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

Physical Review A

Unitary dilation models of Turing machines in quantum mechanics

Paul A. Benioff

Published May 1, 1995• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A goal of quantum-mechanical models of the computation process is the description of operators that model changes in the information-bearing degrees of freedom. Iteration of the operators should correspond to steps in the computation, and the final state of halting computations should be stable under iteration. The problem is that operators constructed directly from the process description do not have these properties. In general these operators annihilate the halted state. If information-erasing steps are present, there are additional problems. These problems are illustrated in this paper by consideration of operators for two simple one-step processes and two simple Turing machines. In general the operators are not unitary and, if erasing steps are present, they are not even contraction operators. Various methods of extension or dilation to unitary operators are discussed. Here unitary power dilations are considered as a solution to these problems. It is seen that these dilations automatically provide a good solution to the initial- and final-state problems. For processes with erasing steps, recording steps must be included prior to the dilation, but only for the steps that erase information. Hamiltonians for these processes are also discussed. It is noted that H, described by exp(-iH\ensuremath{\Delta})=${\mathit{U}}^{\mathit{T}}$, where ${\mathit{U}}^{\mathit{T}}$ is a unitary step operator for the process and \ensuremath{\Delta} a time interval, has complexity problems. These problems and those noted above are avoided here by the use of the Feynman approach to constructing Hamiltonians directly from the unitary power dilations of the model operators. It is seen that the Hamiltonians so constructed have some interesting properties.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.51.3513

Related papers

Quantum mechanical Hamiltonian models of discrete processes

Paul A. Benioff

Here the results of other work on quantum mechanical Hamiltonian models of Turing machines are extended to include any discrete process T on a countably infinite set A. The models are constructed here by use of scattering phase shifts from successive scatterers to turn on successive step interactions. Also a locality requirement is imposed. The construction is done by first associating with each process T a model quantum system M with associated Hilbert space ℋM and step operator UT. Since UT is not unitary in general, M, ℋM, and UT are extended into a (continuous time) Hamiltonian model on a larger space which satisfies the locality requirement. The construction is compared with the minimal unitary dilation of UT. It is seen that the model constructed here is larger than the minimal one. However, the minimal one does not satisfy the locality requirement.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Mar 1, 1981•20 citations

Models of Quantum Turing Machines

Paul A. Benioff

Quantum Turing machines are discussed and reviewed in this paper. Most of the paper is concerned with processes defined by a step operator T that is used to construct a Hamiltonian H according to Feynman's prescription. Differences between these models and the models of Deutsch are discussed and reviewed. It is emphasized that the models with H constructed from T include fully quantum mechanical processes that take computation basis states into linear superpositions of these states. The requirement that T be distinct path generating is reviewed. The advantage of this requirement is that Schrödinger evolution under H is one dimensional along distinct finite or infinite paths of nonoverlapping states in some basis BT. It is emphasized that BT can be arbitrarily complex with extreme entanglements between states of component systems. The new aspect of quantum Turing machines introduced here is the emphasis on the structure of graphs obtained when the states in the BT paths are expanded as linear superpositions of states in a reference basis such as the computation basis BC. Examples are discussed that illustrate the main points of the paper. For one example the graph structures of the paths in BT expanded as states in BC include finite stage binary trees and concatenated finite stage binary trees with or without terminal infinite binary trees. Other examples are discussed in which the graph structures correspond to interferometers and iterations of interferometers. 03.65.Bz,89.70.+c

arXiv:quant-ph/9708054•Fortschritte der Physik•Jun 1, 1998•18 citations

On Halting Process of Quantum Turing Machine

Takayuki Miyadera, Masanori Ohya

We prove that there is no algorithm to tell whether an arbitrarily constructed Quantum Turing Machine has same time steps for different branches of computation. We, hence, cannot avoid the notion of halting to be probabilistic in Quantum Turing Machine.

arXiv:quant-ph/0302051•Open Systems & Information Dynamics•Aug 24, 2005•27 citations

Quantum Turing Machines and Quantum Prover-Verifier Interactions

Abel Molina

We present results on quantum Turing machines and on prover-verifier interactions. \n \n \nIn our work on quantum Turing machines, we continue the line of research opened by Yao (1993), who proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t, and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We then first revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t, rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended easily to many variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of a method of Arrighi, Nesme, and Werner (2011) that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions, involving abstract lemmas that might be of independent interest. \n \n \nWe also consider the more complex extension of our variant to the circuit simulation of multi-tape quantum Turing machines, where our variant provides a circuit with O(t^k) size and O(t^{k-1}) depth for the simulation of t steps of a machine with k tapes. This can be contrasted with the O(t^{k}) depth corresponding to the generalization of Yao's simulation by Nishimura and Ozawa (2002). Our usage of abstract techniques regarding the localization of causal unitary evolutions allows again for a simplification of the algebraic manipulation aspects of the construction. We also discuss the further extension to the case of oracle quantum Turing machines. \n \n \nIn our work on prover-verifier interactions, we first consider a protocol under the name of perfect/conclusive quantum state exclusion. This means to be able to discard with certainty at least one out of n possible quantum state preparations by performing a measurement of the resulting state. When all the preparations correspond to pure states and there are no more of them than their common dimension, it is an open problem whether POVMs give any additional power for this task with respect to projective measurements. This is the case even for the simple case of three states in three dimensions, which is discussed by Caves, Fuchs and Schack (2002) as unsuccessfully tackled. In our work, we give an analytical proof that in this case POVMs do indeed not give any additional power with respect to projective measurements. We also discuss possible generalizations of our work, including an application of Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming that might be of special interest. \n \n \nWe additionally consider the problem of quantum hedging, a particular kind of quantum correlation that arises between parallel instances of prover-verifier interactions. M. and Watrous (2012) studied a protocol that exhibited a perfect form of quantum hedging, where the risk for the prover of losing a first game can completely offset the corresponding risk for a second game. We take a step towards a better understanding of this hedging phenomenon by giving a characterization of the prover's optimal behavior for a natural generalization of this protocol. Furthermore, we discuss how the usage of the logarithmic utility principle to analyze prover-verifier interactions could justify further study of quantum hedging.

•Jul 31, 2020•0 citations

Towards Observable Quantum Turing Machines: Fundamentals, Computational Power, and Universality

Simon Perdrix

We study the observation of quantum Turing machines by allowing interactions between a quantum machine and its environment during the computation, whereas a quantum Turing machine --original model introduced by Deutsch-- remains isolated. We show that the introduction of observations leads to a weakening of the well formedness conditions of quantum Turing machines such that any (reversible or not) classical Turing machine is a special instance of a quantum machine. Moreover, observation of quantum Turing machines provides a formal solution to the halting process problem: the impossibility to know whether a given quantum Turing machine has actually reached its halting state. It also provides a more realistic abstract architecture of a quantum computer while most of the physical proposals of quantum computers are based on an hybrid classical-quantum architecture. However, we show that a natural formalisation of an observable quantum Turing machines leads to an over-powerful model solving undecidable problems. As a consequence, we introduce a restricted version of observable quantum Turing machines and we show that, under this restriction, any observable quantum Turing machine can be efficiently simulated by a quantum Turing machine. Finally, we discuss the potential application of the observable quantum Turing machine in the quest of a universal quantum Turing machine while recent papers have pointed out that a classical control is a key feature of a universal quantum machine.

•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Hamiltonian models of quantum computers which evolve quantum ballistically

Paul A. Benioff

Quantum computation is a subject of much recent interest. In much of the work in the literature quantum computers are described as built up from a sequence of unitary operators where each unitary operator carries out a stage of the overall quantum computation. The sequence and connection of the different unitary operators is provided presumably by some external agent which governs the overall process. However there is no description of a an overall Hamiltonian needed to give the actual quantum dynamics of the computation process. In this talk, earlier work by the author is followed in that simple, time independent Hamiltonians are used to describe quantum computation, and the Schroedinger evolution of the computation system is considered to be quantum ballistic. However, the definition of quantum ballistic evolution used here is more general than that used in the earlier work. In particular, the requirement that the step operator {ital T} associated with a process be a partial isometry, used in, is relaxed to require that {ital T} be a contraction operator. (An operator {ital T} is a partial isometry if the self-adjoint operators T{sup {dagger}}T and TT{sup {dagger}} are also projection operators.{ital T} is a contraction operator if {vert_bar}{vert_bar} {ital T} {vert_bar}{vert_bar} {<=} 1.) The main purpose of this talk is to investigate some consequences for quantum computation under this weaker requirement. It will be seen that system motion along discrete paths in a basis still occurs. However the motion occurs in ,the presence of potentials whose height and distribution along the path depends on {ital T} and the path states.

•Dec 31, 1996•1 citation
A goal of quantum-mechanical models of the computation process is the description of operators that model changes in the information-bearing degrees of freedom. Iteration of the operators should correspond to steps in the computation, and the final state of halting computations should be stable under iteration. The problem is that operators constructed directly from the process description do not have these properties. In general these operators annihilate the halted state. If information-erasing steps are present, there are additional problems. These problems are illustrated in this paper by consideration of operators for two simple one-step processes and two simple Turing machines. In general the operators are not unitary and, if erasing steps are present, they are not even contraction operators. Various methods of extension or dilation to unitary operators are discussed. Here unitary power dilations are considered as a solution to these problems. It is seen that these dilations automatically provide a good solution to the initial- and final-state problems. For processes with erasing steps, recording steps must be included prior to the dilation, but only for the steps that erase information. Hamiltonians for these processes are also discussed. It is noted that H, described by exp(-iH\ensuremath{\Delta})=UT{\mathit{U}}^{\mathit{T}}UT, where UT{\mathit{U}}^{\mathit{T}}UT is a unitary step operator for the process and \ensuremath{\Delta} a time interval, has complexity problems. These problems and those noted above are avoided here by the use of the Feynman approach to constructing Hamiltonians directly from the unitary power dilations of the model operators. It is seen that the Hamiltonians so constructed have some interesting properties.
Here the results of other work on quantum mechanical Hamiltonian models of Turing machines are extended to include any discrete process T on a countably infinite set A. The models are constructed here by use of scattering phase shifts from successive scatterers to turn on successive step interactions. Also a locality requirement is imposed. The construction is done by first associating with each process T a model quantum system M with associated Hilbert space ℋM and step operator UT. Since UT is not unitary in general, M, ℋM, and UT are extended into a (continuous time) Hamiltonian model on a larger space which satisfies the locality requirement. The construction is compared with the minimal unitary dilation of UT. It is seen that the model constructed here is larger than the minimal one. However, the minimal one does not satisfy the locality requirement.
Quantum Turing machines are discussed and reviewed in this paper. Most of the paper is concerned with processes defined by a step operator T that is used to construct a Hamiltonian H according to Feynman's prescription. Differences between these models and the models of Deutsch are discussed and reviewed. It is emphasized that the models with H constructed from T include fully quantum mechanical processes that take computation basis states into linear superpositions of these states. The requirement that T be distinct path generating is reviewed. The advantage of this requirement is that Schrödinger evolution under H is one dimensional along distinct finite or infinite paths of nonoverlapping states in some basis BT. It is emphasized that BT can be arbitrarily complex with extreme entanglements between states of component systems. The new aspect of quantum Turing machines introduced here is the emphasis on the structure of graphs obtained when the states in the BT paths are expanded as linear superpositions of states in a reference basis such as the computation basis BC. Examples are discussed that illustrate the main points of the paper. For one example the graph structures of the paths in BT expanded as states in BC include finite stage binary trees and concatenated finite stage binary trees with or without terminal infinite binary trees. Other examples are discussed in which the graph structures correspond to interferometers and iterations of interferometers. 03.65.Bz,89.70.+c
We present results on quantum Turing machines and on prover-verifier interactions. \n \n \nIn our work on quantum Turing machines, we continue the line of research opened by Yao (1993), who proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t, and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We then first revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t, rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended easily to many variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of a method of Arrighi, Nesme, and Werner (2011) that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions, involving abstract lemmas that might be of independent interest. \n \n \nWe also consider the more complex extension of our variant to the circuit simulation of multi-tape quantum Turing machines, where our variant provides a circuit with O(t^k) size and O(t^{k-1}) depth for the simulation of t steps of a machine with k tapes. This can be contrasted with the O(t^{k}) depth corresponding to the generalization of Yao's simulation by Nishimura and Ozawa (2002). Our usage of abstract techniques regarding the localization of causal unitary evolutions allows again for a simplification of the algebraic manipulation aspects of the construction. We also discuss the further extension to the case of oracle quantum Turing machines. \n \n \nIn our work on prover-verifier interactions, we first consider a protocol under the name of perfect/conclusive quantum state exclusion. This means to be able to discard with certainty at least one out of n possible quantum state preparations by performing a measurement of the resulting state. When all the preparations correspond to pure states and there are no more of them than their common dimension, it is an open problem whether POVMs give any additional power for this task with respect to projective measurements. This is the case even for the simple case of three states in three dimensions, which is discussed by Caves, Fuchs and Schack (2002) as unsuccessfully tackled. In our work, we give an analytical proof that in this case POVMs do indeed not give any additional power with respect to projective measurements. We also discuss possible generalizations of our work, including an application of Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming that might be of special interest. \n \n \nWe additionally consider the problem of quantum hedging, a particular kind of quantum correlation that arises between parallel instances of prover-verifier interactions. M. and Watrous (2012) studied a protocol that exhibited a perfect form of quantum hedging, where the risk for the prover of losing a first game can completely offset the corresponding risk for a second game. We take a step towards a better understanding of this hedging phenomenon by giving a characterization of the prover's optimal behavior for a natural generalization of this protocol. Furthermore, we discuss how the usage of the logarithmic utility principle to analyze prover-verifier interactions could justify further study of quantum hedging.
We study the observation of quantum Turing machines by allowing interactions between a quantum machine and its environment during the computation, whereas a quantum Turing machine --original model introduced by Deutsch-- remains isolated. We show that the introduction of observations leads to a weakening of the well formedness conditions of quantum Turing machines such that any (reversible or not) classical Turing machine is a special instance of a quantum machine. Moreover, observation of quantum Turing machines provides a formal solution to the halting process problem: the impossibility to know whether a given quantum Turing machine has actually reached its halting state. It also provides a more realistic abstract architecture of a quantum computer while most of the physical proposals of quantum computers are based on an hybrid classical-quantum architecture. However, we show that a natural formalisation of an observable quantum Turing machines leads to an over-powerful model solving undecidable problems. As a consequence, we introduce a restricted version of observable quantum Turing machines and we show that, under this restriction, any observable quantum Turing machine can be efficiently simulated by a quantum Turing machine. Finally, we discuss the potential application of the observable quantum Turing machine in the quest of a universal quantum Turing machine while recent papers have pointed out that a classical control is a key feature of a universal quantum machine.
Quantum computation is a subject of much recent interest. In much of the work in the literature quantum computers are described as built up from a sequence of unitary operators where each unitary operator carries out a stage of the overall quantum computation. The sequence and connection of the different unitary operators is provided presumably by some external agent which governs the overall process. However there is no description of a an overall Hamiltonian needed to give the actual quantum dynamics of the computation process. In this talk, earlier work by the author is followed in that simple, time independent Hamiltonians are used to describe quantum computation, and the Schroedinger evolution of the computation system is considered to be quantum ballistic. However, the definition of quantum ballistic evolution used here is more general than that used in the earlier work. In particular, the requirement that the step operator {ital T} associated with a process be a partial isometry, used in, is relaxed to require that {ital T} be a contraction operator. (An operator {ital T} is a partial isometry if the self-adjoint operators T{sup {dagger}}T and TT{sup {dagger}} are also projection operators.{ital T} is a contraction operator if {vert_bar}{vert_bar} {ital T} {vert_bar}{vert_bar} {<=} 1.) The main purpose of this talk is to investigate some consequences for quantum computation under this weaker requirement. It will be seen that system motion along discrete paths in a basis still occurs. However the motion occurs in ,the presence of potentials whose height and distribution along the path depends on {ital T} and the path states.