Document Open Access Logo

Oracles with Costs

Authors Shelby Kimmel, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, Han-Hsuan Lin



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.TQC.2015.1.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.82 MB
  • 26 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Shelby Kimmel
Cedric Yen-Yu Lin
Han-Hsuan Lin

Cite AsGet BibTex

Shelby Kimmel, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, and Han-Hsuan Lin. Oracles with Costs. In 10th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2015). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 44, pp. 1-26, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2015.1

Abstract

While powerful tools have been developed to analyze quantum query complexity, there are still many natural problems that do not fit neatly into the black box model of oracles. We create a new model that allows multiple oracles with differing costs. This model captures more of the difficulty of certain natural problems. We test this model on a simple problem, Search with Two Oracles, for which we create a quantum algorithm that we prove is asymptotically optimal. We further give some evidence, using a geometric picture of Grover's algorithm, that our algorithm is exactly optimal.
Keywords
  • Quantum Algorithms
  • Query Complexity
  • Amplitude Amplification

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Andris Ambainis. Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments. In Proc. 32nd ACM STOC, pages 636-643. ACM, 2000. Google Scholar
  2. Andris Ambainis. Quantum search with variable times. Theory of Computing Systems, 47(3):786-807, 2010. Google Scholar
  3. Andris Ambainis, Ansis Rosmanis, and Dominique Unruh. Quantum attacks on classical proof systems - the hardness of quantum rewinding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.6898, 2014. Google Scholar
  4. Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald De Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 48(4):778-797, 2001. Google Scholar
  5. Aleksandrs Belovs. Learning-graph-based quantum algorithm for k-distinctness. In Proc. IEEE 53rd FOCS, pages 207-216. IEEE Computer Society, 2012. Google Scholar
  6. Aleksandrs Belovs and Ansis Rosmanis. On the power of non-adaptive learning graphs. Computational Complexity, 23(2):323-354, 2014. Google Scholar
  7. Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1510-1523, 1997. Google Scholar
  8. Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0005055, 2000. Google Scholar
  9. Nicolas J Cerf, Lov K Grover, and Colin P Williams. Nested quantum search and structured problems. Physical Review A, 61(3):032303, 2000. Google Scholar
  10. Cătălin Dohotaru and Peter Høyer. Exact quantum lower bound for grover’s problem. Quantum Information and Computation, 9(5-6):533-540, 2009. Google Scholar
  11. Mark 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. Google Scholar
  12. Peter Høyer, Troy Lee, and Robert Špalek. Negative weights make adversaries stronger. In Proc. 39th ACM STOC, pages 526-535, 2007. Google Scholar
  13. Troy Lee, Rajat Mittal, Ben W Reichardt, Robert Špalek, and Mario Szegedy. Quantum query complexity of state conversion. In Proc. 52nd IEEE FOCS, pages 344-353. IEEE, 2011. Google Scholar
  14. Ashley Montanaro. Quantum search with advice. In Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, pages 77-93. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  15. Aran Nayebi, Scott Aaronson, Aleksandrs Belovs, and Luca Trevisan. Quantum lower bound for inverting a permutation with advice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.3193, 2014. Google Scholar
  16. Theodore J Yoder, Guang Hao Low, and Isaac L Chuang. Fixed-point quantum search with an optimal number of queries. Physical review letters, 113(21):210501, 2014. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail