IPSJ Digital Courier

Automata with Quantum and Classical Resources

Masaki Nakanishi

Published Jan 1, 2005• 0 citations

Abstract

Quantum automata have been studied as simple quantum computation models. They can be considered models of small (or restricted)quantum computers. In this paper, we give descriptions of several kinds of quantum automata and show their power in comparison to their classical counterparts. We also give descriptions of quantum automata that have additional classical computational resources. Introducing classical computational resources can enhance the power of quantum automata, since this approach relaxes such restrictions as reversible state transitions.

DOI: 10.2197/ipsjdc.1.442

Related papers

Quantum versus Classical Pushdown Automata in Exact Computation

Yumiko Murakami, Masaki Nakanishi, Shigeru Yamashita +1 more

Even though quantum computation is useful for solving certain problems, classical computation is more powerful in some cases. Thus, it is significant to compare the abilities of quantum computation and its classical counterpart, based on such a simple computation model as automata. In this paper we focus on the quantum pushdown automata which were defined by Golovkins in 2000, who showed that the class of languages recognized by quantum pushdown automata properly contains the class of languages recognized by finite automata. However, no one knows the entire relationship between the recognitive abilities of quantum and classical pushdown automata. As a part, we show a proposition that quantum pushdown automata can deterministically solve a certain problem that cannot be solved by any deterministic pushdown automata.

IPSJ Digital CourierJan 1, 200518 citations

Quantum finite automata: A modern introduction

A. C. Cem Say, Abuzer Yakaryılmaz

We present five examples where quantum finite automata (QFAs) outperform their classical counterparts. This may be useful as a relatively simple technique to introduce quantum computation concepts to computer scientists. We also describe a modern QFA model involving superoperators that is able to simulate all known QFA and classical finite automaton variants.

arXiv:1406.4048Jun 16, 20145 citations

Quantum vs. classical pushdown automata in exact computation

Yumiko Murakami

Since some quantum algorithms were introduced by Shor [1] or by Grover [2], much attention has been given to the field of quantum computation.The quantum computation is so useful for solving certain problems, however, the classical computation is more powerful in some cases.Thus, it is significant to compare the ability of quantum computation with the ability of classical counterpart, based on simple computation models, like automata.In this paper, we focus on the quantum pushdown automata, QPAs, which was defined by Golovkins in 2000 [4].It is shown that the class of languages recognized by QPAs contains the class of languages recognized by finite automata.However, no one knows the relationships between the cognitive ablity of QPAs and the classical counterparts.We make a proposition in this paper, the QPAs that deterministically solve a certain problem, which cannot be solved by deterministic pushdown automata.

Mar 24, 20040 citations

Quantum finite automata: survey, status and research directions

Amandeep Singh Bhatia, Ajay Kumar

Quantum computing is concerned with computer technology based on the principles of quantum mechanics, with operations performed at the quantum level. Quantum computational models make it possible to analyze the resources required for computations. Quantum automata can be classified thusly: quantum finite automata, quantum sequential machine, quantum pushdown automata, quantum Turing machine and orthomodular lattice-valued automata. These models are useful for determining the expressive power and boundaries of various computational features. In light of the current state of quantum computation theory research, a systematic review of the literature seems timely. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of quantum finite automata models, quantum finite automata models with density operators and quantum finite automata models with classical states, interactive proof systems, quantum communication complexity and query complexity as described in the literature. The statistics of quantum finite automata related papers are shown and open problems are identified for more advanced research. The current status of quantum automata theory is distributed into various categories. This research work also highlights the previous research, current status and future directions of quantum automata models.

arXiv:1901.07992Jan 23, 20199 citations

1-way quantum finite automata: strengths, weaknesses and generalizations

Andris Ambainis, Rūsiņš Freivalds

We study 1-way quantum finite automata (QFAs). First, we compare them with their classical counterparts. We show that, if an automaton is required to give the correct answer with a large probability (greater than 7/9), then any 1-way QFAs can be simulated by a 1-way reversible automaton. However, quantum automata giving the correct answer with smaller probabilities are more powerful than reversible automata. Second, we show that 1-way QFAs can be very space-efficient. We construct a 1-way QFA that is exponentially smaller than any equivalent classical (even randomized) finite automaton. We think that this construction may be useful for design of other space-efficient quantum algorithms. Third, we consider several generalizations of 1-way QFAs. Here, our goal is to find a model which is more powerful than 1-way QFAs keeping the quantum part as simple as possible.

arXiv:quant-ph/9802062Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer ScienceNov 27, 2002220 citations

Quantum automata and quantum computing

Marats Golovkins

Quantum finite automata were introduced by C.Moore and J.P.Crutchfield in [MC 97] and by A.Kondacs and J.Watrous in [KW 97]. This notion is not a generalization of the deterministic finite automata, but rather a generalization of deterministic reversible (permutation) automata. In [AF 98] A.Ambainis and R.Freivalds raised the question what kind of probabilistic automata can be viewed as a special case of quantum finite automata. To answer that question and study relationship between quantum finite automata and probabilistic finite automata, we introduce a notion of probabilistic reversible automata (PRA, or doubly stochastic automata). We give the necessary condition for a language to be recognized by PRA. We find that there is a strong relationship between different possible models of PRA and corresponding models of quantum finite automata. In these thesis we regard quantum automata, probabilistic reversible and deterministic reversible automata as reversible automata. At least two non-equivalent definitions of language recognition are used for one-way reversible finite automata in various papers. Both of these definitions have their own advantages and disadvantages, summarized in our classification of one-way reversible automata. Further, we introduce a notion of quantum finite multitape automata and prove that there is a language recognized by a quantum finite multitape automaton but not by deterministic finite multitape automata. Additionally we discover unexpected probabilistic automata recognizing complicated languages. Finally, we revise the concept of quantum pushdown automata (QPA), first introduced by C.Moore and J.P.Cruthchfield in [MC 97]. We give the definition of QPA in a non-equivalent way, including unitarity criteria, by using the definition of quantum finite automata of [KW 97]. It is established that the unitary criteria of QPA are not equivalent to the corresponding unitary criteria of quantum Turing machines [BV 97]. We show that QPA can recognize every regular language. We also present some simple non-context-free languages recognized by QPA (hence not recognizable by deterministic and nondeterministic pushdown automata).

Jan 1, 20020 citations