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:quant-ph/0312230

A note on the classical lower bound for a quantum walk algorithm

Stephen Fenner, Zhang, Yong

Published Dec 31, 2003• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A recent paper on quantum walks by Childs et al. [STOC'03] provides an example of a black-box problem for which there is a quantum algorithm with exponential speedup over the best classical randomized algorithm for the problem, but where the quantum algorithm does not involve any use of the quantum Fourier transform. They give an exponential lower bound for a classical randomized algorithm solving the black-box graph traversal problem defined in their paper. In this note we give an improved lower bound for this problem via a straightforward and more complete analysis.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0312230

Related papers

Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk

Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, E. Deotto +3 more

We construct a black box graph traversal problem that can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. The quantum algorithm is based on a continuous time quantum walk, and thus employs a different technique from previous quantum algorithms based on quantum Fourier transforms. We show how to implement the quantum walk efficiently in our black box setting. We then show how this quantum walk solves our problem by rapidly traversing a graph. Finally, we prove that no classical algorithm can solve the problem in subexponential time.

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•Jan 1, 2003•134 citations

Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk

Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, E. Deotto +3 more

We construct a black box graph traversal problem that can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. The quantum algorithm is based on a continuous time quantum walk, and thus employs a different technique from previous quantum algorithms based on quantum Fourier transforms. We show how to implement the quantum walk efficiently in our black box setting. We then show how this quantum walk solves our problem by rapidly traversing a graph. Finally, we prove that no classical algorithm can solve the problem in subexponential time.

arXiv:quant-ph/0209131•ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)•Jun 9, 2003•822 citations

Quantum algorithms for optimal graph traversal problems

Sebastian Dörn

We study the quantum complexity of algorithms for optimal graph traversal problems. We look at eulerian tours, optimal postman tours, approximation of travelling salesman tours and self avoiding walks. We present quantum algorithms and quantum lower bounds for these problems. Our results improve the best classical algorithms for the corresponding problems.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Apr 27, 2007•11 citations

Can quantum walks provide practical exponential speedups

B. L. Douglas, Jingbo B. Wang

Quantum walks, being the quantum analogue of classical random walks, are expected to provide a fruitful source of quantum algorithms. A few such algorithms have already been developed, including the `glued trees' algorithm, which provides an exponential speedup over classical methods, relative to a particular quantum oracle. Here, we discuss the possibility of a quantum walk algorithm yielding such an exponential speedup over possible classical algorithms, without the use of an oracle. We provide examples of some highly symmetric graphs on which efficient quantum circuits implementing quantum walks can be constructed, and discuss potential applications to quantum search for marked vertices along these graphs.

•Jun 3, 2007•1 citation

Efficient quantum circuit implementation of quantum walks

B. L. Douglas, Jingbo B. Wang

Quantum walks, being the quantum analog of classical random walks, are expected to provide a fruitful source of quantum algorithms. A few such algorithms have already been developed, including the ``glued trees'' algorithm, which provides an exponential speedup over classical methods, relative to a particular quantum oracle. Here, we discuss the possibility of a quantum walk algorithm yielding such an exponential speedup over possible classical algorithms, without the use of an oracle. We provide examples of some highly symmetric graphs on which efficient quantum circuits implementing quantum walks can be constructed and discuss potential applications to quantum search for marked vertices along these graphs.

arXiv:0706.0304•Physical Review A•May 27, 2009•98 citations

Quantum Computational Complexity Theory and Lower Bounds

Phillip Kaye, Raymond Laflamme, Michele Mosca

We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Nov 16, 2006•0 citations
A recent paper on quantum walks by Childs et al. [STOC'03] provides an example of a black-box problem for which there is a quantum algorithm with exponential speedup over the best classical randomized algorithm for the problem, but where the quantum algorithm does not involve any use of the quantum Fourier transform. They give an exponential lower bound for a classical randomized algorithm solving the black-box graph traversal problem defined in their paper. In this note we give an improved lower bound for this problem via a straightforward and more complete analysis.
We construct a black box graph traversal problem that can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. The quantum algorithm is based on a continuous time quantum walk, and thus employs a different technique from previous quantum algorithms based on quantum Fourier transforms. We show how to implement the quantum walk efficiently in our black box setting. We then show how this quantum walk solves our problem by rapidly traversing a graph. Finally, we prove that no classical algorithm can solve the problem in subexponential time.
We construct a black box graph traversal problem that can be solved exponentially faster on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. The quantum algorithm is based on a continuous time quantum walk, and thus employs a different technique from previous quantum algorithms based on quantum Fourier transforms. We show how to implement the quantum walk efficiently in our black box setting. We then show how this quantum walk solves our problem by rapidly traversing a graph. Finally, we prove that no classical algorithm can solve the problem in subexponential time.
Quantum walks, being the quantum analogue of classical random walks, are expected to provide a fruitful source of quantum algorithms. A few such algorithms have already been developed, including the `glued trees' algorithm, which provides an exponential speedup over classical methods, relative to a particular quantum oracle. Here, we discuss the possibility of a quantum walk algorithm yielding such an exponential speedup over possible classical algorithms, without the use of an oracle. We provide examples of some highly symmetric graphs on which efficient quantum circuits implementing quantum walks can be constructed, and discuss potential applications to quantum search for marked vertices along these graphs.
Quantum walks, being the quantum analog of classical random walks, are expected to provide a fruitful source of quantum algorithms. A few such algorithms have already been developed, including the ``glued trees'' algorithm, which provides an exponential speedup over classical methods, relative to a particular quantum oracle. Here, we discuss the possibility of a quantum walk algorithm yielding such an exponential speedup over possible classical algorithms, without the use of an oracle. We provide examples of some highly symmetric graphs on which efficient quantum circuits implementing quantum walks can be constructed and discuss potential applications to quantum search for marked vertices along these graphs.
We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.