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

Springer eBooks

The Dynamical Reduction Program

G. C. Ghirardi

Published Jan 1, 1992• 4 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-015-7979-7_26

Related papers

Perspectives of the Dynamical Reduction Program

G. C. Ghirardi

Lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2001•1 citation

John Stewart Bell and the Dynamical Reduction Program

G. C. Ghirardi

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2002•3 citations

Macroscopic Reality and the Dynamical Reduction Program

G. C. Ghirardi

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•10 citations

Dynamical reduction models

Angelo Bassi, GianCarlo Ghirardi

arXiv:quant-ph/0302164•Physics Reports•May 19, 2003•725 citations

Fine-Grained Reductions and Quantum Speedups for Dynamic Programming

Amir Abboud

This paper points at a connection between certain (classical) fine-grained reductions and the question: Do quantum algorithms offer an advantage for problems whose (classical) best solution is via dynamic programming? A remarkable recent result of Ambainis et al. [SODA 2019] indicates that the answer is positive for some fundamental problems such as Set-Cover and Travelling Salesman. They design a quantum O^*(1.728^n) time algorithm whereas the dynamic programming O^*(2^n) time algorithms are conjectured to be classically optimal. In this paper, fine-grained reductions are extracted from their algorithms giving the first lower bounds for problems in P that are based on the intriguing Set-Cover Conjecture (SeCoCo) of Cygan et al. [CCC 2010]. In particular, the SeCoCo implies: - a super-linear Omega(n^{1.08}) lower bound for 3-SUM on n integers, - an Omega(n^{k/(c_k)-epsilon}) lower bound for k-SUM on n integers and k-Clique on n-node graphs, for any integer k >= 3, where c_k <= log_2{k}+1.4427. While far from being tight, these lower bounds are significantly stronger than what is known to follow from the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH); the well-known n^{Omega(k)} ETH-based lower bounds for k-Clique and k-SUM are vacuous when k is constant. Going in the opposite direction, this paper observes that some "sequential" problems with previously known fine-grained reductions to a "parallelizable" core also enjoy quantum speedups over their classical dynamic programming solutions. Examples include RNA Folding and Least-Weight Subsequence.

Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Jan 1, 2019•5 citations

Dynamical scaling

Springer eBooks•Jan 25, 2006•0 citations
This paper points at a connection between certain (classical) fine-grained reductions and the question: Do quantum algorithms offer an advantage for problems whose (classical) best solution is via dynamic programming? A remarkable recent result of Ambainis et al. [SODA 2019] indicates that the answer is positive for some fundamental problems such as Set-Cover and Travelling Salesman. They design a quantum O^*(1.728^n) time algorithm whereas the dynamic programming O^*(2^n) time algorithms are conjectured to be classically optimal. In this paper, fine-grained reductions are extracted from their algorithms giving the first lower bounds for problems in P that are based on the intriguing Set-Cover Conjecture (SeCoCo) of Cygan et al. [CCC 2010]. In particular, the SeCoCo implies: - a super-linear Omega(n^{1.08}) lower bound for 3-SUM on n integers, - an Omega(n^{k/(c_k)-epsilon}) lower bound for k-SUM on n integers and k-Clique on n-node graphs, for any integer k >= 3, where c_k <= log_2{k}+1.4427. While far from being tight, these lower bounds are significantly stronger than what is known to follow from the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH); the well-known n^{Omega(k)} ETH-based lower bounds for k-Clique and k-SUM are vacuous when k is constant. Going in the opposite direction, this paper observes that some "sequential" problems with previously known fine-grained reductions to a "parallelizable" core also enjoy quantum speedups over their classical dynamic programming solutions. Examples include RNA Folding and Least-Weight Subsequence.