description: We are given an oracle whose input is n bits and whose output is one bit. Given input x_∈{0,1}n, the output is x_⊙_h, where h is the "hidden" string of n bits, and ⊙ denotes the bitwise inner product modulo 2. The task is to find h. On a classical computer this requires n queries. As shown by Bernstein and Vazirani [11], this can be achieved on a quantum computer using a single query. Furthermore, one can construct recursive versions of this problem, called recursive Fourier sampling, such that quantum computers require exponentially fewer queries than classical computers [11]. See [256, 257] for related work on the ubiquity of quantum speedups from generic quantum circuits and [258, 270] for related work on a quantum query speedup for detecting correlations between the an oracle function and the Fourier transform of another. Algorithm: Deutsch-Jozsa Speedup: Exponential over P, none over BPP Description: We are given an oracle whose input is n bits and whose output is one bit. We are promised that out of the 2_n possible inputs, either all of them, none of them, or half of them yield output 1. The task is to distinguish the balanced case (half of all inputs yield output 1) from the constant case (all or none of the inputs yield output 1). It was shown by Deutsch [32] that for n=1, this can be solved on a quantum computer using one query, whereas any deterministic classical algorithm requires two. This was historically the first well-defined quantum algorithm achieving a speedup over classical computation. (A related, more recent, pedagogical example is given in [259].) A single-query quantum algorithm for arbitrary n was developed by Deutsch and Jozsa in [33]. Although probabilistically easy to solve with O(1) queries, the Deutsch-Jozsa problem has exponential worst case deterministic query complexity classically. Algorithm: Formula Evaluation Speedup: Polynomial Description: A Boolean expression is called a formula if each variable is used only once. A formula corresponds to a circuit with no fanout, which consequently has the topology of a tree. By Reichardt's span-program formalism, it is now known [158] that the quantum query complexity of any formula of O(1) fanin on N variables is Θ(N_−−√). This result culminates from a long line of work [27,8,80,159,160], which started with the discovery by Farhi et al. [38] that NAND trees on 2_n variables can be evaluated on quantum computers in time O(20.5_n) using a continuous-time quantum walk, whereas classical computers require Ω(20.753_n) queries. In many cases, the quantum formula-evaluation algorithms are efficient not only in query complexity but also in time-complexity. The span-program formalism also yields quantum query complexity lower bounds [149]. Although originally discovered from a different point of view, Grover's algorithm can be regarded as a special case of formula evaluation in which every gate is OR. The quantum complexity of evaluating non-boolean formulas has also been studied [29], but is not as fully understood. Childs et al. have generalized to the case in which input variables may be repeated (i.e. the first layer of the circuit may include fanout) [101]. They obtained a quantum algorithm using O(min{N,S_−−√,N_1/2_G_1/4}) queries, where N is the number of input variables not including multiplicities, S is the number of inputs counting multiplicities, and G is the number of gates in the formula. References [164], [165], and [269] consider special cases of the NAND tree problem in which the number of NAND gates taking unequal inputs is limited. Some of these cases yield superpolynomial separation between quantum and classical query complexity. Algorithm: Hidden Shift Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: We are given oracle access to some function f on Z_N. We know that f(x) = g(x+s) where g is a known function and s is an unknown shift. The hidden shift problem is to find s. By reduction from Grover's problem it is clear that at least N_−−√ queries are necessary to solve hidden shift in general. However, certain special cases of the hidden shift problem are solvable on quantum computers using O(1) queries. In particular, van Dam et al. showed that this can be done if f is a multiplicative character of a finite ring or field [89]. The previously discovered shifted Legendre symbol algorithm [88,86] is subsumed as a special case of this, because the Legendre symbol (xp) is a multiplicative character of F_p. No classical algorithm running in time O(polylog(N)) is known for these problems. Furthermore, the quantum algorithm for the shifted Legendre symbol problem would break a certain cryptographic pseudorandom generator given the ability to make quantum queries to the generator [89]. A quantum speedup for hidden shift problems of difference sets is given in [312], and this also subsumes the Legendre symbol problem as a special case. Roetteler has found exponential quantum speedups for finding hidden shifts of certain nonlinear Boolean functions [105,130]. Building on this work, Gavinsky, Roetteler, and Roland have shown [142] that the hidden shift problem on random boolean functions f:Z_n_2→Z2 has O(n) average case quantum complexity, whereas the classical query complexity is Ω(2_n/2). The results in [143], though they are phrased in terms of the hidden subgroup problem for the dihedral group, imply that the quantum query complexity of the hidden shift problem for an injective function on Z_N is O(log n), whereas the classical query complexity is Θ(N_−−√). However, the best known quantum circuit complexity for injective hidden shift on Z_N is O(2_C_log_N_√), achieved by Kuperberg's sieve algorithm [66]. A recent result, building upon [408, 43], achieves exponential quantum speedups for some generalizations of the Hidden shift problem including the hidden multiple shift problem, in which one has query access to fs(x)=f(x_−_hs) over some allowed range of s and one wishes to infer h [407]. Algorithm: Polynomial interpolation Speedup: Varies Description: Let p(x)=adxd+…+a_1_x+_a_0 be a polynomial over the finite field GF(q). One is given access to an oracle that, given x_∈GF(q), returns p(x). The polynomial reconstruction problem is, by making queries to the oracle, to determine the coefficients ad,…,a_0. Classically, d+1 queries are necessary and sufficient. (In some sources use the term reconstruction instead of interpolation for this problem.) Quantumly, d/2+1/2 queries are necessary and d/2+1 queries are sufficient [360,361]. For multivariate polynomials of degree d in n variables the interpolation problem has classical query complexity (n+dd). As shown in [387], the quantum query complexity is O(1_n+1(n+dd)) over R and C and it is O(dn+d(n+dd)) over F_q for sufficiently large q. Quantum algorithms have also been discovered for the case that the oracle returns χ(f(x)) where χ is a quadratic character of GF(q) [390], and the case where the oracle returns f(x)e [392]. These generalize the hidden shift algorithm of [89] and achieve an exponential speedup over classical computation. A quantum algorithm for reconstructing rational functions over finite fields given noisy and incomplete oracle access to the function values is given in [391].
Algorithm: Pattern matching Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Given strings T of length n and P of length m < n, both from some finite alphabet, the pattern matching problem is to find an occurrence of P as a substring of T or to report that P is not a substring of T. More generally, T and P could be d-dimensional arrays rather than one-dimensional arrays (strings). Then, the pattern matching problem is to return the location of P as a m_×_m_×…×_m block within the n_×_n_×…×_n array T or report that no such location exists. The Ω(N_−−√) query lower bound for unstructured search [216] implies that the worst-case quantum query complexity of this problem is Ω(n_−−√+m_−−√). A quantum algorithm achieving this, up to logarithmic factors, was obtained in [217]. This quantum algorithm works through the use of Grover's algorithm together with a classical method called deterministic sampling. More recently, Montanaro showed that superpolynomial quantum speedup can be achieved on average case instances of pattern matching, provided that m is greater than logarithmic in n. Specifically, the quantum algorithm given in [215] solves average case pattern matching in O_˜((n/m)d/22_O(d_3/2log_m_√)) time. This quantum algorithm is constructed by generalizing Kuperberg's quantum sieve algorithm [66] for dihedral hidden subgroup and hidden shift problems so that it can operate in d dimensions and accomodate small amounts of noise, and then classically reducing the pattern matching problem to this noisy d-dimensional version of hidden shift. Algorithm: Ordered Search Speedup: Constant factor Description: We are given oracle access to a list of N numbers in order from least to greatest. Given a number x, the task is to find out where in the list it would fit. Classically, the best possible algorithm is binary search which takes log2_N queries. Farhi et al. showed that a quantum computer can achieve this using 0.53 log2_N queries [39]. Currently, the best known deterministic quantum algorithm for this problem uses 0.433 log2_N queries [103]. A lower bound of ln2_π_log2_N quantum queries has been proven for this problem [219, 24]. In [10], a randomized quantum algorithm is given whose expected query complexity is less than 13log2_N_. Algorithm: Graph Properties in the Adjacency Matrix Model Speedup: Polynomial Description: Let G be a graph of n vertices. We are given access to an oracle, which given a pair of integers in {1,2,...,n} tells us whether the corresponding vertices are connected by an edge. Building on previous work [35,52,36], Dürr et al. [34] show that the quantum query complexity of finding a minimum spanning tree of weighted graphs, and deciding connectivity for directed and undirected graphs have Θ(_n_3/2) quantum query complexity, and that finding lowest weight paths has O(n_3/2log2_n) quantum query complexity. Deciding whether a graph is bipartite, detecting cycles, and deciding whether a given vertex can be reached from another (st-connectivity) can all be achieved using a number of queries and quantum gates that both scale as _O_˜(_n_3/2), and only logarithmically many qubits, as shown in [317], building upon [13, 272, 318]. A span-program-based quantum algorithm for detecting trees of a given size as minors in _O_˜(n) time is given in [240]. A graph property is sparse if there exists a constant c such that every graph with the property has a ratio of edges to vertices at most c. Childs and Kothari have shown that all sparse graph properties have query complexity Θ(_n_2/3) if they cannot be characterized by a list of forbidden subgraphs and o(_n_2/3) (little-o) if they can [140]. The former algorithm is based on Grover search, the latter on the quantum walk formalism of [141]. By Mader's theorem, sparse graph properties include all nontrivial minor-closed properties. These include planarity, being a forest, and not containing a path of given length. According to the widely-believed Aanderaa-Karp-Rosenberg conjecture, all of the above problems have Ω(_n_2) classical query complexity. Another interesting computational problem is finding a subgraph H in a given graph G. The simplest case of this finding the triangle, that is, the clique of size three. The fastest known quantum algorithm for this finds a triangle in O(_n_5/4) quantum queries [319], improving upon [276, 175, 171, 70, 152, 21]. Stronger quantum query complexity upper bounds are known when the graphs are sufficiently sparse [319, 320]. Classically, triangle finding requires Ω(_n_2) queries [21]. More generally, a quantum computer can find an arbitrary subgraph of k vertices using O(_n_2−2/k_−_t) queries where t=(2_k_−_d_−3)/(k(d+1)(m+2)) and d and m are such that H has a vertex of degree d and m+d edges [153]. This improves on the previous algorithm of [70]. In some cases, this query complexity is beaten by the quantum algorithm of [140], which finds H using _O_˜(_n_32−1vc(H)+1) queries, provided G is sparse, where vc(H) is the size of the minimal vertex cover of H. A quantum algorithm for finding constant-sized sub-hypergraphs over 3-uniform hypergraphs in O(_n_1.883) queries is given in [241].
Algorithm: Graph Properties in the Adjacency List Model Speedup: Polynomial Description: Let G be a graph of N vertices, M edges, and degree d. We are given access to an oracle which, when queried with the label of a vertex and _j_∈{1,2,…,d} outputs the _j_th neighbor of the vertex or null if the vertex has degree less than d. Suppose we are given the promise that G is either bipartite or is far from bipartite in the sense that a constant fraction of the edges would need to be removed to achieve bipartiteness. Then, as shown in [144], the quantum complexity of deciding bipartiteness is _O_˜(_N_1/3). Also in [144], it is shown that distinguishing expander graphs from graphs that are far from being expanders has quantum complexity _O_˜(_N_1/3) and Ω˜(_N_1/4), whereas the classical complexity is Θ˜(_N_−−√). The key quantum algorithmic tool is Ambainis' algorithm for element distinctness. In [34], it is shown that finding a minimal spanning tree has quantum query complexity Θ(_NM_−−−−√), deciding graph connectivity has quantum query complexity Θ(N) in the undirected case, and Θ˜(_NM_−−−−√) in the directed case, and computing the lowest weight path from a given source to all other vertices on a weighted graph has quantum query complexity Θ˜(_NM_−−−−√). In [317] quantum algorithms are given for st-connectivity, deciding bipartiteness, and deciding whether a graph is a forest, which run in _O_˜(_Nd_−−√) time and use only logarithmically many qubits. Algorithm: Welded Tree Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Some computational problems can be phrased in terms of the query complexity of finding one's way through a maze. That is, there is some graph G to which one is given oracle access. When queried with the label of a given node, the oracle returns a list of the labels of all adjacent nodes. The task is, starting from some source node (i.e. its label), to find the label of a certain marked destination node. As shown by Childs et al. [26], quantum computers can exponentially outperform classical computers at this task for at least some graphs. Specifically, consider the graph obtained by joining together two depth-n binary trees by a random "weld" such that all nodes but the two roots have degree three. Starting from one root, a quantum computer can find the other root using poly(n) queries, whereas this is provably impossible using classical queries. Algorithm: Collision Finding and Element Distinctness Speedup: Polynomial Description: Suppose we are given oracle access to a two to one function f on a domain of size N. The collision problem is to find a pair x,_y_∈{1,2,…,N} such that f(x) = f(y). The classical randomized query complexity of this problem is Θ(_N_−−√), whereas, as shown by Brassard et al., a quantum computer can achieve this using O(_N_1/3) queries [18]. (See also [315].) Removing the promise that f is two-to-one yields a problem called element distinctness, which has Θ(N) classical query complexity. Improving upon [21], Ambainis gives a quantum algorithm with query complexity of O(_N_2/3) for element distinctness, which is optimal [7, 374]. The problem of deciding whether any k-fold collisions exist is called k-distinctness. Improving upon [7,154], the best quantum query complexity for k-distinctness is O(_n_3/4−1/(4(2_k_−1))) [172, 173]. For k=2,3 this is also the time-complexity, up to logarithmic factors, by [7]. For k>3 the fastest known quantum algorithm has time complexity O(n(_k_−1)/k) [363]. Given two functions f and g, on domains of size N and M, respectively a claw is a pair x,y such that f(x) = g(y). In the case that N=M, the algorithm of [7] solves claw-finding in O(_N_2/3) queries, improving on the previous O(N_3/4log_N) quantum algorithm of [21]. Further work gives improved query complexity for various parameter regimes in which N_≠_M [364, 365]. More generally, a related problem to element distinctness, is, given oracle access to a sequence, to estimate the k_th frequency moment Fk=∑_jnkj, where nj is the number of times that j occurs in the sequence. An approximately quadratic speedup for this problem is obtained in [277]. See also graph collision. Algorithm: Graph Collision Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are given an undirected graph of n vertices and oracle access to a labelling of the vertices by 1 and 0. The graph collision problem is, by querying this oracle, to decide whether there exist a pair of vertices, connected by an edge, both of which are labelled 1. One can embed Grover's unstructured search problem as an instance of graph collision by choosing the star graph, labelling the center 1, and labelling the remaining vertices by the database entries. Hence, this problem has quantum query complexity Ω(_n_−−√) and classical query complexity Θ(n). In [70], Magniez, Nayak, and Szegedy gave a O(_N_2/3)-query quantum algorithm for graph collision on general graphs. This remains the best upper bound on quantum query complexity for this problem on general graphs. However, stronger upper bounds have been obtained for several special classes of graphs. Specifically, the quantum query complexity on a graph G is _O_˜(_n_−−√+_l_√) where l is the number of non-edges in G [161], O(_n_−−√_α_1/6) where α is the size of the largest independent set of G [172], O(_n_−−√+_α_∗−−√) where _α_∗ is the maximum total degree of any independent set of G [200], and O(_n_−−√_t_1/6) where t is the treewidth of G [201]. Furthermore, the quantum query complexity is _O_˜(_n_−−√) with high probability for random graphs in which the presence or absence of an edge between each pair of vertices is chosen independently with fixed probability, (i.e. Erdős-Rényi graphs) [200]. See [201] for a summary of these results as well as new upper bounds for two additional classes of graph that are too complicated to describe here. \
Algorithm: Matrix Commutativity Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are given oracle access to k matrices, each of which are n_×_n. Given integers i,_j_∈{1,2,…,n}, and _x_∈{1,2,…,k} the oracle returns the ij matrix element of the _x_th matrix. The task is to decide whether all of these k matrices commute. As shown by Itakura [54], this can be achieved on a quantum computer using O(_k_4/5_n_9/5) queries, whereas classically this requires Ω(_kn_2) queries. Algorithm: Group Commutativity Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are given a list of k generators for a group G and access to a blackbox implementing group multiplication. By querying this blackbox we wish to determine whether the group is commutative. The best known classical algorithm is due to Pak and requires O(k) queries. Magniez and Nayak have shown that the quantum query complexity of this task is Θ˜(k_2/3) [139]. Algorithm: Hidden Nonlinear Structures Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Any Abelian group G can be visualized as a lattice. A subgroup H of G is a sublattice, and the cosets of H are all the shifts of that sublattice. The Abelian hidden subgroup problem is normally solved by obtaining superposition over a random coset of the Hidden subgroup, and then taking the Fourier transform so as to sample from the dual lattice. Rather than generalizing to non-Abelian groups (see non-Abelian hidden subgroup), one can instead generalize to the problem of identifying hidden subsets other than lattices. As shown by Childs et al. [23] this problem is efficiently solvable on quantum computers for certain subsets defined by polynomials, such as spheres. Decker et al. showed how to efficiently solve some related problems in [31, 212]. Algorithm: Center of Radial Function Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are given an oracle that evaluates a function f from R_d to some arbitrary set S, where f is spherically symmetric. We wish to locate the center of symmetry, up to some precision. (For simplicity, let the precision be fixed.) In [110], Liu gives a quantum algorithm, based on a curvelet transform, that solves this problem using a constant number of quantum queries independent of d. This constitutes a polynomial speedup over the classical lower bound, which is Ω(d) queries. The algorithm works when the function f fluctuates on sufficiently small scales, e.g., when the level sets of f are sufficiently thin spherical shells. The quantum algorithm is shown to work in an idealized continuous model, and nonrigorous arguments suggest that discretization effects should be small. Algorithm: Group Order and Membership Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Suppose a finite group G is given oracularly in the following way. To every element in G, one assigns a corresponding label. Given an ordered pair of labels of group elements, the oracle returns the label of their product. There are several classically hard problems regarding such groups. One is to find the group's order, given the labels of a set of generators. Another task is, given a bitstring, to decide whether it corresponds to a group element. The constructive version of this membership problem requires, in the yes case, a decomposition of the given element as a product of group generators. Classically, these problems cannot be solved using polylog(|G|) queries even if G is Abelian. For Abelian groups, quantum computers can solve these problems using polylog(|G|) queries by reduction to the Abelian hidden subgroup problem, as shown by Mosca [74]. Furthermore, as shown by Watrous [91], quantum computers can solve these problems using polylog(|G|) queries for any solvable group. For groups given as matrices over a finite field rather than oracularly, the order finding and constructive membership problems can be solved in polynomial time by using the quantum algorithms for discrete log and factoring [124]. See also group isomorphism. Algorithm: Group Isomorphism Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let G be a finite group. To every element of G is assigned an arbitrary label (bit string). Given an ordered pair of labels of group elements, the group oracle returns the label of their product. Given access to the group oracles for two groups G and G', and a list of generators for each group, we must decide whether G and G' are isomorphic. For Abelian groups, we can solve this problem using poly(log |G|, log |G'|) queries to the oracle by applying the quantum algorithm of [127], which decomposes any Abelian group into a canonical direct product of cyclic groups. The quantum algorithm of [128] solves the group isomorphism problem using poly(log |G|, log |G'|) queries for a certain class of non-Abelian groups. Specifically, a group G is in this class if G has a normal Abelian subgroup A and an element y of order coprime to |A| such that G = A, y. Zatloukal has recently given an exponential quantum speedup for some instances of a problem closely related to group isomorphism, namely testing equivalence of group extensions [202]. Algorithm: Statistical Difference Speedup: Polynomial Description: Suppose we are given two black boxes A and B whose domain is the integers 1 through T and whose range is the integers 1 through N. By choosing uniformly at random among allowed inputs we obtain a probability distribution over the possible outputs. We wish to approximate to constant precision the L1 distance between the probability distributions determined by A and B. Classically the number of necessary queries scales essentially linearly with N. As shown in [117], a quantum computer can achieve this using O(_N_−−√) queries. Approximate uniformity and orthogonality of probability distributions can also be decided on a quantum computer using O(_N_1/3) queries. The main tool is the quantum counting algorithm of [16]. A further improved quantum algorithm for this task is obtained in [265]. Algorithm: Finite Rings and Ideals Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Suppose we are given black boxes implementing the addition and multiplication operations on a finite ring R, not necessarily commutative, along with a set of generators for R. With respect to addition, R forms a finite Abelian group (R,+). As shown in [119], on a quantum computer one can find in poly(log |R|) time a set of additive generators {h_1,…,hm}⊂_R such that (R,+)≃⟨_h_1⟩×…×⟨hM⟩ and m is polylogarithmic in |R|. This allows efficient computation of a multiplication tensor for R. As shown in [118], one can similarly find an additive generating set for any ideal in R. This allows one to find the intersection of two ideals, find their quotient, prove whether a given ring element belongs to a given ideal, prove whether a given element is a unit and if so find its inverse, find the additive and multiplicative identities, compute the order of an ideal, solve linear equations over rings, decide whether an ideal is maximal, find annihilators, and test the injectivity and surjectivity of ring homomorphisms. As shown in [120], one can also use a quantum computer to efficiently decide whether a given polynomial is identically zero on a given finite black box ring. Known classical algorithms for these problems scale as poly(|R|).
Algorithm: Counterfeit Coins Speedup: Polynomial Description: Suppose we are given N coins, k of which are counterfeit. The real coins are all of equal weight, and the counterfeit coins are all of some other equal weight. We have a pan balance and can compare the weight of any pair of subsets of the coins. Classically, we need Ω(_k_log(N/k)) weighings to identify all of the counterfeit coins. We can introduce an oracle such that given a pair of subsets of the coins of equal cardinality, it outputs one bit indicating balanced or unbalanced. Building on previous work by Terhal and Smolin [137], Iwama et al. have shown [136] that on a quantum computer, one can identify all of the counterfeit coins using O(k_1/4) queries. The core techniques behind the quantum speedup are amplitude amplification and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm. Algorithm: Matrix Rank Speedup: Polynomial Description: Suppose we are given oracle access to the (integer) entries of an n_×_m matrix A. We wish to determine the rank of the matrix. Classically this requires order nm queries. Building on [149], Belovs [150] gives a quantum algorithm that can use fewer queries given a promise that the rank of the matrix is at least r. Specifically, Belovs' algorithm uses O(r(n_−_r+1)−−−−−−−−−−√_LT) queries, where L is the root-mean-square of the reciprocals of the r largest singular values of A and T is a factor that depends on the sparsity of the matrix. For general A, T=O(_nm_−−−√). If A has at most k nonzero entries in any row or column then T=O(_k_log(n+m)). (To achieve the corresponding query complexity in the k-sparse case, the oracle must take a column index as input, and provide a list of the nonzero matrix elements from that column as output.) As an important special case, one can use these quantum algorithms for the problem of determining whether a square matrix is singular, which is sometimes referred to as the determinant problem. For general A the quantum query complexity of the determinant problem is no lower than the classical query complexity [151]. However, [151] does not rule out a quantum speedup given a promise on A, such as sparseness or lack of small singular values. Algorithm: Matrix Multiplication over Semirings Speedup: Polynomial Description: A semiring is a set endowed with addition and multiplication operations that obey all the axioms of a ring except the existence additive inverses. Matrix multiplication over various semirings has many applications to graph problems. Matrix multiplication over semirings can be sped up by straightforward Grover improvements upon schoolbook multiplication, yielding a quantum algorithm that multiplies a pair of n_×_n matrices in _O_˜(_n_5/2) time. For some semirings this algorithm outperforms the fastest known classical algorithms and for some semirings it does not [206]. A case of particular interest is the Boolean semiring, in which OR serves as addition and AND serves as multiplication. No quantum algorithm is known for Boolean semiring matrix multiplication in the general case that beats the best classical algorithm, which has complexity _n_2.373. However, for sparse input our output, quantum speedups are known. Specifically, let A,B be n by n Boolean matrices. Let C=AB, and let l be the number of entries of C that are equal to 1 (i.e. TRUE). Improving upon [19, 155, 157], the best known upper bound on quantum query complexity is _O_˜(_nl_√), as shown in [161]. If instead the input matrices are sparse, a quantum speedup over the fastest known classical algorithm also has been found in a certain regime [206]. For detailed comparison to classical algorithms, see [155, 206]. Quantum algorithms have been found to perform matrix multiplication over the (max,min) semiring in _O_˜(_n_2.473) time and over the distance dominance semiring in _O_˜(_n_2.458) time [206]. The fastest known classical algorithm for both of these problems has _O_˜(_n_2.687) complexity. Algorithm: Subset finding Speedup: Polynomial Description: We are oracle access to a function f:D_→_R where D and R are finite sets. Some property _P_⊂(D_×_R)k is specified, for example as an explicit list. Our task is to find a size-k subset of D satisfying P, i.e. ((_x_1,f(x_1)),…,(xk,f(xk)))∈_P, or reject if none exists. As usual, we wish to do this with the minimum number of queries to f. Generalizing the result of [7], it was shown in [162] that this can be achieved using O(|D|k/(k+1)) quantum queries. As an noteworthy special case, this algorithm solves the k-subset-sum problem of finding k numbers from a list with some desired sum. A matching lower bound for the quantum query complexity is proven in [163]. Algorithm: Search with Wildcards Speedup: Polynomial Description: The search with wildcards problem is to identify a hidden n-bit string x by making queries to an oracle f. Given _S_⊆{1,2,…,n} and _y_∈{0,1}|S|, f returns one if the substring of x specified by S is equal to y, and returns zero otherwise. Classically, this problem has query complexity Θ(n). As shown in [167], the quantum query complexity of this problem is Θ(_n_−−√). Interestingly, this quadratic speedup is achieved not through amplitude amplification or quantum walks, but rather through use of the so-called Pretty Good Measurement. The paper [167] also gives a quantum speedup for the related problem of combinatorial group testing. This result and subsequent faster quantum algorithms for group testing are discussed in the entry on Junta Testing and Group Testing. Algorithm: Network flows Speedup: Polynomial Description: A network is a directed graph whose edges are labeled with numbers indicating their carrying capacities, and two of whose vertices are designated as the source and the sink. A flow on a network is an assignment of flows to the edges such that no flow exceeds that edge's capacity, and for each vertex other than the source and sink, the total inflow is equal to the total outflow. The network flow problem is, given a network, to find the flow that maximizes the total flow going from source to sink. For a network with n vertices, m edges, and integer capacities of maximum magnitude U, [168] gives a quantum algorithm to find the maximal flow in time O(min{_n_7/6_m_−−√ U_1/3,nU_−−−√_m}×log_n). The network flow problem is closely related to the problem of finding a maximal matching of a graph, that is, a maximal-size subset of edges that connects each vertex to at most one other vertex. The paper [168] gives algorithms for finding maximal matchings that run in time O(nm+n_−−−−−√log_n) if the graph is bipartite, and O(n_2(m/n_−−−−√+log_n)log_n) in the general case. The core of these algorithms is Grover search. The known upper bounds on classical complexity of the network flow and matching problems are complicated to state because different classical algorithms are preferable in different parameter regimes. However, in certain regimes, the above quantum algorithms beat all known classical algorithms. (See [168] for details.)
Algorithm: Electrical Resistance Speedup: Exponential Description: We are given oracle access to a weighted graph of n vertices and maximum degree d whose edge weights are to be interpreted as electrical resistances. Our task is to compute the resistance between a chosen pair of vertices. Wang gave two quantum algorithms in [210] for this task that run in time poly(log_n_,d,1/ϕ,1/ϵ), where ϕ is the expansion of the graph, and the answer is to be given to within a factor of 1+ϵ. Known classical algorithms for this problem are polynomial in n rather than log_n_. One of Wang's algorithms is based on a novel use of quantum walks. The other is based on the quantum algorithm of [104] for solving linear systems of equations. The first quantum query complexity upper bounds for the electrical resistance problem in the adjacency query model are given in [280] using approximate span programs. Algorithm: Junta Testing and Group Testing Speedup: Polynomial Description: A function f:{0,1}_n_→{0,1} is a k-junta if it depends on at most k of its input bits. The k-junta testing problem is to decide whether a given function is a k-junta or is ϵ-far from any k-junta. Althoug it is not obvious, this problem is closely related to group testing. A group testing problem is defined by a function f:{1,2,…,n}→{0,1}. One is given oracle access to F, which takes as input subsets of {1,2,…,n}. F(S) = 1 if there exists x_∈_S such that f(x) = 1 and F(S) = 0 otherwise. In [266] a quantum algorithm is given solving the k-junta problem using _O_˜(k/_ϵ_−−−√) queries and _O_˜(nk/_ϵ_−−−√) time. This is a quadratic speedup over the classical complexity, and improves upon a previous quantum algorithm for k-junta testing given in [267]. A polynomial speedup for a gapped (i.e. approximation) version of group testing is also given in [266], improving upon the earlier results of [167,268].
Approximation and Simulation Algorithms
Algorithm: Quantum Simulation Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: It is believed that for any physically realistic Hamiltonian H on n degrees of freedom, the corresponding time evolution operator e_−_iHt can be implemented using poly(n,t) gates. Unless BPP=BQP, this problem is not solvable in general on a classical computer in polynomial time. Many techniques for quantum simulation have been developed for general classes of Hamiltonians [25,95,92,5,12,170,205,211,244,245,278,293,294,295,372,382], chemical dynamics [63,68,227,310,375], condensed matter physics [1,99, 145], relativistic quantum mechanics (the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations) [367,369,370,371], open quantum systems [376, 377,378,379], and quantum field theory [107,166,228,229,230,368]. The exponential complexity of classically simulating quantum systems led Feynman to first propose that quantum computers might outperform classical computers on certain tasks [40]. Although the problem of finding ground energies of local Hamiltonians is QMA-complete and therefore probably requires exponential time on a quantum computer in the worst case, quantum algorithms have been developed to approximate ground [102,231,232,233,234,235,308,321,322,380,381] as well as thermal states [132,121,281,282,307] for some classes of Hamiltonians and equilibrium states for some classes of master equations [430]. Efficient quantum algorithms have been also obtained for preparing certain classes of tensor network states [323,324,325,326,327,328]. Algorithm: Knot Invariants Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: As shown by Freedman [42, 41], et al., finding a certain additive approximation to the Jones polynomial of the plat closure of a braid at ei_2_π/5 is a BQP-complete problem. This result was reformulated and extended to ei_2_π/k for arbitrary k by Aharonov et al. [4,2]. Wocjan and Yard further generalized this, obtaining a quantum algorithm to estimate the HOMFLY polynomial [93], of which the Jones polynomial is a special case. Aharonov et al. subsequently showed that quantum computers can in polynomial time estimate a certain additive approximation to the even more general Tutte polynomial for planar graphs [3]. It is not fully understood for what range of parameters the approximation obtained in [3] is BQP-hard. (See also partition functions.) Polynomial-time quantum algorithms have also been discovered for additively approximating link invariants arising from quantum doubles of finite groups [174]. (This problem is not known to be BQP-hard.) As shown in [83], the problem of finding a certain additive approximation to the Jones polynomial of the trace closure of a braid at ei_2_π/5 is DQC1-complete. Algorithm: Three-manifold Invariants Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: The Turaev-Viro invariant is a function that takes three-dimensional manifolds as input and produces a real number as output. Homeomorphic manifolds yield the same number. Given a three-manifold specified by a Heegaard splitting, a quantum computer can efficiently find a certain additive approximation to its Turaev-Viro invariant, and this approximation is BQP-complete [129]. Earlier, in [114], a polynomial-time quantum algorithm was given to additively approximate the Witten-Reshitikhin-Turaev (WRT) invariant of a manifold given by a surgery presentation. Squaring the WRT invariant yields the Turaev-Viro invariant. However, it is unknown whether the approximation achieved in [114] is BQP-complete. A suggestion of a possible link between quantum computation and three-manifold invariants was also given in [115]. Algorithm: Partition Functions Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: For a classical system with a finite set of states S the partition function is Z=∑_s_∈_Se_−_E_(s)/kT, where T is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. Essentially every thermodynamic quantity can be calculated by taking an appropriate partial derivative of the partition function. The partition function of the Potts model is a special case of the Tutte polynomial. A quantum algorithm for approximating the Tutte polynomial is given in [3]. Some connections between these approaches are discussed in [67]. Additional algorithms for estimating partition functions on quantum computers are given in [112,113,45,47]. A BQP-completeness result (where the "energies" are allowed to be complex) is also given in [113]. A method for approximating partition functions by simulating thermalization processes is given in [121]. A quadratic speedup for the approximation of general partition functions is given in [122]. A method based on quantum walks, achieving polynomial speedup for evaluating partition functions is given in [265]. Algorithm: Quantum Approximate Optimization Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: For many combinatorial optimization problems, finding the exact optimal solution is NP-complete. There are also hardness-of-approximation results proving that finding an approximation with sufficiently small error bound is NP-complete. For certain problems there is a gap between the best error bound achieved by a polynomial-time classical approximation algorithm and the error bound proven to be NP-hard. In this regime there is potential for exponential speedup by quantum computation. In [242] a new quantum algorithmic technique called the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) was proposed for finding approximate solutions to combinatorial optimization problems. In [243] it was subsequently shown that QAOA solves a combinatorial optimization problem called Max E3LIN2 with a better approximation ratio than any polynomial-time classical algorithm known at the time. However, an efficient classical algorithm achieving an even better approximation ratio (in fact, the approximation ratio saturating the limit set by hardness-of-approximation) was subsequently discovered [260]. Presently, the power of QAOA relative to classical computing is an active area of research [300, 301, 302, 314]. Algorithm: Semidefinite Programming Speedup: Polynomial (with some exceptions) Description: Given a list of m + 1 Hermitian n_×_n matrices C,A_1,A_2,…,Am and m numbers b_1,…,bm, the problem of semidefinite programming is to find the positive semidefinite n_×_n matrix X that maximizes tr(CX) subject to the constraints tr(AjX)≤_bj for j=1,2,…,m. Semidefinite programming has many applications in operations research, combinatorial optimization, and quantum information, and it includes linear programming as a special case. Introduced in [313], and subsequently improved in [383, 425], quantum algorithms are now known that can approximately solve semidefinite programs to within ±_ϵ in time O(m_−−√log_m_⋅poly(log_n,r,ϵ_−1)), where r is the rank of the semidefinite program. This constitutes a quadratic speedup over the fastest classical algorithms when r is small compared to n. The quantum algorithm is based on amplitude amplification and quantum Gibbs sampling [121, 307]. In a model in which input is provided in the form of quantum states the quantum algorithm for semidefinite programming can achieve superpolynomial speedup, as discussed in [383], although recent dequantization results [421] delineate limitations on the context in which superpolynomial quantum speedup for semidefinite programs is possible. Algorithm: Zeta Functions Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let f(x,y) be a degree-d polynomial over a finite field F_p. Let Nr be the number of projective solutions to f(x,y = 0 over the extension field F_pr. The zeta function for f is defined to be Zf(T)=exp(∑∞_r_=1_NrrTr_). Remarkably, Zf(T) always has the form Zf(T)=Qf(T)(1−_pT_)(1−_T_) where Qf(T) is a polynomial of degree 2_g_ and g=12(d_−1)(d_−2) is called the genus of f. Given Zf(T) one can easily compute the number of zeros of f over any extension field F_pr. One can similarly define the zeta function when the original field over which f is defined does not have prime order. As shown by Kedlaya [64], quantum computers can determine the zeta function of a genus g curve over a finite field F_pr in poly(log_p_,r,g) time. The fastest known classical algorithms are all exponential in either log(p) or g. In a diffent, but somewhat related contex, van Dam has conjectured that due to a connection between the zeros of Riemann zeta functions and the eigenvalues of certain quantum operators, quantum computers might be able to efficiently approximate the number of solutions to equations over finite fields [87]. \
Algorithm: Weight Enumerators Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Let C be a code on n bits, i.e. a subset of Z_n_2. The weight enumerator of C is SC(x,y)=∑_c_∈_Cx_|c|yn_−|c| where |c| denotes the Hamming weight of c. Weight enumerators have many uses in the study of classical codes. If C is a linear code, it can be defined by C={c:Ac=0} where A is a matrix over Z2 In this case SC(x,y)=∑_c:Ac=0_x_|c|yn_−|c|. Quadratically signed weight enumerators (QWGTs) are a generalization of this: S(A,B,x,y)=∑_c:Ac=0(−1)cTBcx|c|_yn_−|c|. Now consider the following special case. Let A be an n_×_n matrix over Z2 such that diag(A)=I. Let lwtr(A) be the lower triangular matrix resulting from setting all entries above the diagonal in A to zero. Let l,k be positive integers. Given the promise that |S(A,lwtr(A),k,l)|≥12(_k_2+_l_2)n/2 the problem of determining the sign of S(A,lwtr(A),k,l) is BQP-complete, as shown by Knill and Laflamme in [65]. The evaluation of QWGTs is also closely related to the evaluation of Ising and Potts model partition functions [67,45,46]. Algorithm: Simulated Annealing Speedup: Polynomial Description: In simulated annealing, one has a series of Markov chains defined by stochastic matrices _M_1,_M_2,…,Mn. These are slowly varying in the sense that their limiting distributions _pi_1,π_2,…,πn satisfy |πt+1−_πt|<ϵ for some small ϵ. These distributions can often be thought of as thermal distributions at successively lower temperatures. If π_1 can be easily prepared, then by applying this series of Markov chains one can sample from πn. Typically, one wishes for πn to be a distribution over good solutions to some optimization problem. Let δi be the gap between the largest and second largest eigenvalues of Mi. Let δ=min_iδi. The run time of this classical algorithm is proportional to 1/δ. Building upon results of Szegedy [135,85], Somma et al. have shown [84, 177] that quantum computers can sample from πn with a runtime proportional to 1/_δ_√. Additional methods by which classical Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms can be sped up using quantum walks are given in [265]. Algorithm: String Rewriting Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: String rewriting is a fairly general model of computation. String rewriting systems (sometimes called grammars) are specified by a list of rules by which certain substrings are allowed to be replaced by certain other substrings. For example, context free grammars, are equivalent to the pushdown automata. In [59], Janzing and Wocjan showed that a certain string rewriting problem is PromiseBQP-complete. Thus quantum computers can solve it in polynomial time, but classical computers probably cannot. Given three strings s,t,t', and a set of string rewriting rules satisfying certain promises, the problem is to find a certain approximation to the difference between the number of ways of obtaining t from s and the number of ways of obtaining t' from s. Similarly, certain problems of approximating the difference in number of paths between pairs of vertices in a graph, and difference in transition probabilities between pairs of states in a random walk are also BQP-complete [58]. Algorithm: Matrix Powers Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Quantum computers have an exponential advantage in approximating matrix elements of powers of exponentially large sparse matrices. Suppose we are have an N_×_N symmetric matrix A such that there are at most polylog(N) nonzero entries in each row, and given a row index, the set of nonzero entries can be efficiently computed. The task is, for any 1 < i < N, and any m polylogarithmic in N, to approximate (Am)ii the _i_th diagonal matrix element of Am. The approximation is additive to within bmϵ where b is a given upper bound on |A| and ϵ is of order 1/polylog(N). As shown by Janzing and Wocjan, this problem is PromiseBQP-complete, as is the corresponding problem for off-diagonal matrix elements [60]. Thus, quantum computers can solve it in polynomial time, but classical computers probably cannot.
Optimization, Numerics, and Machine Learning
Algorithm: Constraint Satisfaction Speedup: Polynomial Description: Constraint satisfaction problems, many of which are NP-hard, are ubiquitous in computer science, a canonical example being 3-SAT. If one wishes to satisfy as many constraints as possible rather than all of them, these become combinatorial optimization problems. (See also adiabatic algorithms.) The brute force solution to constraint satisfaction problems can be quadratically sped up using Grover's algorithm. However, most constraint satisfaction problems are solvable by classical algorithms that (although still exponential-time) run more than quadratically faster than brute force checking of all possible solutions. Nevertheless, a polynomial quantum speedup over the fastest known classical algorithm for 3-SAT is given in [133], and polynomial quantum speedups for some other constraint satisfaction problems are given in [134, 298]. In [423] a quadratic quantum speedup for approximate solutions to homogeneous QUBO/Ising problems is obtained by building upon the quantum algorithm for semidefinite programming. A commonly used classical algorithm for constraint satisfaction is backtracking, and for some problems this algorithm is the fastest known. A general quantum speedup for backtracking algorithms is given in [264] and further improved in [422]. Algorithm: Adiabatic Algorithms Speedup: Unknown Description: In adiabatic quantum computation one starts with an initial Hamiltonian whose ground state is easy to prepare, and slowly varies the Hamiltonian to one whose ground state encodes the solution to some computational problem. By the adiabatic theorem, the system will track the instantaneous ground state provided the variation of the Hamiltonian is sufficiently slow. The runtime of an adiabatic algorithm scales at worst as 1/_γ_3 where γ is the minimum eigenvalue gap between the ground state and the first excited state [185]. If the Hamiltonian is varied sufficiently smoothly, one can improve this to _O_˜(1/γ_2) [247]. Adiabatic quantum computation was first proposed by Farhi et al. as a method for solving NP-complete combinatorial optimization problems [96, 186]. Adiabatic quantum algorithms for optimization problems typically use "stoquastic" Hamiltonians, which do not suffer from the sign problem. Such algorithms are sometimes referred to as quantum annealing. Adiabatic quantum computation with non-stoquastic Hamiltonians is as powerful as the quantum circuit model [97]. Adiabatic algorithms using stoquastic Hamiltonians are probably less powerful [183], but are likely more powerful than classical computation [429]. The asymptotic runtime of adiabatic optimization algorithms is notoriously difficult to analyze, but some progress has been achieved [179,180,181,182,187,188,189,190,191,226]. (Also relevant is an earlier literature on quantum annealing, which originally referred to a classical optimization algorithm that works by simulating a quantum process, much as simulated annealing is a classical optimization algorithm that works by simulating a thermal process. See e.g. [199, 198].) Adiabatic quantum computers can perform a process somewhat analogous to Grover search in O(N_−−√) time [98]. Adiabatic quantum algorithms achieving quadratic speedup for a more general class of problems are constructed in [184] by adapting techniques from [85]. Adiabatic quantum algorithms have been proposed for several specific problems, including PageRank [176], machine learning [192, 195], finding Hadamard matrices [406], and graph problems [193, 194]. Some quantum simulation algorithms also use adiabatic state preparation. Algorithm: Gradients, Structured Search, and Learning Polynomials Speedup: Polynomial Description: Suppose we are given a oracle for computing some smooth function f:R_d_→R. The inputs and outputs to f are given to the oracle with finitely many bits of precision. The task is to estimate ∇_f at some specified point x0∈R_d. As shown in [61], a quantum computer can achieve this using one query, whereas a classical computer needs at least d+1 queries. In [20], Bulger suggested potential applications for optimization problems. As shown in appendix D of [62], a quantum computer can use the gradient algorithm to find the minimum of a quadratic form in d dimensions using O(d) queries, whereas, as shown in [94], a classical computer needs at least Ω(_d_2) queries. Single query quantum algorithms for finding the minima of basins based on Hamming distance were given in [147,148,223]. The quantum algorithm of [62] can also extract all _d_2 matrix elements of the quadratic form using O(d) queries, and more generally, all dn _n_th derivatives of a smooth function of d variables in O(_dn_−1) queries. Remarkably general results in [418,419,420] give quantum speedups for convex optimization and volume estimation of convex bodies, as well as query complexity lower bounds. Roughly speaking these results show that for convex optimization and volume estimation in d dimensions one gets a quadratic speedup in d just as was found earlier for the special case of minimizing quadratic forms. As shown in [130,146], quadratic forms and multilinear polynomials in d variables over a finite field may be extracted with a factor of d fewer quantum queries than are required classically. \
Algorithm: Linear Systems Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: We are given oracle access to an n_×_n matrix A and some description of a vector b. We wish to find some property of f(A)b for some efficiently computable function f. Suppose A is a Hermitian matrix with O(polylog n) nonzero entries in each row and condition number k. As shown in [104], a quantum computer can in O(k_2log_n) time compute to polynomial precision various expectation values of operators with respect to the vector f(A)b (provided that a quantum state proportional to b is efficiently constructable). For certain functions, such as f(x)=1/x, this procedure can be extended to non-Hermitian and even non-square A. The runtime of this algorithm was subsequently improved to O(k_log3_k_log_n) in [138]. Exponentially improved scaling of runtime with precision was obtained in [263]. Some methods to extend this algorithm to apply to non-sparse matrices have been proposed [309,402], although these require certain partial sums of the matrix elements to be pre-computed. Extensions of this quantum algorithm have been applied to problems of estimating electromagnetic scattering crossections [249] (see also [369] for a different approach), solving linear differential equations [156, 296], estimating electrical resistance of networks [210], least-squares curve-fitting [169], solving Toeplitz systems [297], and machine learning [214,222,250,251,309]. However, the linear-systems-based quantum algorithms for recommendation systems [309] and principal component analysis [250] were subsequently "dequantized" by Tang [400, 401]. That is, Tang obtained polynomial time classical randomized algorithms for these problems, thus proving that the proposed quantum algorithms for these tasks do not achieve exponential speedup. Some limitations of the quantum machine learning algorithms based on linear systems are nicely summarized in [246]. In [220] it was shown that quantum computers can invert well-conditioned n_×_n matrices using only O(log_n_) qubits, whereas the best classical algorithm uses order log2_n_ bits. Subsequent improvements to this quantum algorithm are given in [279]. Algorithm: Machine Learning Speedup: Varies Description: Maching learning encompasses a wide variety of computational problems and can be attacked by a wide variety of algorithmic techniques. This entry summarizes quantum algorithmic techniques for improved machine learning. Many of the quantum algorithms here are cross-listed under other headings. In [214,222,250,251,309,338,339,359,403], quantum algorithms for solving linear systems [104] are applied to speed up cluster-finding, principal component analysis, binary classification, training of neural networks, and various forms of regression, provided the data satisfies certain conditions. However, a number of quantum machine learning algorithms based on linear systems have subsequently been "dequantized". Specifically, Tang showed in [400, 401] that the problems of recommendation systems and principal component analysis solved by the quantum algorithms of [251,309] can in fact also be solved in polynomial time randomized classical algorithms. A cluster-finding method not based on the linear systems algorithm of [104] is given in [336]. The papers [192,195,344,345,346,348] explore the use of adiabatic optimization techniques to speed up the training of classifiers. In [221], a method is proposed for training Boltzmann machines by manipulating coherent quantum states with amplitudes proportional to the Boltzmann weights. Polynomial speedups can be obtained by applying Grover search and related techniques such as amplitude amplification to amenable subroutines of state of the art classical machine learning algorithms. See, for example [358,340,341,342,343]. Other quantum machine learning algorithms not falling into one of the above categories include [337,349]. Some limitations of quantum machine learning algorithms are nicely summarized in [246]. Many other quantum query algorithms that extract hidden structure of the black-box function could be cast as machine learning algorithms. See for example [146,23,11,31,212]. Query algorithms for learning the majority and "battleship" functions are given in [224]. Large quantum advantages for learning from noisy oracles are given in [236,237]. In [428] quantum kernel estimation is used to implement a support-vector classifier solving a learning problem that is provably as hard as discrete logarithm. Several recent review articles [299,332,333] and a book [331] are available which summarize the state of the field. There is a related body of work, not strictly within the standard setting of quantum algorithms, regarding quantum learning in the case that the data itself is quantum coherent. See e.g. [350,334,335,351,352,353,354,355,356,357]. Algorithm: Tensor Principal Component Analysis Speedup: Polynomial (quartic) Description: In [424] a quantum algorithm is given for an idealized problem motivated by machine learning applications on high-dimensional data sets. Consider T=_λv_⊗_p_sig+G where G is a p-index tensor of Gaussian random variables, symmetrized over all permutations of indices, and _v_sig is an N-dimensional vector of magnitude _N_−−√. The task is to recover _v_sig. Consider λ=αN_−_p/4. The best classical algorithms succeed when _α_≫1 and have time and space complexity that scale exponentially in _α_−1. The quantum algorithm of [424] solves this problem in polynomial space and with runtime scaling quartically better in α_−1 than the classical spectral algorithm. The quantum algorithm works by encoding the problem into the eigenspectrum of a many-body Hamiltonian and applying phase estimation together with amplitude amplification. Algorithm: Solving Differential Equations Speedup: Superpolynomial Description: Consider linear first order differential equation ddtx=A(t)x+b(t), where x and b are N-dimensional vectors and A is an N_×_N matrix. Given an initial condition x(0) one wishes to compute the solution x(t) at some later time t to some precision ϵ in the sense that the normalized vector x(t)/∥_x(t)∥ produced has distance at most ϵ from the exact solution. In [156], Berry gives a quantum algorithm for this problem that runs in time O(t_2poly(1/ϵ)polylog_N), whereas the fastest classical algorithms run in time O(t_poly_N). The final result is produced in the form of a quantum superposition state on O(logN) qubits whose amplitudes contain the components of x(t). The algorithm works by reducing the problem to linear algebra via a high-order finite difference method and applying the quantum linear algebra primitive of [104]. In [410] an improved quantum algorithm for this problem was given which brings the epsilon dependence down to polylog(1/ϵ). A quantum algorithm for solving nonlinear differential equations (again in the sense of obtaining a solution encoded in the amplitudes) is described in [411], which has exponential scaling in t. In [426,427] quantum algorithms are given for solving nonlinear differential equations that scale as O(_t_2). These are applicable to a restricted class of nonlinear differential equations. In particular, their solutions must not grow or shrink in magnitude too rapidly. Partial differential equations can be reduced to ordinary differential equations through discretization, and higher order differential equations can be reduced to first order through additiona of auxiliary variables. Consequently, these more general problems can be solved through the methods of [156, 104]. However, quantum algorithms designed to solve these problems directly may be more efficient (and for specific problems one may analyze the complexity of tasks that are unspecified in a more general formulation such as preparation of relevant initial states). In [249] a quantum algorithm is given which solves the wave equation by applying finite-element methods to reduce it to linear algebra and then applying the quantum linear algebra algorithm of [104] with preconditioning. In [369] a quantum algorithm is given for solving the wave equation by discretizing it with finite differences and massaging it into the form of a Schrodinger equation which is then simulated using the method of [245]. The problem solved by [369] is not equivalent to that solved by [249] because in [249] the problem is reduced to a time-indepent one through assuming sinusoidal time dependence and applying separation of variables, whereas [369] solves the time-dependent problem. The quantum speedup achieved over classical methods for solving the wave equation in d-dimensiona is polynomial for fixed d but expontial in d. Concrete resource estimates for quantum algorithms to solve differential equations are given in [412, 413, 414]. A quantum algorithm for solving linear partial differential equations using continuous-variable quantum computing is given in [415]. In [296] quantum finite element methods are analyzed in a general setting. A quantum spectral method for solving differential equations is given in [416]. A quantum algorithm for solving the Vlasov equation is given in [417]. Algorithm: Quantum Dynamic Programming Speedup: Polynomial Description: In [409] the authors introduce a problem called path-in-the-hypercube. In this problem, one given a subgraph of the hypercube and asked whether there is a path along this subgraph that starts from the all zeros vertex, ends at the all ones vertex, and makes only Hamming weight increasing moves. (The vertices of the hypercube graph correspond to bit strings of length n and the hypercube graph joins vertices of Hamming distance one.) Many NP-complete problems for which the best classical algorithm is dynamic programming can be modeled as instances of path-in-the-hypercube. By combining Grover search with dynamic programming methods, a quantum algorithm can solve path-in-the-hypercube in time O_∗(1.817_n), where the notation O_∗ indicates that polynomial factors are being omitted. The fastest known classical algorithm for this problem runs in time O_∗(2_n). Using this primitive quantum algorithms can be constructed that solve vertex ordering problems in O_∗(1.817_n) vs. O_∗(2_n) classically, graph bandwidth in O_∗(2.946_n) vs. O_∗(4.383_n) classically, travelling salesman and feedback arc set in O_∗(1.729_n) vs. O_∗(2_n) classically, and minimum set cover in O(poly(m,n)1.728_n) vs. O(nm_2_n) classically.
References
1Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd Simulation of many-body Fermi systems on a universal quantum computer. Physical Review Letters, 79(13):2586-2589, 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9703054 2Dorit Aharonov and Itai Arad The BQP-hardness of approximating the Jones polynomial. New Journal of Physics 13:035019, 2011. arXiv:quant-ph/0605181 3Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Elad Eban, and Zeph Landau Polynomial quantum algorithms for additive approximations of the Potts model and other points of the Tutte plane. arXiv:quant-ph/0702008, 2007. 4Dorit Aharonov, Vaughan Jones, and Zeph Landau A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0511096 5Dorit Aharonov and Amnon Ta-Shma Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0301023. 6A. Ambainis, H. Buhrman, P. Høyer, M. Karpinizki, and P. Kurur Quantum matrix verification. Unpublished Manuscript, 2002. 7Andris Ambainis Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37:210-239, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0311001 8Andris Ambainis, Andrew M. Childs, Ben W.Reichardt, Robert Špalek, and Shengyu Zheng Every AND-OR formula of size N can be evaluated in time on a quantum computer. In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 363-372, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0703015 and arXiv:0704.3628 9Dave Bacon, Andrew M. Childs, and Wim van Dam From optimal measurement to efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over semidirect product groups. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 469-478, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0504083 10Michael Ben-Or and Avinatan Hassidim Quantum search in an ordered list via adaptive learning. arXiv:quant-ph/0703231, 2007. 11Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani Quantum complexity theory. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 11-20, 1993. 12D.W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 270(2):359-371, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0508139 13A. Berzina, A. Dubrovsky, R. Frivalds, L. Lace, and O. Scegulnaja Quantum query complexity for some graph problems. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practive of Computer Science, pages 140-150, 2004. 14D. Boneh and R. J. Lipton Quantum cryptanalysis of hidden linear functions. In Don Coppersmith, editor, CRYPTO '95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 424-437. Springer-Verlag, 1995. 15M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortschritte der Physik, 46:493-505, 1998. 16G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp Quantum counting. arXiv:quant-ph/9805082, 1998. 17Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In Samuel J. Lomonaco Jr. and Howard E. Brandt, editors, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A Millennium Volume, volume 305 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series. American Mathematical Society, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0005055 18Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp Quantum algorithm for the collision problem. ACM SIGACT News, 28:14-19, 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9705002 19Harry Buhrman and Robert Špalek Quantum verification of matrix products. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 880-889, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0409035 20David Bulger Quantum basin hopping with gradient-based local optimisation. arXiv:quant-ph/0507193, 2005. 21Harry Burhrman, Christoph Dürr, Mark Heiligman, Peter Høyer, Frédéric Magniez, Miklos Santha, and Ronald de Wolf Quantum algorithms for element distinctness. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 131-137, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0007016 22Dong Pyo Chi, Jeong San Kim, and Soojoon Lee Notes on the hidden subgroup problem on some semi-direct product groups. Phys. Lett. A 359(2):114-116, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0604172 23A. M. Childs, L. J. Schulman, and U. V. Vazirani Quantum algorithms for hidden nonlinear structures. In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 395-404, 2007. arXiv:0705.2784 24Andrew Childs and Troy Lee Optimal quantum adversary lower bounds for ordered search. Proceedings of ICALP 2008 arXiv:0708.3396 25Andrew M. Childs Quantum information processing in continuous time. PhD thesis, MIT, 2004. 26Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Enrico Deotto, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel A. Spielman Exponential algorithmic speedup by quantum walk. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 59-68, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0209131 27Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Stephen P. Jordan, and David Yonge-Mallo Discrete-query quantum algorithm for NAND trees. Theory of Computing, 5:119-123, 2009. arXiv:quant-ph/0702160 28Andrew M. Childs and Wim van Dam Quantum algorithm for a generalized hidden shift problem. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1225-1232, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0507190. 29Richard Cleve, Dmitry Gavinsky, and David L. Yonge-Mallo Quantum algorithms for evaluating MIN-MAX trees. In Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, pages 11-15, Springer, 2008. (LNCS Vol. 5106) arXiv:0710.5794. 30J. Niel de Beaudrap, Richard Cleve, and John Watrous Sharp quantum versus classical query complexity separations. Algorithmica, 34(4):449-461, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0011065v2. 31Thomas Decker, Jan Draisma, and Pawel Wocjan Quantum algorithm for identifying hidden polynomials. Quantum Information and Computation, 9(3):215-230, 2009. arXiv:0706.1219. 32David Deutsch Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle, and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 400:97-117, 1985. 33David Deutsch and Richard Jozsa Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 493:553-558, 1992. 34Christoph Dürr, Mark Heiligman, Peter Høyer, and Mehdi Mhalla Quantum query complexity of some graph problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(6):1310-1328, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0401091. 35Christoph Dürr and Peter Høyer A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum. arXiv:quant-ph/9607014, 1996. 36Christoph Dürr, Mehdi Mhalla, and Yaohui Lei Quantum query complexity of graph connectivity. arXiv:quant-ph/0303169, 2003. 37Mark Ettinger, Peter Høyer, and Emanuel Knill The quantum query complexity of the hidden subgroup problem is polynomial. Information Processing Letters, 91(1):43-48, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0401083. 38Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree. Theory of Computing 4:169-190, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0702144. 39Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser Invariant quantum algorithms for insertion into an ordered list. arXiv:quant-ph/9901059, 1999. 40Richard P. Feynman Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6/7):467-488, 1982. 41Michael Freedman, Alexei Kitaev, and Zhenghan Wang Simulation of topological field theories by quantum computers. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 227:587-603, 2002. 42Michael Freedman, Michael Larsen, and Zhenghan Wang A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation. Comm. Math. Phys. 227(3):605-622, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0001108. 43K. Friedl, G. Ivanyos, F. Magniez, M. Santha, and P. Sen Hidden translation and translating coset in quantum computing. SIAM Journal on Computing Vol. 43, pp. 1-24, 2014. Appeared earlier in Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1-9, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0211091. 44D. Gavinsky Quantum solution to the hidden subgroup problem for poly-near-Hamiltonian-groups. Quantum Information and Computation, 4:229-235, 2004. 45Joseph Geraci A new connection between quantum circuits, graphs and the Ising partition function Quantum Information Processing, 7(5):227-242, 2008. arXiv:0801.4833. 46Joseph Geraci and Frank Van Bussel A theorem on the quantum evaluation of weight enumerators for a certain class of cyclic Codes with a note on cyclotomic cosets. arXiv:cs/0703129, 2007. 47Joseph Geraci and Daniel A. Lidar On the exact evaluation of certain instances of the Potts partition function by quantum computers. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol. 279, pg. 735, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0703023. 48Lov K. Grover Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical Review Letters, 79(2):325-328, 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9605043. 49Sean Hallgren Polynomial-time quantum algorithms for Pell's equation and the principal ideal problem. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2002. 50Sean Hallgren Fast quantum algorithms for computing the unit group and class group of a number field. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2005. 51Sean Hallgren, Alexander Russell, and Amnon Ta-Shma Normal subgroup reconstruction and quantum computation using group representations. SIAM Journal on Computing, 32(4):916-934, 2003. 52Mark Heiligman Quantum algorithms for lowest weight paths and spanning trees in complete graphs. arXiv:quant-ph/0303131, 2003. 53Yoshifumi Inui and François Le Gall Efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over a class of semi-direct product groups. Quantum Information and Computation, 7(5/6):559-570, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0412033. 54Yuki Kelly Itakura Quantum algorithm for commutativity testing of a matrix set. Master's thesis, University of Waterloo, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0509206. 55Gábor Ivanyos, Frédéric Magniez, and Miklos Santha Efficient quantum algorithms for some instances of the non-abelian hidden subgroup problem. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 263-270, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0102014. 56Gábor Ivanyos, Luc Sanselme, and Miklos Santha An efficient quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem in extraspecial groups. In Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0701235. 57Gábor Ivanyos, Luc Sanselme, and Miklos Santha An efficient quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem in nil-2 groups. In LATIN 2008: Theoretical Informatics, pg. 759-771, Springer (LNCS 4957). arXiv:0707.1260. 58Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan BQP-complete problems concerning mixing properties of classical random walks on sparse graphs. arXiv:quant-ph/0610235, 2006. 59Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan A promiseBQP-complete string rewriting problem. Quantum Information and Computation, 10(3/4):234-257, 2010. arXiv:0705.1180. 60Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan A simple promiseBQP-complete matrix problem. Theory of Computing, 3:61-79, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0606229. 61Stephen P. Jordan Fast quantum algorithm for numerical gradient estimation. Physical Review Letters, 95:050501, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0405146. 62Stephen P. Jordan Quantum Computation Beyond the Circuit Model. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. arXiv:0809.2307. 63Ivan Kassal, Stephen P. Jordan, Peter J. Love, Masoud Mohseni, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik Quantum algorithms for the simulation of chemical dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol. 105, pg. 18681, 2008. arXiv:0801.2986. 64Kiran S. Kedlaya Quantum computation of zeta functions of curves. Computational Complexity, 15:1-19, 2006. arXiv:math/0411623. 65E. Knill and R. Laflamme Quantum computation and quadratically signed weight enumerators. Information Processing Letters, 79(4):173-179, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/9909094. 66Greg Kuperberg A subexponential-time quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(1):170-188, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0302112. 67Daniel A. Lidar On the quantum computational complexity of the Ising spin glass partition function and of knot invariants. New Journal of Physics Vol. 6, pg. 167, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0309064. 68Daniel A. Lidar and Haobin Wang Calculating the thermal rate constant with exponential speedup on a quantum computer. Physical Review E, 59(2):2429-2438, 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9807009. 69Chris Lomont The hidden subgroup problem - review and open problems. arXiv:quant-ph/0411037, 2004. 70Frédéric Magniez, Miklos Santha, and Mario Szegedy Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(2):413-424, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0310134. 71Carlos Magno, M. Cosme, and Renato Portugal Quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem on a class of semidirect product groups. arXiv:quant-ph/0703223, 2007. 72Cristopher Moore, Daniel Rockmore, Alexander Russell, and Leonard Schulman The power of basis selection in Fourier sampling: the hidden subgroup problem in affine groups. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1113-1122, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0211124. 73M. Mosca Quantum searching, counting, and amplitude amplification by eigenvector analysis. In R. Freivalds, editor, Proceedings of International Workshop on Randomized Algorithms, pages 90-100, 1998. 74Michele Mosca Quantum Computer Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1999. 75Ashwin Nayak and Felix Wu The quantum query complexity of approximating the median and related statistics. In Proceedings of 31st ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9804066. 76Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000. 77Erich Novak Quantum complexity of integration. Journal of Complexity, 17:2-16, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0008124. 78Oded Regev Quantum computation and lattice problems. In Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. arXiv:cs/0304005. 79Oded Regev A subexponential time algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem with polynomial space. arXiv:quant-ph/0406151, 2004. 80Ben Reichardt and Robert Špalek Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas. Proceedings of STOC 2008 arXiv:0710.2630. 81Martin Roetteler and Thomas Beth Polynomial-time solution to the hidden subgroup problem for a class of non-abelian groups. arXiv:quant-ph/9812070, 1998. 82Peter W. Shor Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484-1509, 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/9508027. 83Peter W. Shor and Stephen P. Jordan Estimating Jones polynomials is a complete problem for one clean qubit. Quantum Information and Computation, 8(8/9):681-714, 2008. arXiv:0707.2831. 84R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, and H. Barnum Quantum simulated annealing. arXiv:0712.1008, 2007. 85M. Szegedy Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pg. 32, 2004. 86Wim van Dam Quantum algorithms for weighing matrices and quadratic residues. Algorithmica, 34(4):413-428, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0008059. 87Wim van Dam Quantum computing and zeros of zeta functions. arXiv:quant-ph/0405081, 2004. 88Wim van Dam and Sean Hallgren Efficient quantum algorithms for shifted quadratic character problems. arXiv:quant-ph/0011067, 2000. 89Wim van Dam, Sean Hallgren, and Lawrence Ip Quantum algorithms for some hidden shift problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(3):763-778, 2006. arXiv:quant-h/0211140. 90Wim van Dam and Gadiel Seroussi Efficient quantum algorithms for estimating Gauss sums. arXiv:quant-ph/0207131, 2002. 91John Watrous Quantum algorithms for solvable groups. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 60-67, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0011023. 92Stephen Wiesner Simulations of many-body quantum systems by a quantum computer. arXiv:quant-ph/9603028, 1996. 93Pawel Wocjan and Jon Yard The Jones polynomial: quantum algorithms and applications in quantum complexity theory. Quantum Information and Computation 8(1/2):147-180, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0603069. 94Andrew Yao On computing the minima of quadratic forms. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 23-26, 1975. 95Christof Zalka Efficient simulation of quantum systems by quantum computers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 454:313, 1996. arXiv:quant-ph/9603026. 96Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. arXiv:quant-ph/0001106, 2000. 97Dorit Aharonov, Wim van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev Adiabatic Quantum Computation is Equivalent to Standard Quantum Computation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):166-194, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0405098 98Jérémie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution. Physical Review A, 65(4):042308, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0107015 99L.-A. Wu, M.S. Byrd, and D. A. Lidar Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer. Physical Review Letters, 89(6):057904, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0108110 100Eli Biham, Ofer Biham, David Biron, Markus Grassl, and Daniel Lidar Grover's quantum search algorithm for an arbitrary initial amplitude distribution. Physical Review A, 60(4):2742, 1999. arXiv:quant-ph/9807027 and arXiv:quant-ph/0010077 101Andrew Childs, Shelby Kimmel, and Robin Kothari The quantum query complexity of read-many formulas In Proceedings of ESA 2012, pg. 337-348, Springer. (LNCS 7501) arXiv:1112.0548, 2011. 102Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Anthony D. Dutoi, Peter J. Love, and Martin Head-Gordon Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies. Science, 309(5741):1704-1707, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0604193 103A. M. Childs, A. J. Landahl, and P. A. Parrilo Quantum algorithms for the ordered search problem via semidefinite programming. Physical Review A, 75 032335, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0608161 104Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters 15(103):150502, 2009. arXiv:0811.3171. 105Martin Roetteler Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear Boolean functions. Proceedings of SODA 2010 arXiv:0811.3208. 106Stephen P. Jordan Fast quantum algorithms for approximating the irreducible representations of groups. arXiv:0811.0562, 2008. 107Tim Byrnes and Yoshihisa Yamamoto Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer. Physical Review A, 73, 022328, 2006. arXiv:quant-ph/0510027. 108D. Simon On the Power of Quantum Computation. In Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pg. 116-123, 1994. 109John Proos and Christof Zalka Shor's discrete logarithm quantum algorithm for elliptic curves. Quantum Information and Computation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pg.317-344, 2003. arXiv:quant-ph/0301141. 110Yi-Kai Liu Quantum algorithms using the curvelet transform. Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 391-400. arXiv:0810.4968. 111Wim van Dam and Igor Shparlinski Classical and quantum algorithms for exponential congruences. Proceedings of TQC 2008, pg. 1-10. arXiv:0804.1109. 112Itai Arad and Zeph Landau Quantum computation and the evaluation of tensor networks. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(7):3089-3121, 2010. arXiv:0805.0040. 113M. Van den Nest, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and H. J. Briegel Quantum algorithms for spin models and simulable gate sets for quantum computation. Physical Review A, 80:052334, 2009. arXiv:0805.1214. 114Silvano Garnerone, Annalisa Marzuoli, and Mario Rasetti Efficient quantum processing of 3-manifold topological invariants. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 13(6):1601-1652, 2009. arXiv:quant-ph/0703037. 115Louis H. Kauffman and Samuel J. Lomonaco Jr. q-deformed spin networks, knot polynomials and anyonic topological quantum computation. Journal of Knot Theory, Vol. 16, No. 3, pg. 267-332, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0606114. 116Arthur Schmidt and Ulrich Vollmer Polynomial time quantum algorithm for the computation of the unit group of a number field. In Proceedings of the 37th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pg. 475-480, 2005. 117Sergey Bravyi, Aram Harrow, and Avinatan Hassidim Quantum algorithms for testing properties of distributions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57(6):3971-3981, 2011. arXiv:0907.3920. 118Pawel M. Wocjan, Stephen P. Jordan, Hamed Ahmadi, and Joseph P. Brennan Efficient quantum processing of ideals in finite rings. arXiv:0908.0022, 2009. 119V. Arvind, Bireswar Das, and Partha Mukhopadhyay The complexity of black-box ring problems. In Proceedings of COCCOON 2006, pg 126-145. 120V. Arvind and Partha Mukhopadhyay Quantum query complexity of multilinear identity testing. In Proceedings of STACS 2009, pg. 87-98. 121David Poulin and Pawel Wocjan Sampling from the thermal quantum Gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer. Physical Review Letters 103:220502, 2009. arXiv:0905.2199 122Pawel Wocjan, Chen-Fu Chiang, Anura Abeyesinghe, and Daniel Nagaj Quantum speed-up for approximating partition functions. Physical Review A 80:022340, 2009. arXiv:0811.0596 123Ashley Montanaro Quantum search with advice. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Theory of quantum computation, communication, and cryptography (TQC 2010) arXiv:0908.3066 124Laszlo Babai, Robert Beals, and Akos Seress Polynomial-time theory of matrix groups. In Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 55-64. 125Peter Shor Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. In Proceedings of FOCS 1994, pg. 124-134. 126Aaron Denney, Cristopher Moore, and Alex Russell Finding conjugate stabilizer subgroups in PSL(2;q) and related groups. Quantum Information and Computation 10(3):282-291, 2010. arXiv:0809.2445. 127Kevin K. H. Cheung and Michele Mosca Decomposing finite Abelian groups. Quantum Information and Computation 1(2):26-32, 2001. arXiv:cs/0101004. 128François Le Gall An efficient quantum algorithm for some instances of the group isomorphism problem. In Proceedings of STACS 2010. arXiv:1001.0608. 129Gorjan Alagic, Stephen Jordan, Robert Koenig, and Ben Reichardt Approximating Turaev-Viro 3-manifold invariants is universal for quantum computation. Physical Review A 82, 040302(R), 2010. arXiv:1003.0923 130Martin Rötteler Quantum algorithms to solve the hidden shift problem for quadratics and for functions of large Gowers norm. In Proceedings of MFCS 2009, pg 663-674. arXiv:0911.4724. 131Arthur Schmidt Quantum Algorithms for many-to-one Functions to Solve the Regulator and the Principal Ideal Problem. arXiv:0912.4807, 2009. 132K. Temme, T.J. Osborne, K.G. Vollbrecht, D. Poulin, and F. Verstraete Quantum Metropolis Sampling. Nature, Vol. 471, pg. 87-90, 2011. arXiv:0911.3635. 133Andris Ambainis Quantum Search Algorithms. SIGACT News, 35 (2):22-35, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0504012 134Nicolas J. Cerf, Lov K. Grover, and Colin P. Williams Nested quantum search and NP-hard problems. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 10 (4-5):311-338, 2000. 135Mario Szegedy Spectra of Quantized Walks and a rule. arXiv:quant-ph/0401053, 2004. 136Kazuo Iwama, Harumichi Nishimura, Rudy Raymond, and Junichi Teruyama Quantum Counterfeit Coin Problems. In Proceedings of 21st International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC2010), LNCS 6506, pp.73-84, 2010. arXiv:1009.0416 137Barbara Terhal and John Smolin Single quantum querying of a database. Physical Review A 58:1822, 1998. arXiv:quant-ph/9705041 138Andris Ambainis Variable time amplitude amplification and a faster quantum algorithm for solving systems of linear equations. arXiv:1010.4458, 2010. 139Frédéric Magniez and Ashwin Nayak Quantum complexity of testing group commutativity. In Proceedings of 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. LNCS 3580, pg. 1312-1324, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0506265 140Andrew Childs and Robin Kothari Quantum query complexity of minor-closed graph properties. In Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2011), pg. 661-672 arXiv:1011.1443 141Frédéric Magniez, Ashwin Nayak, Jérémie Roland, and Miklos Santha Search via quantum walk. In Proceedings STOC 2007, pg. 575-584. arXiv:quant-ph/0608026 142Dmitry Gavinsky, Martin Roetteler, and Jérémy Roland Quantum algorithm for the Boolean hidden shift problem. In Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computing and combinatorics (COCOON '11), 2011. arXiv:1103.3017 143Mark Ettinger and Peter Høyer On quantum algorithms for noncommutative hidden subgroups. Advances in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pg. 239-251, 2000. arXiv:quant-ph/9807029 144Andris Ambainis, Andrew Childs, and Yi-Kai Liu Quantum property testing for bounded-degree graphs. In Proceedings of RANDOM '11: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6845, pp. 365-376, 2011. arXiv:1012.3174 145G. Ortiz, J.E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme Quantum algorithms for Fermionic simulations. Physical Review A 64: 022319, 2001. arXiv:cond-mat/0012334 146Ashley Montanaro The quantum query complexity of learning multilinear polynomials. Information Processing Letters, 112(11):438-442, 2012. arXiv:1105.3310. 147Tad Hogg Highly structured searches with quantum computers. Physical Review Letters 80: 2473, 1998. 148Markus Hunziker and David A. Meyer Quantum algorithms for highly structured search problems. Quantum Information Processing, Vol. 1, No. 3, pg. 321-341, 2002. 149Ben Reichardt Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every Boolean function. In Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '09), pg. 544-551, 2009. arXiv:0904.2759 150Aleksandrs Belovs Span-program-based quantum algorithm for the rank problem. arXiv:1103.0842, 2011. 151Sebastian Dörn and Thomas Thierauf The quantum query complexity of the determinant. Information Processing Letters Vol. 109, No. 6, pg. 305-328, 2009. 152Aleksandrs Belovs Span programs for functions with constant-sized 1-certificates. In Proceedings of STOC 2012, pg. 77-84. arXiv:1105.4024. 153Troy Lee, Frédéric Magniez, and Mikos Santha A learning graph based quantum query algorithm for finding constant-size subgraphs. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 2012, Article 10, 2012. arXiv:1109.5135. 154Aleksandrs Belovs and Troy Lee Quantum algorithm for k-distinctness with prior knowledge on the input. arXiv:1108.3022, 2011. 155François Le Gall Improved output-sensitive quantum algorithms for Boolean matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA '12), 2012. 156Dominic Berry Quantum algorithms for solving linear differential equations. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 105301, 2014. [arXiv:1010.2745]. 157Virginia Vassilevska Williams and Ryan Williams Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix, and triangle problems. In 51st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '10) pg. 645 - 654, 2010. 158Ben W. Reichardt Reflections for quantum query algorithms. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pg. 560-569, 2011. arXiv:1005.1601 159Ben W. Reichardt Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating unbalanced formulas. arXiv:0907.1622, 2009. 160Ben W. Reichardt Faster quantum algorithm for evaluating game trees. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pg. 546-559, 2011. arXiv:0907.1623 161Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez Improving quantum query complexity of Boolean matrix multiplication using graph collision. In Proceedings of ICALP 2012, pg. 522-532. arXiv:1112.5855. 162Andrew M. Childs and Jason M. Eisenberg Quantum algorithms for subset finding. Quantum Information and Computation 5(7):593-604, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0311038. 163Aleksandrs Belovs and Robert Špalek Adversary lower bound for the k-sum problem. In Proceedings of ITCS 2013, pg. 323-328. arXiv:1206.6528. 164Bohua Zhan, Shelby Kimmel, and Avinatan Hassidim Super-polynomial quantum speed-ups for Boolean evaluation trees with hidden structure. ITCS 2012: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ACM, pg. 249-265. arXiv:1101.0796 165Shelby Kimmel Quantum adversary (upper) bound. 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming - ICALP 2012 Volume 7391, p. 557-568. arXiv:1101.0797 166Stephen Jordan, Keith Lee, and John Preskill Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories. Science, Vol. 336, pg. 1130-1133, 2012. arXiv:1111.3633 167Andris Ambainis and Ashley Montanaro Quantum algorithms for search with wildcards and combinatorial group testing. arXiv:1210.1148, 2012. 168Andris Ambainis and Robert Špalek Quantum algorithms for matching and network flows. Proceedings of STACS 2007, pg. 172-183. arXiv:quant-ph/0508205 169Nathan Wiebe, Daniel Braun, and Seth Lloyd Quantum data-fitting. Physical Review Letters 109, 050505, 2012. arXiv:1204.5242 170Andrew Childs and Nathan Wiebe Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations. Quantum Information and Computation 12, 901-924, 2012. arXiv:1202.5822 171Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez Nested quantum walks with quantum data structures. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'13), pg. 1474-1485, 2013. arXiv:1210.1199 172Aleksandrs Belovs Learning-graph-based quantum algorithm for k-distinctness. Proceedings of STOC 2012, pg. 77-84. arXiv:1205.1534, 2012. 173Andrew Childs, Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez A time-efficient quantum walk for 3-distinctness using nested updates. arXiv:1302.7316, 2013. 174Hari Krovi and Alexander Russell Quantum Fourier transforms and the complexity of link invariants for quantum doubles of finite groups. Commun. Math. Phys. 334, 743-777, 2015 arXiv:1210.1550 175Troy Lee, Frédéric Magniez, and Miklos Santha Improved quantum query algorithms for triangle finding and associativity testing. arXiv:1210.1014, 2012. 176Silvano Garnerone, Paolo Zanardi, and Daniel A. Lidar Adiabatic quantum algorithm for search engine ranking. Physical Review Letters 108:230506, 2012. 177R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, H. Barnum, and E. Knill Quantum simulations of classical annealing. Physical Review Letters 101:130504, 2008. arXiv:0804.1571 178Daniel J. Bernstein, Stacey Jeffery, Tanja Lange, and Alexander Meurer Quantum algorithms for the subset-sum problem. from cr.yp.to. 179Boris Altshuler, Hari Krovi, and Jérémie Roland Anderson localization casts clouds over adiabatic quantum optimization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(28):12446-12450, 2010. arXiv:0912.0746 180Ben Reichardt The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima. In Proceedings of STOC 2004, pg. 502-510. [Erratum]. 181Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms versus simulated annealing. arXiv:quant-ph/0201031, 2002. 182E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, D. Gosset, S. Gutmann, H. B. Meyer, and P. Shor Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths. Quantum Information and Computation, 11(3/4):181-214, 2011. arXiv:0909.4766. 183Sergey Bravyi, David P. DiVincenzo, Roberto I. Oliveira, and Barbara M. Terhal The Complexity of Stoquastic Local Hamiltonian Problems. Quantum Information and Computation, 8(5):361-385, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0606140. 184Rolando D. Somma and Sergio Boixo Spectral gap amplification. SIAM Journal on Computing, 42:593-610, 2013. arXiv:1110.2494. 185Sabine Jansen, Mary-Beth Ruskai, Ruedi Seiler Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48:102111, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0603175. 186E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem. Science, 292(5516):472-475, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0104129. 187Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel Nagaj How to make the quantum adiabatic algorithm fail. International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(3):503-516, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0512159. 188Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel Nagaj Unstructured randomness, small gaps, and localization. Quantum Information and Computation, 11(9/10):840-854, 2011. arXiv:1010.0009. 189Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms with different paths. arXiv:quant-ph/0208135, 2002. 190Wim van Dam, Michele Mosca, and Umesh Vazirani How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation? In Proceedings of FOCS 2001, pg. 279-287. arXiv:quant-ph/0206003 [See also this.] 191E. Farhi, D. Gosset, I. Hen, A. W. Sandvik, P. Shor, A. P. Young, and F. Zamponi The performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm on random instances of two optimization problems on regular hypergraphs. Physical Review A, 86:052334, 2012. arXiv:1208.3757. 192Kristen L. Pudenz and Daniel A. Lidar Quantum adiabatic machine learning. Quantum Information Processing, 12:2027, 2013. arXiv:1109.0325. 193Frank Gaitan and Lane Clark Ramsey numbers and adiabatic quantum computing. Physical Review Letters, 108:010501, 2012. arXiv:1103.1345. 194Frank Gaitan and Lane Clark Graph isomorphism and adiabatic quantum computing. Physical Review A, 89(2):022342, 2014. arXiv:1304.5773, 2013. 195Hartmut Neven, Vasil S. Denchev, Geordie Rose, and William G. Macready Training a binary classifier with the quantum adiabatic algorithm. arXiv:0811.0416, 2008. 196Robert Beals Quantum computation of Fourier transforms over symmetric groups. In Proceedings of STOC 1997, pg. 48-53. 197Dave Bacon, Isaac L. Chuang, and Aram W. Harrow The quantum Schur transform: I. efficient qudit circuits. In Proceedings of SODA 2007, pg. 1235-1244. arXiv:quant-ph/0601001. 198S. Morita, H. Nishimori Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing. Journal of Methematical Physics, 49(12):125210, 2008. 199A. B. Finnila, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, J. D. Doll Quantum annealing: a new method for minimizing multidimensional functions. Chemical Physics Letters, 219:343-348, 1994. 200D. Gavinsky and T. Ito A quantum query algorithm for the graph collision problem. arXiv:1204.1527, 2012. 201Andris Ambainis, Kaspars Balodis, Jānis Iraids, Raitis Ozols, and Juris Smotrovs Parameterized quantum query complexity of graph collision. arXiv:1305.1021, 2013. 202Kevin C. Zatloukal Classical and quantum algorithms for testing equivalence of group extensions. arXiv:1305.1327, 2013. 203Andrew Childs and Gábor Ivanyos Quantum computation of discrete logarithms in semigroups. arXiv:1310.6238, 2013. 204Matan Banin and Boaz Tsaban A reduction of semigroup DLP to classic DLP. arXiv:1310.7903, 2013. 205D. W. Berry, R. Cleve, and R. D. Somma Exponential improvement in precision for Hamiltonian-evolution simulation. arXiv:1308.5424, 2013. 206François Le Gall and Harumichi Nishimura Quantum algorithms for matrix products over semirings. arXiv:1310.3898, 2013. 207Nolan Wallach A quantum polylog algorithm for non-normal maximal cyclic hidden subgroups in the affine group of a finite field. arXiv:1308.1415, 2013. 208Lov Grover Fixed-point quantum search. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95(15):150501, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0503205 209Tathagat Tulsi, Lov Grover, and Apoorva Patel A new algorithm for fixed point quantum search. Quantum Information and Computation 6(6):483-494, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0505007 210Guoming Wang Quantum algorithms for approximating the effective resistances of electrical networks. arXiv:1311.1851 211Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians arXiv:1312.1414 212Thomas Decker, Peter Høyer, Gabor Ivanyos, and Miklos Santha Polynomial time quantum algorithms for certain bivariate hidden polynomial problems arXiv:1305.1543 213Kirsten Eisenträger, Sean Hallgren, Alexei Kitaev, and Fang Song A quantum algorithm for computing the unit group of an arbitrary degree number field In Proceedings of STOC 2014 pg. 293-302. 214Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Robentrost Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning arXiv:1307.0411 215Ashley Montanaro Quantum pattern matching fast on average arXiv:1408.1816 216Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing SIAM J. Comput. 26(5):1524-1540, 1997 arXiv:quant-ph/9701001 217H. Ramesh and V. Vinay String matching in quantum time Journal of Discrete Algorithms 1:103-110, 2003 arXiv:quant-ph/0011049 218Greg Kuperberg Another subexponential-time quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem In Proceedings of TQC pg. 20-34, 2013 arXiv:1112.3333 219Peter Høyer, Jan Neerbek, and Yaoyun Shi Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness In Proceedings of ICALP pg. 346-357, 2001 arXiv:quant-ph/0102078 220Amnon Ta-Shma Inverting well conditioned matrices in quantum logspace In Proceedings of STOC 2013 pg. 881-890. 221Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore Quantum deep learning arXiv:1412.3489 222Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone, and Paolo Zanardi Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of big data arXiv:1408.3106 223David A. Meyer and James Pommersheim Single-query learning from abelian and non-abelian Hamming distance oracles arXiv:0912.0583 224Markus Hunziker, David A. Meyer, Jihun Park, James Pommersheim, and Mitch Rothstein The geometry of quantum learning Quantum Information Processing 9:321-341, 2010. arXiv:quant-ph/0309059 225Lawrence M. Ioannou and Michele Mosca Limitations on some simple adiabatic quantum algorithms International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(3):419-426, 2008. arXiv:quant-ph/0702241 226Michael Jarret and Stephen P. Jordan Adiabatic optimization without local minima Quantum Information and Computation, 15(3/4):0181-0199, 2015. arXiv:1405.7552 227Matthew B. Hastings, Dave Wecker, Bela Bauer, and Matthias Troyer Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry Quantum Information and Computation, 15(1/2):0001-0021, 2015. arXiv:1403.1539 228Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill Quantum simulation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories Quantum Information and Computation, 14(11/12):1014-1080, 2014. arXiv:1112.4833 229Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill Quantum algorithms for fermionic quantum field theories arXiv:1404.7115 230Gavin K. Brennen, Peter Rohde, Barry C. Sanders, and Sukhi Singh Multi-scale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets arXiv:1412.0750 231Hefeng Wang, Sabre Kais, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Mark R. Hoffmann. Quantum algorithm for obtaining the energy spectrum of molecular systems Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 10(35):5388-5393, 2008. arXiv:0907.0854 232Ivan Kassal and Alán Aspuru-Guzik Quantum algorithm for molecular properties and geometry optimization Journal of Chemical Physics, 131(22), 2009. arXiv:0908.1921 233James D. Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum computers Molecular Physics, 109(5):735-750, 2011. arXiv:1001.3855 234Borzu Toloui and Peter J. Love Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry based on the sparsity of the CI-matrix arXiv:1312.2529 235James D. Whitfield Spin-free quantum computational simulations and symmetry adapted states Journal of Chemical Physics, 139(2):021105, 2013. arXiv:1306.1147 236Andrew W. Cross, Graeme Smith, and John A. Smolin Quantum learning robust to noise arXiv:1407.5088 237Aram W. Harrow and David J. Rosenbaum Uselessness for an oracle model with internal randomness Quantum Information and Computation 14(7/8):608-624, 2014 arXiv:1111.1462 238Jon R. Grice and David A. Meyer A quantum algorithm for Viterbi decoding of classical convolutional codes arXiv:1405.7479 239Alexander Barg and Shiyu Zhou A quantum decoding algorithm of the simplex code Proceedings of the 36th Annual Allerton Conference, 1998 Available at author's homepage. 240Guoming Wang Span-program-based quantum algorithm for tree detection arXiv:1309.7713, 2013. 241François Le Gall, Harumichi Nishimura, and Seiichiro Tani Quantum algorithm for finding constant-sized sub-hypergraphs over 3-uniform hypergraphs In Proceedings of COCOON, 2014. pg. 429-440 arXiv:1310.4127 242Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann A quantum approximate optimization algorithm arXiv:1411.4028, 2014. 243Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem arXiv:1412.6062, 2014. 244Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series arXiv:1412.4687, 2014. 245Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, and Robin Kothari Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters arXiv:1501.01715, 2015. 246Scott Aaronson Read the fine print Nature Physics 11:291-293, 2015. [fulltext] 247Alexander Elgart and George A. Hagedorn A note on the switching adiabatic theorem Journal of Mathematical Physics 53(10):102202, 2012. arXiv:1204.2318 248Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, and Erik Dahmen, Eds. Post-Quantum Cryptography Springer, 2009. 249B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm Phys. Rev. Lett. 110:250504, 2013. arXiv:1301.2340 250S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost Quantum principal component analysis Nature Physics. 10(9):631, 2014. arXiv:1307.0401 251Patrick Rebentrost, Masoud Mohseni, and Seth Lloyd Quantum support vector machine for big data classification Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503, 2014. arXiv:1307.0471 252J. M. Pollard Theorems on factorization and primality testing Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 76:521-228, 1974. 253L. Babai, R. Beals, and A. Seress Polynomial-time theory of matrix groups In Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 55-64. 254Neil J. Ross and Peter Selinger Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approximations of z-rotations arXiv:1403.2975, 2014. 255L. A. B. Kowada, C. Lavor, R. Portugal, and C. M. H. de Figueiredo A new quantum algorithm for solving the minimum searching problem International Journal of Quantum Information, Vol. 6, No. 3, pg. 427-436, 2008. 256Sean Hallgren and Aram Harrow Superpolynomial speedups based on almost any quantum circuit Proceedings of ICALP 2008, pg. 782-795. arXiv:0805.0007 257Fernando G.S.L. Brandao and Michal Horodecki Exponential quantum speed-ups are generic Quantum Information and Computation, Vol. 13, Pg. 0901, 2013 arXiv:1010.3654 258Scott Aaronson and Andris Ambainis Forrelation: A problem that optimally separates quantum from classical computing. arXiv:1411.5729, 2014. 259Z. Gedik Computational speedup with a single qutrit arXiv:1403.5861, 2014. 260Boaz Barak, Ankur Moitra, Ryan O'Donnell, Prasad Raghavendra, Oded Regev, David Steurer, Luca Trevisan, Aravindan Vijayaraghavan, David Witmer, and John Wright Beating the random assignment on constraint satisfaction problems of bounded degree arXiv:1505.03424, 2015. 261David Cornwell Amplified Quantum Transforms arXiv:1406.0190, 2015. 262T. Laarhoven, M. Mosca, and J. van de Pol Solving the shortest vector problem in lattices faster using quantum search Proceedings of PQCrypto13, pp. 83-101, 2013. arXiv:1301.6176 263Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma Quantum linear systems algorithm with exponentially improved dependence on precision arXiv:1511.02306, 2015. 264Ashley Montanaro Quantum walk speedup of backtracking algorithms arXiv:1509.02374, 2015. 265Ashley Montanaro Quantum speedup of Monte Carlo methods arXiv:1504.06987, 2015. 266Andris Ambainis, Aleksandrs Belovs, Oded Regev, and Ronald de Wolf Efficient quantum algorithms for (gapped) group testing and junta testing arXiv:1507.03126, 2015. 267A. Atici and R. A. Servedio Quantum algorithms for learning and testing juntas Quantum Information Processing, 6(5):323-348, 2007. arXiv:0707.3479 268Aleksandrs Belovs Quantum algorithms for learning symmetric juntas via the adversary bound Computational Complexity, 24(2):255-293, 2015. (Also appears in proceedings of CCC'14). arXiv:1311.6777 269Stacey Jeffery and Shelby Kimmel NAND-trees, average choice complexity, and effective resistance arXiv:1511.02235, 2015. 270Scott Aaronson, Shalev Ben-David, and Robin Kothari Separations in query complexity using cheat sheets arXiv:1511.01937, 2015. 271Frédéric Grosshans, Thomas Lawson, François Morain, and Benjamin Smith Factoring safe semiprimes with a single quantum query arXiv:1511.04385, 2015. 272Agnis Āriņš Span-program-based quantum algorithms for graph bipartiteness and connectivity arXiv:1510.07825, 2015. 273Juan Bermejo-Vega and Kevin C. Zatloukal Abelian hypergroups and quantum computation arXiv:1509.05806, 2015. 274Andrew Childs and Jeffrey Goldstone Spatial search by quantum walk Physical Review A, 70:022314, 2004. arXiv:quant-ph/0306054 275Shantanav Chakraborty, Leonardo Novo, Andris Ambainis, and Yasser Omar Spatial search by quantum walk is optimal for almost all graphs arXiv:1508.01327, 2015. 276François Le Gall Improved quantum algorithm for triangle finding via combinatorial arguments In Proceedings of the 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pg. 216-225, 2014. arXiv:1407.0085 277Ashley Montanaro The quantum complexity of approximating the frequency moments arXiv:1505.00113, 2015. 278Rolando D. Somma Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems arXiv:1503.06319, 2015. 279Bill Fefferman and Cedric Yen-Yu Lin A complete characterization of unitary quantum space arXiv:1604.01384, 2016. 280Tsuyoshi Ito and Stacey Jeffery Approximate span programs arXiv:1507.00432, 2015. 281Arnau Riera, Christian Gogolin, and Jens Eisert Thermalization in nature and on a quantum computer Physical Review Letters, 108:080402 (2012) arXiv:1102.2389. 282Michael J. Kastoryano and Fernando G. S. L. Brandao Quantum Gibbs Samplers: the commuting case Communications in Mathematical Physics, 344(3):915-957 (2016) arXiv:1409.3435. 283Andrew M. Childs, David Jao, and Vladimir Soukharev Constructing elliptic curve isogenies in quantum subexponential time Journal of Mathematical Cryptology, 8(1):1-29 (2014) arXiv:1012.4019. 284Markus Grassl, Brandon Langenberg, Martin Roetteler, and Rainer Steinwandt Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates arXiv:1512.04965, 2015. 285M. Ami, O. Di Matteo, V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, A. Parent, and J. Schanck Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3 arXiv:1603.09383, 2016. 286Marc Kaplan, Gaetan Leurent, Anthony Leverrier, and Maria Naya-Plasencia Quantum differential and linear cryptanalysis arXiv:1510.05836, 2015. 287Scott Fluhrer Quantum Cryptanalysis of NTRU Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2015/676, 2015. 288Marc Kaplan Quantum attacks against iterated block ciphers arXiv:1410.1434, 2014. 289H. Kuwakado and M. Morii Quantum distinguisher between the 3-round Feistel cipher and the random permutation In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pg. 2682-2685, 2010. 290H. Kuwakado and M. Morii Security on the quantum-type Even-Mansour cipher In Proceedings of International Symposium on Information Theory and its Applications (ISITA), pg. 312-316, 2012. 291Martin Roetteler and Rainer Steinwandt A note on quantum related-key attacks arXiv:1306.2301, 2013. 292Thomas Santoli and Christian Schaffner Using Simon's algorithm to attack symmetric-key cryptographic primitives arXiv:1603.07856, 2016. 293Rolando D. Somma A Trotter-Suzuki approximation for Lie groups with applications to Hamiltonian simulation arXiv:1512.03416, 2015. 294Guang Hao Low and Isaac Chuang Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing arXiv:1606.02685, 2016. 295Dominic W. Berry and Leonardo Novo Corrected quantum walk for optimal Hamiltonian simulation arXiv:1606.03443, 2016. 296Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister Quantum algorithms and the finite element method arXiv:1512.05903, 2015. 297Lin-Chun Wan, Chao-Hua Yu, Shi-Jie Pan, Fei Gao, and Qiao-Yan Wen Quantum algorithm for the Toeplitz systems arXiv:1608.02184, 2016. 298Salvatore Mandra, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik Faster than classical quantum algorithm for dense formulas of exact satisfiability and occupation problems arXiv:1512.00859, 2015. 299J. Adcock, E. Allen, M. Day, S. Frick, J. Hinchliff, M. Johnson, S. Morley-Short, S. Pallister, A. Price, and S. Stanisic Advances in quantum machine learning arXiv:1512.02900, 2015. 300Cedric Yen-Yu Lin and Yechao Zhu Performance of QAOA on typical instances of constraint satisfaction problems with bounded degree arXiv:1601.01744, 2016. 301Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer Training a quantum optimizer arXiv:1605.05370, 2016. 302Edward Farhi and Aram W. Harrow Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm arXiv:1602.07674, 2016. 303Thomas G. Wong Quantum walk search on Johnson graphs arXiv:1601.04212, 2016. 304Jonatan Janmark, David A. Meyer, and Thomas G. Wong Global symmetry is unnecessary for fast quantum search Physical Review Letters 112:210502, 2014. arXiv:1403.2228 305David A. Meyer and Thomas G. Wong Connectivity is a poor indicator of fast quantum search Physical Review Letters 114:110503, 2014. arXiv:1409.5876 306Thomas G. Wong Spatial search by continuous-time quantum walk with multiple marked vertices Quantum Information Processing 15(4):1411-1443, 2016. arXiv:1501.07071 307Anirban Naryan Chowdhury and Rolando D. Somma Quantum algorithms for Gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation arXiv:1603.02940, 2016. 308Edward Farhi, Shelby Kimmel, and Kristan Temme A quantum version of Schoning's algorithm applied to quantum 2-SAT arXiv:1603.06985, 2016. 309Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash Quantum recommendation systems Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2017), LIPIcs, vol. 67, pg. 1868-8969. [arXiv:1603.08675] 310Markus Reiher, Nathan Wiebe, Krysta M. Svore, Dave Wecker, and Matthias Troyer Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers arXiv:1605.03590, 2016. 311Aram W. Harrow and Ashley Montanaro Sequential measurements, disturbance, and property testing arXiv:1607.03236, 2016. 312Martin Roetteler Quantum algorithms for abelian difference sets and applications to dihedral hidden subgroups arXiv:1608.02005, 2016. 313Fernando G.S.L. Brandao and Krysta Svore Quantum speed-ups for semidefinite programming arXiv:1609.05537, 2016. 314Z-C Yang, A. Rahmani, A. Shabani, H. Neven, and C. Chamon Optimizing variational quantum algorithms using Pontryagins's minimum principle arXiv:1607.06473, 2016. 315Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp Quantum cryptanalysis of hash and claw-free functions In Proceedings of the 3rd Latin American symposium on Theoretical Informatics (LATIN'98), pg. 163-169, 1998. 316Daniel J. Bernstein Cost analysis of hash collisions: Will quantum computers make SHARCS obsolete? In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Special-purpose Hardware for Attacking Cryptographic Systems (SHARCS'09), pg. 105-116, 2009. [available here] 317Chris Cade, Ashley Montanaro, and Aleksandrs Belovs Time and space efficient quantum algorithms for detecting cycles and testing bipartiteness arXiv:1610.00581, 2016. 318A. Belovs and B. Reichardt Span programs and quantum algorithms for st-connectivity and claw detection In European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA'12), pg. 193-204, 2012. arXiv:1203.2603 319Titouan Carette, Mathieu Laurière, and Frédéric Magniez Extended learning graphs for triangle finding arXiv:1609.07786, 2016. 320F. Le Gall and N. Shogo Quantum algorithm for triangle finding in sparse graphs In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC'15), pg. 590-600, 2015. 321Or Sattath and Itai Arad A constructive quantum Lovász local lemma for commuting projectors Quantum Information and Computation, 15(11/12)987-996pg, 2015. arXiv:1310.7766 322Martin Schwarz, Toby S. Cubitt, and Frank Verstraete An information-theoretic proof of the constructive commutative quantum Lovász local lemma arXiv:1311.6474 323C. Shoen, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf Sequential generation of entangled multi-qubit states Physical Review Letters, 95:110503, 2005. arXiv:quant-ph/0501096 324C. Shoen, K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and E. Solano Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity QED Physical Review A, 75:032311, 2007. arXiv:quant-ph/0612101 325Yimin Ge, András Molnár, and J. Ignacio Cirac Rapid adiabatic preparation of injective PEPS and Gibbs states Physical Review Letters, 116:080503, 2016. arXiv:1508.00570 326Martin Schwarz, Kristan Temme, and Frank Verstraete Preparing projected entangled pair states on a quantum computer Physical Review Letters, 108:110502, 2012. arXiv:1104.1410 327Martin Schwarz, Toby S. Cubitt, Kristan Temme, Frank Verstraete, and David Perez-Garcia Preparing topological PEPS on a quantum computer Physical Review A, 88:032321, 2013. arXiv:1211.4050 328M. Schwarz, O. Buerschaper, and J. Eisert Approximating local observables on projected entangled pair states arXiv:1606.06301, 2016. 329Jean-François Biasse and Fang Song Efficient quantum algorithms for computing class groups and solving the principal ideal problem in arbitrary degree number fields Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA '16), pg. 893-902, 2016. 330Peter Høyer and Mojtaba Komeili Efficient quantum walk on the grid with multiple marked elements Proceedings of the 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2017), 42, 2016. arXiv:1612.08958 331Peter Wittek Quantum Machine Learning: what quantum computing means to data mining Academic Press, 2014. 332Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione An introduction to quantum machine learning Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172, 2014. arXiv:1409.3097 333J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd Quantum machine learning arXiv:1611.09347 334Esma Aïmeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs Machine learning in a quantum world In Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 19th Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence pg. 431-442, Springer, 2006. 335Vedran Dunjko, Jacob Taylor, and Hans Briegel Quantum-enhanced machine learning Phys. Rev. Lett 117:130501, 2016. 336Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore Quantum algorithms for nearest-neighbor methods for supervised and unsupervised learning Quantum Information and Computation 15(3/4): 0318-0358, 2015. arXiv:1401.2142 337Seokwon Yoo, Jeongho Bang, Changhyoup Lee, and Junhyoug Lee A quantum speedup in machine learning: finding a N-bit Boolean function for a classification New Journal of Physics 6(10):103014, 2014. arXiv:1303.6055 338Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer Physical Review A 94:022342, 2016. arXiv:1601.07823 339Zhikuan Zhao, Jack K. Fitzsimons, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons Quantum assisted Gaussian process regression arXiv:1512.03929 340Esma Aïmeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning Machine Learning, 90(2):261-287, 2013. 341Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore Quantum perceptron models Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016), pg. 3999–4007, 2016. arXiv:1602.04799 342G. Paparo, V. Dunjko, A. Makmal, M. Martin-Delgado, and H. Briegel Quantum speedup for active learning agents _Physical Review X_4(3):031002, 2014. arXiv:1401.4997 343Daoyi Dong, Chunlin Chen, Hanxiong Li, and Tzyh-Jong Tarn Quantum reinforcement learning _IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part B (Cybernetics)_38(5):1207, 2008. 344Daniel Crawford, Anna Levit, Navid Ghadermarzy, Jaspreet S. Oberoi, and Pooya Ronagh Reinforcement learning using quantum Boltzmann machines arXiv:1612.05695, 2016. 345Steven H. Adachi and Maxwell P. Henderson Application of Quantum Annealing to Training of Deep Neural Networks arXiv:1510.06356, 2015. 346M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-Gómez, R. Biswas, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz Quantum-assisted learning of graphical models with arbitrary pairwise connectivity arXiv:1609.02542, 2016. 348M. H. Amin, E. Andriyash, J. Rolfe, B. Kulchytskyy, and R. Melko Quantum Boltzmann machine arXiv:1601.02036, 2016. 349Peter Wittek and Christian Gogolin Quantum enhanced inference in Markov logic networks _Scientific Reports_7:45672, 2017. arXiv:1611.08104, 2016. 350N. H. Bshouty and J. C. Jackson Learning DNF over the uniform distribution using a quantum example oracle _SIAM Journal on Computing_28(3):1136-1153, 1999. 351Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald de Wolf A survey of quantum learning theory arXiv:1701.06806, 2017. 352Rocco A. Servedio and Steven J. Gortler Equivalences and separations between quantum and classical learnability SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(5):1067-1092, 2017. 353Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald de Wolf Optimal quantum sample complexity of learning algorithms arXiv:1607.00932, 2016. 354Alex Monràs, Gael Sentís, and Peter Wittek Inductive quantum learning: why you are doing it almost right arXiv:1605.07541, 2016. 355A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, S. Facchini, and P. Perinotti Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation Physical Review A 81:032324, 2010. arXiv:0903.0543. 356M. Sasaki, A. Carlini, and R. Jozsa Quantum template matching Physical Review A 64:022317, 2001. arXiv:quant-ph/0102020. 357Masahide Sasaki and Alberto Carlini Quantum learning and universal quantum matching machine Physical Review A 66:022303, 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0202173. 358Esma Aïmeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs Quantum clustering algorithms In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pg. 1-8, 2007. 359Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash Quantum gradient descent for linear systems and least squares arXiv:1704.04992, 2017. 360Dan Boneh and Mark Zhandry Quantum-secure message authentication codes In Proceedings of Eurocrypt, pg. 592-608, 2013. 361A. M. Childs, W. van Dam, S-H Hung, and I. E. Shparlinski Optimal quantum algorithm for polynomial interpolation In Proceedings of the 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pg. 16:1-16:13, 2016. arXiv:1509.09271 362Volker Strassen Einige Resultate über Berechnungskomplexität In Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 78(1):1-8, 1976/1977. 363Stacey Jeffery Frameworks for Quantum Algorithms PhD thesis, U. Waterloo, 2014. 364Seiichiro Tani An improved claw finding algorithm using quantum walk In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), pg. 536-547, 2007. arXiv:0708.2584 365K. Iwama and A. Kawachi A new quantum claw-finding algorithm for three functions New Generation Computing, 21(4):319-327, 2003. 366D. J. Bernstein, N. Heninger, P. Lou, and L. Valenta Post-quantum RSA IACR e-print 2017/351, 2017. 367Francois Fillion-Gourdeau, Steve MacLean, and Raymond Laflamme Quantum algorithm for the dsolution of the Dirac equation arXiv:1611.05484, 2016. 368Ali Hamed Moosavian and Stephen Jordan Faster quantum algorithm to simulate Fermionic quantum field theory arXiv:1711.04006, 2017. 369Pedro C.S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation arXiv:1711.05394, 2017. 370Jeffrey Yepez Highly covariant quantum lattice gas model of the Dirac equation arXiv:1106.0739, 2011. 371Jeffrey Yepez Quantum lattice gas model of Dirac particles in 1+1 dimensions arXiv:1307.3595, 2013. 372Bruce M. Boghosian and Washington Taylor Simulating quantum mechanics on a quantum computer Physica D 120:30-42, 1998. [arXiv:quant-ph/9701019] 373Yimin Ge, Jordi Tura, and J. Ignacio Cirac Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation on a quantum computer arXiv:1712.03193, 2017. 374Renato Portugal Element distinctness revisited arXiv:1711.11336, 2017. 375Kanav Setia and James D. Whitfield Bravyi-Kitaev superfast simulation of fermions on a quantum computer arXiv:1712.00446, 2017. 376Richard Cleve and Chunhao Wang Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution arXiv:1612.09512, 2016. 377M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert Dissipative quantum Church-Turing theorem Physical Review Letters 107(12):120501, 2011. [arXiv:1105.3986] 378A. M. Childs and T. Li Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics arXiv:1611.05543, 2016. 379R. Di Candia, J. S. Pedernales, A. del Campo, E. Solano, and J. Casanova Quantum simulation of dissipative processes without reservoir engineering Scientific Reports 5:9981, 2015. 380R. Babbush, D. Berry, M. Kieferová, G. H. Low, Y. Sanders, A. Sherer, and N. Wiebe Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of Fermionic Hamiltonians arXiv:1711.10460, 2017. 381D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hasting, and M. Troyer Fast quantum algorithm for spectral properties arXiv:1711.11025, 2017. 382Guang Hao Low and Isaac Chuang Hamiltonian simulation bt qubitization arXiv:1610.06546, 2016. 383F.G.S.L. Brandão, A. Kalev, T. Li, C. Y.-Y. Lin, K. M. Svore, and X. Wu Quantum SDP Solvers: Large Speed-ups, Optimality, and Applications to Quantum Learning Proceedings of ICALP 2019 [arXiv:1710.02581] 384M. Ekerå and J. Håstad Quantum Algorithms for Computing Short Discrete Logarithms and Factoring RSA Integers Proceedings of PQCrypto 2017, pg. 347-363. (LNCS Volume 10346), 2017. 385M. Ekerå On post-processing in the quantum algorithm for computing short discrete logarithms IACR ePrint Archive Report 2017/1122, 2017. 386D. J. Bernstein, J.-F. Biasse, and M. Mosca A low-resource quantum factoring algorithm Proceedings of PQCrypto 2017, pg. 330-346 (LNCS Volume 10346), 2017. 387Jianxin Chen, Andrew M. Childs, and Shih-Han Hung Quantum algorithm for multivariate polynomial interpolation Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 474:20170480, 2017. arXiv:1701.03990 388Lisa Hales and Sean Hallgren An improved quantum Fourier transform algorithm and applications. In Proceedings of FOCS 2000, pg. 515-525. 389Igor Shparlinski and Arne Winterhof Quantum period reconstruction of approximate sequences Information Processing Letters, 103:211-215, 2007. 390Alexander Russell and Igor E. Shparlinski Classical and quantum function reconstruction via character evaluation Journal of Complexity, 20:404-422, 2004. 391Sean Hallgren, Alexander Russell, and Igor Shparlinski Quantum noisy rational function reconstruction Proceedings of COCOON 2005, pg. 420-429. 392G. Ivanyos, M. Karpinski, M. Santha, N. Saxena, and I. Shparlinski Polynomial interpolation and identity testing from high powers over finite fields Algorithmica, 80:560-575, 2017. 393Qi Cheng Primality Proving via One Round in ECPP and One Iteration in AKS Journal of Cryptology, Volume 20, Issue 3, pg. 375-387, July 2007. 394Daniel J. Bernstein Proving primality in essentially quartic random time Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 76, pg. 389-403, 2007. 395F. Morain Implementing the asymptotically fast version of the elliptic curve primality proving algorithm Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 76, pg. 493-505, 2007. 396Alvaro Donis-Vela and Juan Carlos Garcia-Escartin A quantum primality test with order finding arXiv:1711.02616, 2017. 397H. F. Chau and H.-K. Lo Primality test via quantum factorization International Journal of Modern Physics C, Vol. 8, No. 2, pg. 131-138, 1997. [arXiv:quant-ph/9508005] 398David Harvey and Joris Van Der Hoeven Integer multiplication in time hal-02070778, 2019. 399Charles Greathouse personal communication, 2019. 400Ewin Tang A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems In Proceedings of STOC 2019, pg. 217-228. [arXiv:1807.04271] 401Ewin Tang Quantum-inspired classical algorithms for principal component analysis and supervised clustering arXiv:1811.00414, 2018. 402L. Wossnig, Z. Zhao, and A. Prakash A quantum linear system algorithm for dense matrices Physical Review Letters vol. 120, no. 5, pg. 050502, 2018. arXiv:1704.06174, 2017. 403Zhikuan Zhao, Alejandro Pozas-Kerstjens, Patrick Rebentrost, and Peter Wittek Bayesian Deep Learning on a Quantum Computer Quantum Machine Intelligence vol. 1, pg. 41-51, 2019. [arXiv:1806.11463] 404Anja Becker, Jean-Sebastien Coron, and Antoine Joux Improved generic algorithms for hard knapsacks Proceedings of Eurocrypt 2011 pg. 364-385 [IACR eprint 2011/474] 405Kun Zhang and Vladimir E. Korepin Low depth quantum search algorithm arXiv:1908.04171, 2019. 406Andriyan Bayo Suksmono and Yuichiro Minato Finding Hadamard matrices by a quantum annealing machine Scientific Reports 9:14380, 2019. [arXiv:1902.07890] 407Gábor Ivanyos, Anupam Prakash, and Miklos Santha On learning linear functions from subset and its applications in quantum computing 26th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2018),LIPIcs volume 112, 2018. [arXiv:1806.09660] 408Gábor Ivanyos On solving systems of random linear disequations Quantum Information and Computation, 8(6):579-594, 2008. [arXiv:0704.2988] 409A. Ambainis, K. Balodis, J. Iraids, M. Kokainis, K. Prusis, and J. Vihrovs Quantum speedups for exponential-time dynamic programming algorithms Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 19), pg. 1783-1793, 2019. [arXiv:1807.05209] 410Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander, and Guoming Wang Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision Communications in Mathematical Physics, 356(3):1057-1081, 2017. [arXiv:1701.03684] 411Sarah K. Leyton and Tobias J. Osborne Quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations arXiv:0812.4423 412Y. Cao, A. Papageorgiou, I. Petras, J. Traub, and S. Kais Quantum algorithm and circuit design solving the Poisson equation New Journal of Physics 15(1):013021, 2013. [arXiv:1207.2485] 413S. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Li, L. Fan, Z. Wei, and Y. Gu Quantum fast Poisson solver: the algorithm and modular circuit design arXiv:1910.09756, 2019. 414A. Scherer, B. Valiron, S.-C. Mau, S. Alexander, E. van den Berg, and T. Chapuran Concrete resource analysis of the quantum linear system algorithm used to compute the electromagnetic scattering crossection of a 2D target Quantum Information Processing 16:60, 2017. [arXiv:1505.06552] 415Juan Miguel Arrazola, Timjan Kalajdziavski, Christian Weedbrook, and Seth Lloyd Quantum algorithm for nonhomogeneous linear partial differential equations Physical Review A 100:032306, 2019. [arXiv:1809.02622] 416Andrew Childs and Jin-Peng Liu Quantum spectral methods for differential equations arXiv:1901.00961 417Alexander Engle, Graeme Smith, and Scott E. Parker A quantum algorithm for the Vlasov equation arXiv:1907.09418 418Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Andrew M. Childs, Tongyang Li, and Xiaodi Wu Quantum algorithms and lower bounds for convex optimization arXiv:1809.01731 419S. Chakrabarti, A. M. Childs, S.-H. Hung, T. Li, C. Wang, and X. Wu Quantum algorithm for estimating volumes of convex bodies arXiv:1908.03903 420Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf Convex optimization using quantum oracles arXiv:1809.00643 421Nai-Hui Chia, Andráas Gilyén, Tongyang Li, Han-Hsuan Lin, Ewin Tang, and Chunhao Wang Sampling-based sublinear low-rank matrix arithmetic framework for dequantizing quantum machine learning Proceedings of STOC 2020, pg. 387-400 [arXiv:1910.06151] 422Andris Ambainis and Martins Kokainis Quantum algorithm for tree size estimation, with applications to backtracking and 2-player games Proceedings of STOC 2017, pg. 989-1002 [arXiv:1704.06774] 423Fernando G.S L. Brandão, Richard Kueng, Daniel Stilck França Faster quantum and classical SDP approximations for quadratic binary optimization arXiv:1909.04613 424Matthew B. Hastings Classical and Quantum Algorithms for Tensor Principal Component Analysis Quantum 4:237, 2020. [arXiv:1907.12724] 425Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf Quantum SDP-Solvers: Better upper and lower bounds Quantum 4:230, 2020. [arXiv:1705.01843] 426J-P Liu, H. Kolden, H. Krovi, N. Loureiro, K. Trivisa, and A. M. Childs Efficient quantum algorithm for dissipative nonlinear differential equations arXiv:2011.03185 427S. Lloyd, G. De Palma, C. Gokler, B. Kiani, Z-W Liu, M. Marvian, F. Tennie, and T. Palmer Quantum algorithm for nonlinear differential equations arXiv:2011.06571 428Yunchao Liu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, and Kristan Temme A rigorous and robust quantum speed-up in supervised machine learning arXiv:2010.02174 429Matthew B. Hastings The power of adiabatic quantum computation with no sign problem arXiv:2005.03791 430Nathan Ramusat and Vincenzo Savona A quantum algorithm for the direct estimation of the steady state of open quantum systems arXiv:2008.07133
Last updated
