Recently it has become clear, that a key issue in quantum computation is understanding how interaction with the environment, or "decoherence", affects the computational power of quantum computers. We adopt the standard physical method of describing systems which are interwound with their environment by "density matrices", and within this framework define a model of decoherence in quantum computation. Our results show that the computational power of decohered quantum computers depends strongly on the amount of parallelism in the computation. We first present a simulation of decohered sequential quantum computers, on a classical probabilistic Turing machine, and prove that the expected slowdown of this simulation is polynomial in time and space of the quantum computation, for any non zero decoherence rate. Similar results hold for quantum computers that are allowed to operate on logarithmic number of qubits at a time. For decohered quantum circuits (with local gates), the situation is more subtle and depends on the decoherence rate, /spl eta/. We find that our simulation is efficient for circuits with decoherence rate /spl eta/ higher than some constant /spl eta//sub 1/ but exponential for a general (random) circuit subjected to decoherence rate lower than some constant /spl eta//sub 2/. The transition from exponential cost to polynomial cost happens in a short range of decoherence rates. We use computer experiments to exhibit the phase transitions in various quantum circuits.
In this paper, we explore the power of quantum computers with restricted transition amplitudes. In 1997 Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang showed that quantum Turing machines (QTMs) with the amplitudes from [Formula: see text] are computationally equivalent to ones with the polynomial-time computable amplitudes as machines implementing bounded-error polynomial-time algorithms. We show that QTMs with the amplitudes from [Formula: see text] is polynomial-time equivalent to deterministic Turing machines as machines implementing exact algorithms, i.e., algorithms that output correct answers with certainty. By extending this result, it is shown that exact quantum computers with rational biased coins are equivalent to classical computers. Moreover, we discuss the computational power of exact quantum computers with multiple types of coins. We also show that, from the viewpoint of zero-error polynomial-time algorithms, [Formula: see text] is not more powerful than [Formula: see text] as the set of amplitudes taken by QTMs; however, it is sufficient to solve the factoring problem.
A model of quantum computation based on unitary matrix operations was introduced by Feynman and Deutsch. It has been asked whether the power of this model exceeds that of classical Turing machines. We show here that a significant class of these quantum computations can be simulated classically in polynomial time. In particular we show that two-bit operations characterized by 4 \times 4 matrices in which the sixteen entries obey a set of five polynomial relations can be composed according to certain rules to yield a class of circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time. This contrasts with the known universality of two-bit operations, and demonstrates that efficient quantum computation of restricted classes is reconcilable with the Polynomial Time Turing Hypothesis. In other words it is possible that quantum phenomena can be used in a scalable fashion to make computers but that they do not have superpolynomial speedups compared to Turing machines for any problem. The techniques introduced bring the quantum computational model within the realm of algebraic complexity theory. In a manner consistent will one view of quantum physics, the wave function is simulated deterministically, and randomization arises only in the course of making measurements. The results generalize the quantum model in that they do not require the matrices to be unitary. In a different direction these techniques also yield deterministic polynomial time algorithms for the decision and parity problems for certain classes of read-twice Boolean formulae. All our results are based on the use of gates that are defined in terms of their graph matching properties.
A model of quantum computation based on unitary matrix operations was introduced by Feynman and Deutsch. It has been asked whether the power of this model exceeds that of classical Turing machines. We show here that a significant class of these quantum computations can be simulated classically in polynomial time. In particular we show that two-bit operations characterized by 4 × 4 matrices in which the sixteen entries obey a set of five polynomial relations can be composed according to certain rules to yield a class of circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time. This contrasts with the known universality of two-bit operations and demonstrates that efficient quantum computation of restricted classes is reconcilable with the Polynomial Time Turing Hypothesis. Therefore, it is possible that, The techniques introduced bring the quantum computational model within the realm of algebraic complexity theory. In a manner consistent with one view of quantum physics, the wave function is simulated deterministically, and randomization arises only in the course of making measurements. The results generalize the quantum model in that they do not require the matrices to be unitary. In a different direction these techniques also yield deterministic polynomial time algorithms for the decision and parity problems for certain classes of read-twice Boolean formulae. All our results are based on the use of gates that are defined in terms of their graph matching properties.
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
We propose a complexity model of quantum circuits analogous to the standard (acyclic) Boolean circuit model. It is shown that any function computable in polynomial time by a quantum Turing machine has a polynomial-size quantum circuit. This result also enables us to construct a universal quantum computer which can simulate, with a polynomial factor slowdown, a broader class of quantum machines than that considered by E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani (1993), thus answering an open question raised by them. We also develop a theory of quantum communication complexity, and use it as a tool to prove that the majority function does not have a linear-size quantum formula.>