Quantum Information Processing

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 83–130 | Cite as

The Quantum Setting with Randomized Queries for Continuous Problems



The standard setting of quantum computation for continuous problems uses deterministic queries and the only source of randomness for quantum algorithms is through measurement. Without loss of generality we may consider quantum algorithms which use only one measurement. This setting is related to the worst case setting on a classical computer in the sense that the number of qubits needed to solve a continuous problem must be at least equal to the logarithm of the worst case information complexity of this problem. Since the number of qubits must be finite, we cannot solve continuous problems on a quantum computer with infinite worst case information complexity. This can even happen for continuous problems with small randomized complexity on a classical computer. A simple example is integration of bounded continuous functions. To overcome this bad property that limits the power of quantum computation for continuous problems, we study the quantum setting in which randomized queries are allowed. This type of query is used in Shor’s algorithm. The quantum setting with randomized queries is related to the randomized classical setting in the sense that the number of qubits needed to solve a continuous problem must be at least equal to the logarithm of the randomized information complexity of this problem. Hence, there is also a limit to the power of the quantum setting with randomized queries since we cannot solve continuous problems with infinite randomized information complexity. An example is approximation of bounded continuous functions. We study the quantum setting with randomized queries for a number of problems in terms of the query and qubit complexities defined as the minimal number of queries/qubits needed to solve the problem to within ɛ by a quantum algorithm. We prove that for path integration we have an exponential improvement for the qubit complexity over the quantum setting with deterministic queries.


Quantum computation randomized queries qubits complexity 


03.67.Lx 02.60.-x 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bakhvalov N.S. (1959). On approximate calculation of integrals (in Russian), Vestnik MGV. Ser. Mat. Mekh. Aston. Fiz. Khim. 4:3–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beals R., Buhrman H., Cleve R., Mosca R., and R. de Wolf, Quantum lower bounds by polynomials, Proc. FOCS’98 352–361 (1988). Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/9802049.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein E., and Vazirani U. (1997). Quantum complexity theory. SIAM J. Comput. 26:1411–1473MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bessen A.J. (2005). A lower bound for phase estimation on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 71(4):042313 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0412008.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brassard G., Hoyer P., Mosca M., and Tapp A. (2002). Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. Contemp. Math. Am. Math. Soc. 305:53–74 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0005055.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curbera F. (2000). Delayed curse of dimension for Gaussian integration. J. Complexity 16:474–506MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heinrich S. (2002). Quantum summation with an application to integration. J. Complexity 18(1):1–50 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0105116.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heinrich S. (2003). Quantum integration in Sobolev spaces. J. Complexity 19:19–42MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinrich S. (2004). Quantum approximation I. embeddings of finite dimensional L p spaces. J. Complexity 20:5–26 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0305030MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heinrich S. (2004). Quantum approximation II. Sobolev embeddings. J. Complexity 20:27–45 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0305031.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heinrich S., Kwas M., and Woźniakowski H. (2004). Quantum Boolean Summation with Repetitions in the Worst-average case Setting. In: Niederreiter H. (eds) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2002. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 243–258Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinrich S., On the power of quantum algorithms for vector valued mean computation, submitted for publication, 2004. See http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/04031109.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heinrich S., Novak E., and Pfeiffer H. How many Random Bits do we Need for Monte Carlo Integration?. In: Niederreiter H. (eds) Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2002, Proceedings of a conference held at the national University of Singapore, November, 2002 (Springer, Berlin, 27–49).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaksch P., and Papageorgiou A. (2003). Eigenvector approximation leading to exponential speedup of quantum eigenvalue calculation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91:257902 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0308016CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kacewicz B.Z. (2005). Improved bounds on the randomized and quantum complexity of initial value problems. J. Complexity 21:740–756MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwas M., and Woźniakowski H. (2004). Sharp error bounds on quantum Boolean summation in various settings. J. Complexity 20:669–698MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorentz G. (1966). Approximation of Functions. Holt, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nayak A., and Wu F., The quantum query complexity of approximating the median and related statistics, in Proceedings of the 31th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 384–393, 1999. Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/9804066.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niederreiter H., Random number generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo methods, in Proc. vol. 63 of SIAM CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen M.A., and Chuang I.L. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novak E. (1988). Deterministic and Stochastic Error Bounds in Numerical Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1349, Springer-Verlag, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novak E. (1992). Optimal linear randomized methods for linear operators in Hilbert spaces. J. Complexity 8:22–36MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Novak E., and Woźniakowski H. (2001). When are integration and discrepancy tractable?. In: DeVore R.A., Iserles A., Süli E. (eds) Foundation of Computational Mathematics, Oxford, 1999. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 211–266Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Novak E. (2001). Quantum complexity of integration. J. Complexity 17:2–16 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0008124.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Papageorgiou A. (2004). Average case quantum lower bounds for computing the Boolean mean. J. Complexity 20:713–731MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Papageorgiou A., and Woźniakowski H. (2005). Classical and quantum complexity of the Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem. Quantum Inf. Process. 4(2):87–127 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0502054.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pfeiffer H. (2005). Monte Carlo with few random bits. PhD Thesis, University of Jena, Shaker Verlag AachenMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Plaskota L. (1996). Noisy Information and Computational Complexity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sloan I.H., and Joe S. (1994). Lattice Methods for Multiple Integration. Clarendon press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shor P.W. (1997). Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithm on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26(5):1484–1509MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Traub J.F., A continuous model of computation, Phys. Today May, 39–43 (1999).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Traub J.F., Wasilkowski G.W., and Woźniakowski H. (1988). Information-Based Complexity. Academic Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Traub J.F., and Werschulz A.G. (1998). Complexity and Information. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Traub J.F., and Woźniakowski H. (1980). A General Theory of Optimal Algorithms. Academic Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Traub J.F., and Woźniakowski H. (2002). Path integration on a quantum computer. Quantum Inf. Process. 1(5):365–388 Also http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0109113CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wasilkowski G.W., and Woźniakowski H. (1993). There exists a linear problem with infinite combinatory complexity. J. Complexity 9:326–337MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wasilkowski G.W., and Woźniakowski H. (1996). On tractability of path integration. J. Math. Phys. 37(4):2071–2088MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Werschulz A.G. (1991). The Computational Complexity of Differential and Integral Equations: An Information-Based Approach. Oxford University Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Mathematics and MechanicsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations