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.
The rapid evolution of computers in the half century since their invention has resulted in dramatically smaller and faster computers. However, from a computational point of view, all these computers look alike; for example, they are built out of simple logic gates. A fundamental thesis of computer science---the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis---asserts that this is inevitable in a deep sense. Any computer can be simulated with at most a polynomial factor slowdown by a probabilistic Turing machine. Quantum computation poses the first credible challenge to this thesis. It goes back to a suggestion by Feynman [4], who pointed out that there appears to be no efficient way of simulating a quantum mechanical system on a computer, and suggested that, perhaps, a computer based on quantum physical principles might be able to carry out the simulation efficiently. Two formal models for quantum computers---the quantum Turing machine [2] and quantum computational networks [3]---were defined by Deutsch. The first three papers in this issue describe efficient quantum algorithms for computational tasks that we do not know how to solve classically. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani give the first formal evidence that quantum computers violate the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis. They show that a certain problem---the recursive Fourier sampling problem---can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but relative to an oracle, requires superpolynomial time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. Simon, in the paper "On the Power of Quantum Computation" introduces a fundamental projection technique and uses it to design an efficient quantum algorithm to determine whether a certain type of function is 2-1 or 1-1. He further shows that, relative to an oracle, this problem requires exponential time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. In the paper "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer," Shor gives remarkable polynomial time quantum algorithms for two of the most famous problems in computer science: factoring and discrete log. Since the computational hardness of these problems is the basis of several famous cryptosystems, Shor's paper very dramatically underlines the power of quantum computers. To understand the computational power of quantum computers, it is helpful to consider a quantum mechanical system of n particles, each of which can be in one of two states, labeled
∣0⟩ and
∣1⟩. If this were a classical system, then its instantaneous state could be described by n bits. However, in quantum physics, the system is allowed to be in a linear superposition of configurations, and indeed the instantaneous state of the system is described by a unit vector in the 2n dimensional vector space, whose basis vectors correspond to all the2n classical configurations. Therefore, to describe the instantaneous state of the system, we must specify 2n complex numbers. Nature must update 2n complex numbers at each instant to evolve the system in time. This is an extraordinary amount of effort, since even for n = 200, 2n is larger than estimates of the number of elementary particles in the visible universe. Nonetheless, there are limits to the power of quantum computers. In "Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing," Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani show that, relative to a random oracle, with probability 1, the class NP cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine in time o(2n/2). This bound is tight, since recent work of Grover [5] has shown how to accept any language in NP in time O(2n/2) on a quantum Turing machine. Quantum computers are necessarily time reversible. Indeed, Bennett's work [1] on reversible computation inspired early work on quantum computation that preceded Feynman's paper [4]. The reversibility requirement makes it quite complex to implement even basic computational primitives such as looping or composition. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani show how to implement quantum programming primitives and give a construction for an efficient universal quantum Turing machine. The structure of the universal quantum Turing machine is quite simple: it consists of a deterministic Turing machine with a single "quantum coin flip." In "Quantum Computability," Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang greatly simplify this further by showing that a very simple type of coin flip is sufficient---a rotation by an angle
θ such that
sinθ=3/5. Making quantum computers robust against noise and decoherence is an important and challenging problem. In "Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization," Barenco, Berthiaume, Deutsch, Ekert, Jozsa, and Macchiavello show how to use the quantum watchdog effect to stabilize a quantum computation against noise. Their method is based on running several copies of the quantum computer in parallel and projecting its state into the symmetric subspace at frequent intervals. They show that the quantum watchdog effect results in the suppression of errors that lie outside the symmetric subspace. Quantum computation touches upon the foundations of both computer science and quantum physics. It is not unlikely that the issues raised by quantum computation will stimulate further research into the foundations of quantum physics. I wish to express my gratitude to several people who made this special section possible. Oded Goldreich acted as editor for two of the papers in the issue and dealt with them with his characteristic efficiency and judgment. The editorial staff at SIAM, most notably Lisa Dougherty, Beth Gallagher, Deidre Wunderlich, and Sam Young, were extremely helpful, patient, and resourceful. Finally, I would like to thank a number of referees whose careful and timely reviews were critical to putting together this issue. Umesh Vazirani
This work presents a comprehensive and rigorous examination of quantum computing, spanning its mathematical foundations, physical principles, algorithmic developments, hardware architectures, and philosophical implications. Beginning with linear algebra over Hilbert spaces and the postulates of quantum mechanics, the manuscript develops the formal structure of quantum information theory, including qubits, entanglement, quantum channels, and noise models. The work provides in-depth treatments of the quantum circuit model, alternative computation paradigms such as measurement-based, adiabatic, and topological quantum computation, and the theoretical framework of quantum error correction, including stabilizer and surface codes. Foundational and modern quantum algorithms are analysed in detail, including Shor’s factoring algorithm, Grover’s search, variational quantum eigensolvers, QAOA, and emerging quantum machine learning approaches. Beyond algorithms and implementations, the manuscript addresses scalability challenges, fault tolerance, computational complexity limits, and the implications of quantum computing for cryptography and the extended Church–Turing thesis. The concluding sections explore philosophical questions concerning interpretation, measurement, and the relationship between computation and physical reality. This work is intended as both a reference text and a research-level synthesis for advanced students, researchers, and practitioners in quantum computing, theoretical computer science, and quantum physics.
Turning to quantum mechanics … secret, secret, close the doors! we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. … It has not yet become obvious to me that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. So that's why I like to investigate things. – Richard Feynman, 1964 The only difference between a probabilistic classical world and the equations of the quantum world is that somehow or other it appears as if the probabilities would have to go negative. – Richard Feynman, in “Simulating Physics with Computers,” 1982 Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turning machine in Deutsch's model. … We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turning machines violate the modern complexity theoretic formulation of the Church Turning thesis. We show the existence of a problem relative to an oracle that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turning machine but require super polynomial time on a bounded error probabilistic Turning machine. – E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, “Quantum Complexity Theory,” 1997 Quantum computing is a new computational model that may be physically realizable and may provide an exponential advantage over “classical” computational models such as probabilistic and deterministic Turing machines.
There is strong evidence that computers based upon the principles of quantum physics represent an inherently new and more powerful model of computation. Such computers violate the modern form of the Church-Turing thesis (which lies at the foundations of computer science). This thesis can be informally summarized as follows: all physical implementations of computing devices can be described by the same abstract model of computation-the probabilistic Turing Machine or the equivalent random access machine. In this paper, we will describe two formal models for quantum computers: quantum circuits and quantum Turing Machines, introduced by Deutsch [1985].