Monthly Archives: January 2023

Quantum search algorithm

In quantum computing, Grover's algorithm, also known as the quantum search algorithm, refers to a quantum algorithm for unstructured search that finds with high probability the unique input to a black box function that produces a particular output value, using just O ( N ) {displaystyle O({sqrt {N}})} evaluations of the function, where N {displaystyle N} is the size of the function's domain. It was devised by Lov Grover in 1996.[1]

The analogous problem in classical computation cannot be solved in fewer than O ( N ) {displaystyle O(N)} evaluations (because, on average, one has to check half of the domain to get a 50% chance of finding the right input). Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani proved that any quantum solution to the problem needs to evaluate the function ( N ) {displaystyle Omega ({sqrt {N}})} times, so Grover's algorithm is asymptotically optimal.[2] Since classical algorithms for NP-complete problems require exponentially many steps, and Grover's algorithm provides at most a quadratic speedup over the classical solution for unstructured search, this suggests that Grover's algorithm by itself will not provide polynomial-time solutions for NP-complete problems (as the square root of an exponential function is an exponential, not polynomial, function).[3]

Unlike other quantum algorithms, which may provide exponential speedup over their classical counterparts, Grover's algorithm provides only a quadratic speedup. However, even quadratic speedup is considerable when N {displaystyle N} is large, and Grover's algorithm can be applied to speed up broad classes of algorithms.[3] Grover's algorithm could brute-force a 128-bit symmetric cryptographic key in roughly 264 iterations, or a 256-bit key in roughly 2128 iterations. As a result, it is sometimes suggested[4] that symmetric key lengths be doubled to protect against future quantum attacks.

Grover's algorithm, along with variants like amplitude amplification, can be used to speed up a broad range of algorithms.[5][6][7] In particular, algorithms for NP-complete problems generally contain exhaustive search as a subroutine, which can be sped up by Grover's algorithm.[6] The current best algorithm for 3SAT is one such example. Generic constraint satisfaction problems also see quadratic speedups with Grover.[8] These algorithms do not require that the input be given in the form of an oracle, since Grover's algorithm is being applied with an explicit function, e.g. the function checking that a set of bits satisfies a 3SAT instance.

Grover's algorithm can also give provable speedups for black-box problems in quantum query complexity, including element distinctness[9] and the collision problem[10] (solved with the BrassardHyerTapp algorithm). In these types of problems, one treats the oracle function f as a database, and the goal is to use the quantum query to this function as few times as possible.

Grover's algorithm essentially solves the task of function inversion. Roughly speaking, if we have a function y = f ( x ) {displaystyle y=f(x)} that can be evaluated on a quantum computer, Grover's algorithm allows us to calculate x {displaystyle x} when given y {displaystyle y} . Consequently, Grover's algorithm gives broad asymptotic speed-ups to many kinds of brute-force attacks on symmetric-key cryptography, including collision attacks and pre-image attacks.[11] However, this may not necessarily be the most efficient algorithm since, for example, the parallel rho algorithm is able to find a collision in SHA2 more efficiently than Grover's algorithm.[12]

Grover's original paper described the algorithm as a database search algorithm, and this description is still common. The database in this analogy is a table of all of the function's outputs, indexed by the corresponding input. However, this database is not represented explicitly. Instead, an oracle is invoked to evaluate an item by its index. Reading a full database item by item and converting it into such a representation may take a lot longer than Grover's search. To account for such effects, Grover's algorithm can be viewed as solving an equation or satisfying a constraint. In such applications, the oracle is a way to check the constraint and is not related to the search algorithm. This separation usually prevents algorithmic optimizations, whereas conventional search algorithms often rely on such optimizations and avoid exhaustive search.[13]

The major barrier to instantiating a speedup from Grover's algorithm is that the quadratic speedup achieved is too modest to overcome the large overhead of near-term quantum computers.[14] However, later generations of fault-tolerant quantum computers with better hardware performance may be able to realize these speedups for practical instances of data.

As input for Grover's algorithm, suppose we have a function f : { 0 , 1 , , N 1 } { 0 , 1 } {displaystyle fcolon {0,1,ldots ,N-1}to {0,1}} . In the "unstructured database" analogy, the domain represent indices to a database, and f(x) = 1 if and only if the data that x points to satisfies the search criterion. We additionally assume that only one index satisfies f(x) = 1, and we call this index . Our goal is to identify .

We can access f with a subroutine (sometimes called an oracle) in the form of a unitary operator U that acts as follows:

This uses the N {displaystyle N} -dimensional state space H {displaystyle {mathcal {H}}} , which is supplied by a register with n = log 2 N {displaystyle n=lceil log _{2}Nrceil } qubits.This is often written as

Grover's algorithm outputs with probability at least 1/2 using O ( N ) {displaystyle O({sqrt {N}})} applications of U. This probability can be made arbitrarily large by running Grover's algorithm multiple times. If one runs Grover's algorithm until is found, the expected number of applications is still O ( N ) {displaystyle O({sqrt {N}})} , since it will only be run twice on average.

This section compares the above oracle U {displaystyle U_{omega }} with an oracle U f {displaystyle U_{f}} .

U is different from the standard quantum oracle for a function f. This standard oracle, denoted here as Uf, uses an ancillary qubit system. The operation then represents an inversion (NOT gate) on the main system conditioned by the value of f(x) from the ancillary system:

or briefly,

These oracles are typically realized using uncomputation.

If we are given Uf as our oracle, then we can also implement U, since U is Uf when the ancillary qubit is in the state | = 1 2 ( | 0 | 1 ) = H | 1 {displaystyle |-rangle ={frac {1}{sqrt {2}}}{big (}|0rangle -|1rangle {big )}=H|1rangle } :

So, Grover's algorithm can be run regardless of which oracle is given.[3] If Uf is given, then we must maintain an additional qubit in the state | {displaystyle |-rangle } and apply Uf in place of U.

The steps of Grover's algorithm are given as follows:

For the correctly chosen value of r {displaystyle r} , the output will be | {displaystyle |omega rangle } with probability approaching 1 for N 1. Analysis shows that this eventual value for r ( N ) {displaystyle r(N)} satisfies r ( N ) 4 N {displaystyle r(N)leq {Big lceil }{frac {pi }{4}}{sqrt {N}}{Big rceil }} .

Implementing the steps for this algorithm can be done using a number of gates linear in the number of qubits.[3] Thus, the gate complexity of this algorithm is O ( log ( N ) r ( N ) ) {displaystyle O(log(N)r(N))} , or O ( log ( N ) ) {displaystyle O(log(N))} per iteration.

There is a geometric interpretation of Grover's algorithm, following from the observation that the quantum state of Grover's algorithm stays in a two-dimensional subspace after each step. Consider the plane spanned by | s {displaystyle |srangle } and | {displaystyle |omega rangle } ; equivalently, the plane spanned by | {displaystyle |omega rangle } and the perpendicular ket | s = 1 N 1 x | x {displaystyle textstyle |s'rangle ={frac {1}{sqrt {N-1}}}sum _{xneq omega }|xrangle } .

Grover's algorithm begins with the initial ket | s {displaystyle |srangle } , which lies in the subspace. The operator U {displaystyle U_{omega }} is a reflection at the hyperplane orthogonal to | {displaystyle |omega rangle } for vectors in the plane spanned by | s {displaystyle |s'rangle } and | {displaystyle |omega rangle } , i.e. it acts as a reflection across | s {displaystyle |s'rangle } . This can be seen by writing U {displaystyle U_{omega }} in the form of a Householder reflection:

The operator U s = 2 | s s | I {displaystyle U_{s}=2|srangle langle s|-I} is a reflection through | s {displaystyle |srangle } . Both operators U s {displaystyle U_{s}} and U {displaystyle U_{omega }} take states in the plane spanned by | s {displaystyle |s'rangle } and | {displaystyle |omega rangle } to states in the plane. Therefore, Grover's algorithm stays in this plane for the entire algorithm.

It is straightforward to check that the operator U s U {displaystyle U_{s}U_{omega }} of each Grover iteration step rotates the state vector by an angle of = 2 arcsin 1 N {displaystyle theta =2arcsin {tfrac {1}{sqrt {N}}}} .So, with enough iterations, one can rotate from the initial state | s {displaystyle |srangle } to the desired output state | {displaystyle |omega rangle } . The initial ket is close to the state orthogonal to | {displaystyle |omega rangle } :

In geometric terms, the angle / 2 {displaystyle theta /2} between | s {displaystyle |srangle } and | s {displaystyle |s'rangle } is given by

We need to stop when the state vector passes close to | {displaystyle |omega rangle } ; after this, subsequent iterations rotate the state vector away from | {displaystyle |omega rangle } , reducing the probability of obtaining the correct answer. The exact probability of measuring the correct answer is

where r is the (integer) number of Grover iterations. The earliest time that we get a near-optimal measurement is therefore r N / 4 {displaystyle rapprox pi {sqrt {N}}/4} .

To complete the algebraic analysis, we need to find out what happens when we repeatedly apply U s U {displaystyle U_{s}U_{omega }} . A natural way to do this is by eigenvalue analysis of a matrix. Notice that during the entire computation, the state of the algorithm is a linear combination of s {displaystyle s} and {displaystyle omega } . We can write the action of U s {displaystyle U_{s}} and U {displaystyle U_{omega }} in the space spanned by { | s , | } {displaystyle {|srangle ,|omega rangle }} as:

So in the basis { | , | s } {displaystyle {|omega rangle ,|srangle }} (which is neither orthogonal nor a basis of the whole space) the action U s U {displaystyle U_{s}U_{omega }} of applying U {displaystyle U_{omega }} followed by U s {displaystyle U_{s}} is given by the matrix

This matrix happens to have a very convenient Jordan form. If we define t = arcsin ( 1 / N ) {displaystyle t=arcsin(1/{sqrt {N}})} , it is

It follows that r-th power of the matrix (corresponding to r iterations) is

Using this form, we can use trigonometric identities to compute the probability of observing after r iterations mentioned in the previous section,

Alternatively, one might reasonably imagine that a near-optimal time to distinguish would be when the angles 2rt and 2rt are as far apart as possible, which corresponds to 2 r t / 2 {displaystyle 2rtapprox pi /2} , or r = / 4 t = / 4 arcsin ( 1 / N ) N / 4 {displaystyle r=pi /4t=pi /4arcsin(1/{sqrt {N}})approx pi {sqrt {N}}/4} . Then the system is in state

A short calculation now shows that the observation yields the correct answer with error O ( 1 N ) {displaystyle Oleft({frac {1}{N}}right)} .

If, instead of 1 matching entry, there are k matching entries, the same algorithm works, but the number of iterations must be 4 ( N k ) 1 / 2 {textstyle {frac {pi }{4}}{left({frac {N}{k}}right)^{1/2}}} instead of 4 N 1 / 2 . {textstyle {frac {pi }{4}}{N^{1/2}}.}

There are several ways to handle the case if k is unknown.[15] A simple solution performs optimally up to a constant factor: run Grover's algorithm repeatedly for increasingly small values of k, e.g., taking k = N, N/2, N/4, ..., and so on, taking k = N / 2 t {displaystyle k=N/2^{t}} for iteration t until a matching entry is found.

With sufficiently high probability, a marked entry will be found by iteration t = log 2 ( N / k ) + c {displaystyle t=log _{2}(N/k)+c} for some constant c. Thus, the total number of iterations taken is at most

A version of this algorithm is used in order to solve the collision problem.[16][17]

A modification of Grover's algorithm called quantum partial search was described by Grover and Radhakrishnan in 2004.[18] In partial search, one is not interested in finding the exact address of the target item, only the first few digits of the address. Equivalently, we can think of "chunking" the search space into blocks, and then asking "in which block is the target item?". In many applications, such a search yields enough information if the target address contains the information wanted. For instance, to use the example given by L. K. Grover, if one has a list of students organized by class rank, we may only be interested in whether a student is in the lower 25%, 2550%, 5075% or 75100% percentile.

To describe partial search, we consider a database separated into K {displaystyle K} blocks, each of size b = N / K {displaystyle b=N/K} . The partial search problem is easier. Consider the approach we would take classically we pick one block at random, and then perform a normal search through the rest of the blocks (in set theory language, the complement). If we don't find the target, then we know it's in the block we didn't search. The average number of iterations drops from N / 2 {displaystyle N/2} to ( N b ) / 2 {displaystyle (N-b)/2} .

Grover's algorithm requires 4 N {textstyle {frac {pi }{4}}{sqrt {N}}} iterations. Partial search will be faster by a numerical factor that depends on the number of blocks K {displaystyle K} . Partial search uses n 1 {displaystyle n_{1}} global iterations and n 2 {displaystyle n_{2}} local iterations. The global Grover operator is designated G 1 {displaystyle G_{1}} and the local Grover operator is designated G 2 {displaystyle G_{2}} .

The global Grover operator acts on the blocks. Essentially, it is given as follows:

The optimal values of j 1 {displaystyle j_{1}} and j 2 {displaystyle j_{2}} are discussed in the paper by Grover and Radhakrishnan. One might also wonder what happens if one applies successive partial searches at different levels of "resolution". This idea was studied in detail by Vladimir Korepin and Xu, who called it binary quantum search. They proved that it is not in fact any faster than performing a single partial search.

Grover's algorithm is optimal up to sub-constant factors. That is, any algorithm that accesses the database only by using the operator U must apply U at least a 1 o ( 1 ) {displaystyle 1-o(1)} fraction as many times as Grover's algorithm.[19] The extension of Grover's algorithm to k matching entries, (N/k)1/2/4, is also optimal.[16] This result is important in understanding the limits of quantum computation.

If the Grover's search problem was solvable with logc N applications of U, that would imply that NP is contained in BQP, by transforming problems in NP into Grover-type search problems. The optimality of Grover's algorithm suggests that quantum computers cannot solve NP-Complete problems in polynomial time, and thus NP is not contained in BQP.

It has been shown that a class of non-local hidden variable quantum computers could implement a search of an N {displaystyle N} -item database in at most O ( N 3 ) {displaystyle O({sqrt[{3}]{N}})} steps. This is faster than the O ( N ) {displaystyle O({sqrt {N}})} steps taken by Grover's algorithm.[20]

Read the original post:

Grover's algorithm - Wikipedia

quantum computer, device that employs properties described by quantum mechanics to enhance computations.

As early as 1959 the American physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman noted that, as electronic components begin to reach microscopic scales, effects predicted by quantum mechanics occurwhich, he suggested, might be exploited in the design of more powerful computers. In particular, quantum researchers hope to harness a phenomenon known as superposition. In the quantum mechanical world, objects do not necessarily have clearly defined states, as demonstrated by the famous experiment in which a single photon of light passing through a screen with two small slits will produce a wavelike interference pattern, or superposition of all available paths. (See wave-particle duality.) However, when one slit is closedor a detector is used to determine which slit the photon passed throughthe interference pattern disappears. In consequence, a quantum system exists in all possible states before a measurement collapses the system into one state. Harnessing this phenomenon in a computer promises to expand computational power greatly. A traditional digital computer employs binary digits, or bits, that can be in one of two states, represented as 0 and 1; thus, for example, a 4-bit computer register can hold any one of 16 (24) possible numbers. In contrast, a quantum bit (qubit) exists in a wavelike superposition of values from 0 to 1; thus, for example, a 4-qubit computer register can hold 16 different numbers simultaneously. In theory, a quantum computer can therefore operate on a great many values in parallel, so that a 30-qubit quantum computer would be comparable to a digital computer capable of performing 10 trillion floating-point operations per second (TFLOPS)comparable to the speed of the fastest supercomputers.

During the 1980s and 90s the theory of quantum computers advanced considerably beyond Feynmans early speculations. In 1985 David Deutsch of the University of Oxford described the construction of quantum logic gates for a universal quantum computer, and in 1994 Peter Shor of AT&T devised an algorithm to factor numbers with a quantum computer that would require as few as six qubits (although many more qubits would be necessary for factoring large numbers in a reasonable time). When a practical quantum computer is built, it will break current encryption schemes based on multiplying two large primes; in compensation, quantum mechanical effects offer a new method of secure communication known as quantum encryption. However, actually building a useful quantum computer has proved difficult. Although the potential of quantum computers is enormous, the requirements are equally stringent. A quantum computer must maintain coherence between its qubits (known as quantum entanglement) long enough to perform an algorithm; because of nearly inevitable interactions with the environment (decoherence), practical methods of detecting and correcting errors need to be devised; and, finally, since measuring a quantum system disturbs its state, reliable methods of extracting information must be developed.

Plans for building quantum computers have been proposed; although several demonstrate the fundamental principles, none is beyond the experimental stage. Three of the most promising approaches are presented below: nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), ion traps, and quantum dots.

In 1998 Isaac Chuang of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Neil Gershenfeld of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Mark Kubinec of the University of California at Berkeley created the first quantum computer (2-qubit) that could be loaded with data and output a solution. Although their system was coherent for only a few nanoseconds and trivial from the perspective of solving meaningful problems, it demonstrated the principles of quantum computation. Rather than trying to isolate a few subatomic particles, they dissolved a large number of chloroform molecules (CHCL3) in water at room temperature and applied a magnetic field to orient the spins of the carbon and hydrogen nuclei in the chloroform. (Because ordinary carbon has no magnetic spin, their solution used an isotope, carbon-13.) A spin parallel to the external magnetic field could then be interpreted as a 1 and an antiparallel spin as 0, and the hydrogen nuclei and carbon-13 nuclei could be treated collectively as a 2-qubit system. In addition to the external magnetic field, radio frequency pulses were applied to cause spin states to flip, thereby creating superimposed parallel and antiparallel states. Further pulses were applied to execute a simple algorithm and to examine the systems final state. This type of quantum computer can be extended by using molecules with more individually addressable nuclei. In fact, in March 2000 Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme, and Rudy Martinez of Los Alamos and Ching-Hua Tseng of MIT announced that they had created a 7-qubit quantum computer using trans-crotonic acid. However, many researchers are skeptical about extending magnetic techniques much beyond 10 to 15 qubits because of diminishing coherence among the nuclei.

Just one week before the announcement of a 7-qubit quantum computer, physicist David Wineland and colleagues at the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) announced that they had created a 4-qubit quantum computer by entangling four ionized beryllium atoms using an electromagnetic trap. After confining the ions in a linear arrangement, a laser cooled the particles almost to absolute zero and synchronized their spin states. Finally, a laser was used to entangle the particles, creating a superposition of both spin-up and spin-down states simultaneously for all four ions. Again, this approach demonstrated basic principles of quantum computing, but scaling up the technique to practical dimensions remains problematic.

Quantum computers based on semiconductor technology are yet another possibility. In a common approach a discrete number of free electrons (qubits) reside within extremely small regions, known as quantum dots, and in one of two spin states, interpreted as 0 and 1. Although prone to decoherence, such quantum computers build on well-established, solid-state techniques and offer the prospect of readily applying integrated circuit scaling technology. In addition, large ensembles of identical quantum dots could potentially be manufactured on a single silicon chip. The chip operates in an external magnetic field that controls electron spin states, while neighbouring electrons are weakly coupled (entangled) through quantum mechanical effects. An array of superimposed wire electrodes allows individual quantum dots to be addressed, algorithms executed, and results deduced. Such a system necessarily must be operated at temperatures near absolute zero to minimize environmental decoherence, but it has the potential to incorporate very large numbers of qubits.

Read the original post:

Quantum computer | Description & Facts | Britannica

What do you do at QSYS?

The Quantum School for Young Students (formerly the Quantum Cryptography school for Young Students) will provide you with the necessary mathematical background to tackle some of the largest topics in modern physics.You bring your scientific curiosity and love of learning, and we'll show you how to use mathematical tools to explore.Interested in getting a head start? Download the free QSYS (QCSYS) quantum primer and begin building your linear algebra and arithmetic skills, as well as your understanding of quantum mechanics.

During the program, you will learn about:

QSYS students can expect a full day of activities every day of the program. Students will tour the quantum labs at IQC, work together on advanced problems, experiment with real quantum lab equipment, and participate in interactive lectures from quantum expected. Social activities will be held in the evenings, and students will have an opportunity to visit Niagara Falls on Sunday August 13th.

You are an ideal candidate, if you are:

Experience with quantum physics is not required, just curiosity and interest in exploring new scientific concepts.Exceptional Grade 10 students may be accepted, space permitting.

There is no registration fee for QSYS 2023. All meals and accommodations are included during QSYS, and bursaries are available to help cover the costs of travel. You can apply for a bursary on your application.

QSYS 2023 will take place Wednesday August 9th to Thursday August 17th. Students attending QSYS will arrive on Tuesday August 8th and depart on Friday August 18th.

QSYS will be run on-campus at the University of Waterloo, at the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nano Centre (QNC). All students (including those from the Waterloo Region) will stay in residence on the University of Waterloo campus with QSYS chaperones.

Check out our Frequently Asked Questions page.

Continue reading here:

Quantum School for Young Students | Institute for Quantum Computing