Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2209.14146

Quantum Subroutine Composition

Stacey Jeffery

Published Sep 28, 2022• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

An important tool in algorithm design is the ability to build algorithms from other algorithms that run as subroutines. In the case of quantum algorithms, a subroutine may be called on a superposition of different inputs, which complicates things. For example, a classical algorithm that calls a subroutine $Q$ times, where the average probability of querying the subroutine on input $i$ is $p_i$, and the cost of the subroutine on input $i$ is $T_i$, incurs expected cost $Q\sum_i p_i E[T_i]$ from all subroutine queries. While this statement is obvious for classical algorithms, for quantum algorithms, it is much less so, since naively, if we run a quantum subroutine on a superposition of inputs, we need to wait for all branches of the superposition to terminate before we can apply the next operation. We nonetheless show an analogous quantum statement (*): If $q_i$ is the average query weight on $i$ over all queries, the cost from all quantum subroutine queries is $Q\sum_i q_i E[T_i]$. Here the query weight on $i$ for a particular query is the probability of measuring $i$ in the input register if we were to measure right before the query. We prove this result using the technique of multidimensional quantum walks, recently introduced in arXiv:2208.13492. We present a more general version of their quantum walk edge composition result, which yields variable-time quantum walks, generalizing variable-time quantum search, by, for example, replacing the update cost with $\sqrt{\sum_{u,v}π_u P_{u,v} E[T_{u,v}^2]}$, where $T_{u,v}$ is the cost to move from vertex $u$ to vertex $v$. The same technique that allows us to compose quantum subroutines in quantum walks can also be used to compose in any quantum algorithm, which is how we prove (*).

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2209.14146

Related papers

Loop Composition in Quantum Algorithms

Stacey Jeffery, Manideep Mamindlapally, Alex Baudoin Nguetsa Tankeu

The quantum circuit model essentially treats every quantum algorithm as a straight-line program. While this view is universal, recent work has shown that it is inconvenient for using different-length quantum subroutines in superposition. Using the quantum walk formalism of quantum algorithms, it is possible to model such branching behaviour, and get better composition in this setting. We apply the above branching composition to Grover's algorithm, which gives a variable-time quantum search algorithm that is worse than previous work. The reason it is worse is because branching composition does not take into account another deviation from straight-line programs: looping. We show that by modifying branching composition to also include looping, we can get a complexity that matches previous work. This highlights the importance of properly modeling the program control flow when designing quantum algorithms.

quant-pharXiv:2605.07518•May 11, 2026•0 citations

Taming Quantum Time Complexity

Aleksandrs Belovs, Stacey Jeffery, Duyal Yolcu

Quantum query complexity has several nice properties with respect to composition. First, bounded-error quantum query algorithms can be composed without incurring log factors through error reduction e x a c t n e s s . Second, through careful accounting t h r i f t i n e s s , the total query complexity is smaller if subroutines are mostly run on cheaper inputs -- a property that is much less obvious in quantum algorithms than in their classical counterparts. While these properties were previously seen through the model of span programs (alternatively, the dual adversary bound), a recent work by two of the authors (Belovs, Yolcu 2023) showed how to achieve these benefits without converting to span programs, by defining quantum Las Vegas query complexity . Independently, recent works, including by one of the authors (Jeffery 2022), have worked towards bringing thriftiness to the more practically significant setting of quantum t i m e complexity.In this work, we show how to achieve both exactness and thriftiness in the setting of time complexity. We generalize the quantum subroutine composition results of Jeffery 2022 so that, in particular, no error reduction is needed. We give a time complexity version of the well-known result in quantum query complexity, Q ( f ∘ g ) = O ( Q ( f ) ⋅ Q ( g ) ) , without log factors.We achieve this by employing a novel approach to the design of quantum algorithms based on what we call t r a n s d u c e r s , and which we think is of large independent interest. While a span program is a completely different computational model, a transducer is a direct generalisation of a quantum algorithm, which allows for much greater transparency and control. Transducers naturally characterize general state conversion, rather than only decision problems; provide a very simple treatment of other quantum primitives such as quantum walks; and lend themselves well to time complexity analysis.

arXiv:2311.15873•Quantum•Aug 23, 2024•5 citations

Distributional Quantum Query Complexity

Shalev Ben-David, M. H. Ebtehaj

Quantum query complexity enjoys a variety of pleasing joint computation properties: for example, a composition theorem asserting $Q(f\circ g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g))$ for all Boolean functions $f$ and $g$; a direct sum theorem asserting that computing $k$ copies of a function (or search problem) costs $Ω(k)$ times as much as the cost of computing one copy; and a direct product theorem asserting that for Boolean functions, even succeeding at the direct sum problem with exponentially small probability still requires $Ω(k)$ times the cost of computing one copy to bounded error. However, all of these results are strictly for worst-case quantum query complexity. For example, if we have a fixed distribution $μ$ over inputs, the direct sum theorem says nothing about the quantum query complexity of computing $k$ copies of $f$ when the input comes from the product distribution $μ^k$ instead of being worst-case. (Note that while a standard Yao-type minimax theorem guarantees a hard distribution for the direct sum problem, there's no guarantee that this hard distribution is a product distribution.) A similar problem occurs for the direct product theorem and the composition theorem: none of these results respect distributions. In this work, we give distributional joint computation lower bounds for the composition, direct sum, and direct product problems. Along the way, we introduce some new tools for handling quantum query lower bounds, including (a) a new ``multiplicative'' variant of the $γ_2$ norm (which we use in place of the multiplicative adversary method for proving the direct product theorem), and (b) a new ``Shaltiel-free'' measure of quantum query complexity, which we show characterizes the composition behavior of distributional quantum query complexity and satisfies pleasing properties.

quant-pharXiv:2610.06835•Oct 6, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Algorithms

A. O. Pittenger

We are now ready to assemble quantum subroutines into quantum algorithms. A reasonable first question is: Are there problems which can be solved efficiently on a quantum computer? In his analysis of a universal quantum computer [25], Deutsch illustrated quantum parallelism by constructing a procedure to compute the parity f (0) ⊕ f (1) of a function on one bit. In a generalization of this context, Deutsch and Jozsa [27] defined a quantum algorithm that could solve a problem more efficiently than is possible on a classical computer. This problem helped motivate the search for algorithms that could solve “real” problems, and Simon [67] provided an example that inspired Shor’s subsequent work on the factoring problem and on the discrete logarithm problem. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

Quantum walks through generalized graph composition

Arjan Cornelissen

In this work, we generalize the recently-introduced graph composition framework to the non-boolean setting. A quantum algorithm in this framework is represented by a hypergraph, where each hyperedge is adjacent to multiple vertices. The input and output to the quantum algorithm is represented by a set of boundary vertices, and the hyperedges act like switches, connecting the input vertex to the output that the algorithm computes. Apart from generalizing the graph composition framework, our new proposed framework unifies the quantum divide and conquer framework, the decision-tree framework, and the unified quantum walk search framework. For the decision trees, we additionally construct a quantum algorithm from an improved weighting scheme in the non-boolean case. For quantum walk search, we show how our techniques naturally allow for amortization of the subroutines' costs. Previous work showed how one can speed up ``detection'' of marked vertices by amortizing the costs of the quantum walk. In this work, we extend these results to the setting of ``finding'' such marked vertices, albeit in some restricted settings. Along the way, we provide a novel analysis of irreducible, reversible Markov processes, by linear-algebraically connecting its effective resistance to the random walk operator. This significantly simplifies the algorithmic implementation of the quantum walk search algorithm, achieves an amortization speed-up for quantum walks over Johnson graphs, avoids the need for quantum fast-forwarding, and removes the log-factors from the query complexity statements.

arXiv:2510.04973•Oct 6, 2025•0 citations

Compiling basic linear algebra subroutines for quantum computers

Liming Zhao, Zhikuan Zhao, Patrick Rebentrost +1 more

arXiv:1902.10394•Quantum Machine Intelligence•Jun 18, 2021•26 citations
An important tool in algorithm design is the ability to build algorithms from other algorithms that run as subroutines. In the case of quantum algorithms, a subroutine may be called on a superposition of different inputs, which complicates things. For example, a classical algorithm that calls a subroutine QQQ times, where the average probability of querying the subroutine on input iii is pip_ipi​, and the cost of the subroutine on input iii is TiT_iTi​, incurs expected cost Q∑ipiE[Ti]Q\sum_i p_i E[T_i]Q∑i​pi​E[Ti​] from all subroutine queries. While this statement is obvious for classical algorithms, for quantum algorithms, it is much less so, since naively, if we run a quantum subroutine on a superposition of inputs, we need to wait for all branches of the superposition to terminate before we can apply the next operation. We nonetheless show an analogous quantum statement (): If qiq_iqi​ is the average query weight on iii over all queries, the cost from all quantum subroutine queries is Q∑iqiE[Ti]Q\sum_i q_i E[T_i]Q∑i​qi​E[Ti​]. Here the query weight on iii for a particular query is the probability of measuring iii in the input register if we were to measure right before the query. We prove this result using the technique of multidimensional quantum walks, recently introduced in arXiv:2208.13492. We present a more general version of their quantum walk edge composition result, which yields variable-time quantum walks, generalizing variable-time quantum search, by, for example, replacing the update cost with ∑u,vπuPu,vE[Tu,v2]\sqrt{\sum_{u,v}π_u P_{u,v} E[T_{u,v}^2]}∑u,v​πu​Pu,v​E[Tu,v2​]​, where Tu,vT_{u,v}Tu,v​ is the cost to move from vertex uuu to vertex vvv. The same technique that allows us to compose quantum subroutines in quantum walks can also be used to compose in any quantum algorithm, which is how we prove ().
The quantum circuit model essentially treats every quantum algorithm as a straight-line program. While this view is universal, recent work has shown that it is inconvenient for using different-length quantum subroutines in superposition. Using the quantum walk formalism of quantum algorithms, it is possible to model such branching behaviour, and get better composition in this setting. We apply the above branching composition to Grover's algorithm, which gives a variable-time quantum search algorithm that is worse than previous work. The reason it is worse is because branching composition does not take into account another deviation from straight-line programs: looping. We show that by modifying branching composition to also include looping, we can get a complexity that matches previous work. This highlights the importance of properly modeling the program control flow when designing quantum algorithms.
Quantum query complexity has several nice properties with respect to composition. First, bounded-error quantum query algorithms can be composed without incurring log factors through error reduction e x a c t n e s s . Second, through careful accounting t h r i f t i n e s s , the total query complexity is smaller if subroutines are mostly run on cheaper inputs -- a property that is much less obvious in quantum algorithms than in their classical counterparts. While these properties were previously seen through the model of span programs (alternatively, the dual adversary bound), a recent work by two of the authors (Belovs, Yolcu 2023) showed how to achieve these benefits without converting to span programs, by defining quantum Las Vegas query complexity . Independently, recent works, including by one of the authors (Jeffery 2022), have worked towards bringing thriftiness to the more practically significant setting of quantum t i m e complexity.In this work, we show how to achieve both exactness and thriftiness in the setting of time complexity. We generalize the quantum subroutine composition results of Jeffery 2022 so that, in particular, no error reduction is needed. We give a time complexity version of the well-known result in quantum query complexity, Q ( f ∘ g ) = O ( Q ( f ) ⋅ Q ( g ) ) , without log factors.We achieve this by employing a novel approach to the design of quantum algorithms based on what we call t r a n s d u c e r s , and which we think is of large independent interest. While a span program is a completely different computational model, a transducer is a direct generalisation of a quantum algorithm, which allows for much greater transparency and control. Transducers naturally characterize general state conversion, rather than only decision problems; provide a very simple treatment of other quantum primitives such as quantum walks; and lend themselves well to time complexity analysis.
Quantum query complexity enjoys a variety of pleasing joint computation properties: for example, a composition theorem asserting Q(f∘g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g))Q(f\circ g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g))Q(f∘g)=Θ(Q(f)Q(g)) for all Boolean functions fff and ggg; a direct sum theorem asserting that computing kkk copies of a function (or search problem) costs Ω(k)Ω(k)Ω(k) times as much as the cost of computing one copy; and a direct product theorem asserting that for Boolean functions, even succeeding at the direct sum problem with exponentially small probability still requires Ω(k)Ω(k)Ω(k) times the cost of computing one copy to bounded error. However, all of these results are strictly for worst-case quantum query complexity. For example, if we have a fixed distribution μμμ over inputs, the direct sum theorem says nothing about the quantum query complexity of computing kkk copies of fff when the input comes from the product distribution μkμ^kμk instead of being worst-case. (Note that while a standard Yao-type minimax theorem guarantees a hard distribution for the direct sum problem, there's no guarantee that this hard distribution is a product distribution.) A similar problem occurs for the direct product theorem and the composition theorem: none of these results respect distributions. In this work, we give distributional joint computation lower bounds for the composition, direct sum, and direct product problems. Along the way, we introduce some new tools for handling quantum query lower bounds, including (a) a new ``multiplicative'' variant of the γ2γ_2γ2​ norm (which we use in place of the multiplicative adversary method for proving the direct product theorem), and (b) a new ``Shaltiel-free'' measure of quantum query complexity, which we show characterizes the composition behavior of distributional quantum query complexity and satisfies pleasing properties.
We are now ready to assemble quantum subroutines into quantum algorithms. A reasonable first question is: Are there problems which can be solved efficiently on a quantum computer? In his analysis of a universal quantum computer [25], Deutsch illustrated quantum parallelism by constructing a procedure to compute the parity f (0) ⊕ f (1) of a function on one bit. In a generalization of this context, Deutsch and Jozsa [27] defined a quantum algorithm that could solve a problem more efficiently than is possible on a classical computer. This problem helped motivate the search for algorithms that could solve “real” problems, and Simon [67] provided an example that inspired Shor’s subsequent work on the factoring problem and on the discrete logarithm problem. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
In this work, we generalize the recently-introduced graph composition framework to the non-boolean setting. A quantum algorithm in this framework is represented by a hypergraph, where each hyperedge is adjacent to multiple vertices. The input and output to the quantum algorithm is represented by a set of boundary vertices, and the hyperedges act like switches, connecting the input vertex to the output that the algorithm computes. Apart from generalizing the graph composition framework, our new proposed framework unifies the quantum divide and conquer framework, the decision-tree framework, and the unified quantum walk search framework. For the decision trees, we additionally construct a quantum algorithm from an improved weighting scheme in the non-boolean case. For quantum walk search, we show how our techniques naturally allow for amortization of the subroutines' costs. Previous work showed how one can speed up ``detection'' of marked vertices by amortizing the costs of the quantum walk. In this work, we extend these results to the setting of ``finding'' such marked vertices, albeit in some restricted settings. Along the way, we provide a novel analysis of irreducible, reversible Markov processes, by linear-algebraically connecting its effective resistance to the random walk operator. This significantly simplifies the algorithmic implementation of the quantum walk search algorithm, achieves an amortization speed-up for quantum walks over Johnson graphs, avoids the need for quantum fast-forwarding, and removes the log-factors from the query complexity statements.