Quantum Computing:

Challenges and Opportunities

Compiled and Edited by

Michael Erbschloe
Connect with Michael on LinkedIn

©2018 Michael Erbschloe

 Table of Contents
Page
Section
Number
About the Editor 2
Introduction 4
Realizing the Potential of Quantum Information Science and
9
Advancing High-Performance Computing
Quantum Communications 12
Quantum Computing at NASA 19
Quantum Programs at IARPA 21
NIST is a leader in Research in Quantum Science 25
American Leadership in Quantum Technology 36
Simple is Beautiful in Quantum Computing 43
Appendix A: Quantum Algorithm Zoo - math.nist.gov 45
About the Editor

Michael Erbschloe has worked for over 30 years performing analysis of the economics of
information technology, public policy relating to technology, and utilizing technology in
reengineering organization processes. He has authored several books on social and management
issues of information technology that were published by McGraw Hill and other major
publishers. He has also taught at several universities and developed technology-related
curriculum. His career has focused on several interrelated areas:

• Technology strategy, analysis, and forecasting

• Teaching and curriculum development
• Writing books and articles
• Publishing and editing
• Public policy analysis and program evaluation

Books by Michael Erbschloe

Threat Level Red: Cybersecurity Research Programs of the

U.S. Government (CRC Press)
Social Media Warfare: Equal Weapons for All (Auerbach Publications)
Walling Out the Insiders: Controlling Access to Improve Organizational
Security (Auerbach Publications)
Physical Security for IT (Elsevier Science)
Trojans, Worms, and Spyware (Butterworth-Heinemann)
Implementing Homeland Security in Enterprise IT (Digital Press)
Guide to Disaster Recovery (Course Technology)
Socially Responsible IT Management (Digital Press)
Information Warfare: How to Survive Cyber Attacks (McGraw Hill)
The Executive's Guide to Privacy Management (McGraw Hill)
Net Privacy: A Guide to Developing & Implementing an e-business
Privacy Plan (McGraw Hill)
Introduction

Quantum computing is based on quantum bits or qubits. Unlike traditional computers, in which
bits must have a value of either zero or one, a qubit can represent a zero, a one, or both values
simultaneously. Representing information in qubits allows the information to be processed in
ways that have no equivalent in classical computing, taking advantage of phenomena such as
quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement. As such, quantum computers may theoretically
be able to solve certain problems in a few days that would take millions of years on a classical
computer.

Quantum computers—a possible future technology that would revolutionize computing by

harnessing the bizarre properties of quantum bits, or qubits. Qubits are the quantum analogue to
the classical computer bits “0” and “1.” Engineering materials that can function as qubits is
technically challenging. Using supercomputers, scientists from the University of Chicago and
Argonne National Laboratory predicted possible new qubits built out of strained aluminum
nitride. Moreover, the scientists showed that certain newly developed qubits in silicon carbide
have unusually long lifetimes.

Quantum computers could break common cryptography techniques, search huge datasets, and
simulate quantum systems in a fraction of the time it would take today’s computers. However,
engineers first need to harness the properties of quantum bits. Engineering new qubits with less
difficult methods could lower one of the significant barriers to scaling quantum computers from
small prototypes into larger-scale technologies.

One of the leading methods for creating qubits involves exploiting specific structural atomic
defects in diamonds. Using diamonds is both technically challenging and expensive. Now
researchers from the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory have suggested an
analogous defect in aluminum nitride, which could reduce the difficulty and ultimate cost of
manufacturing materials for quantum computing applications. Using the Edison and Mira
supercomputers at DOE’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center and Argonne
National Laboratory respectively, the researchers found that by applying strain to aluminum
nitride, they can create structural defects in the material that may be harnessed as qubits similar
to those seen in diamonds. They performed their calculations using different levels of theory and
the Quantum Espresso and WEST codes, the latter developed at the University of Chicago. The
codes allowed them to accurately predict the position of the defect levels in the band-gap of
semiconductors. The researchers also closely collaborated with experimentalists to understand
and improve the performance of qubits in industrial materials. Recently, they showed that newly
developed qubits in silicon carbide have much longer coherence times than that of the more well-
established defect qubits in diamond. Their results pointed to industrially important polyatomic
crystals as promising hosts for coherent qubits for scalable quantum devices.

Source: https://science.energy.gov/ascr/highlights/2017/ascr-2017-01-a/

Peter Shor’s 1994 breakthrough discovery of a polynomial time quantum algorithm for integer
factorization sparked great interest in discovering additional quantum algorithms and developing
hardware on which to run them. The subsequent research efforts yielded quantum algorithms
offering speedups for widely varying problems, and several promising hardware platforms for
quantum computation. These platforms include analog systems (usually cold atoms) used for
simulating quantum lattice models from condensed-matter and high-energy physics, quantum
annealers for combinatorial optimization, boson samplers, and small-scale noisy prototypes of
digital gate-model quantum computers.

In the longer term, the emergence of scalable, fault-tolerant, digital quantum computers offers a
new direction for progress in high performance computing as conventional technologies reach
their fundamental limitations. Quantum speedups have been discovered for a number of areas of
DOE interest, including simulations for chemistry, nuclear and particle physics, and materials
science, as well as data analysis and machine learning. In addition, quantum speedups have been
discovered for basic primitives of applied mathematics such as linear algebra, integration,
optimization, and graph theory. These demonstrate the potential of quantum computers to yield
better-scaling methods (in some cases exponentially better) for performing a wide variety of
scientific computing tasks. Practical realization of this potential will depend not only on
advances in quantum computing hardware but also advances in optimizing languages and
compilers to translate these abstract algorithms into concrete sequences of realizable quantum
gates, and simulators to test and verify these sequences. The development of such software has
recently seen rapid progress, which can be expected to continue given sufficient support.

Source: https://science.energy.gov/~/media/ascr/pdf/programdocuments/docs/ASCRQuantumReport-final.pdf

Imagine typing a very complex query into your computer and having to wait more than a lifetime
for results. Thanks to scientists like Davide Venturelli, supercomputers of the future could return
those results in a fraction of a second. Davide is a quantum computer research scientist for the
Universities Space Research Association. Quantum theory explains how matter acts at the tiniest
levels; in applying it to computing, researchers study ways in which that behavior can advance
processing power. “We explore how to control these quantum behaviors, to make them happen
on demand, in order to crunch numbers and process information,” he says. “We’re pushing the
boundaries of what is known in computer science.”

Quantum computer research scientists help to solve problems. In their research, they make
scientific assumptions based on quantum theory and then conduct experiments to test whether
their solutions work. These scientists may be involved in a variety of projects but often focus on
a specific goal. Davide focuses on finding new ways of applying quantum theory to improve how
computers solve optimization problems—that is, problems for finding the best of all possible
solutions. Digital computers, which are most common today, process information using variables
with 1 value (either 0 or 1) at a time. Quantum computers can use both values simultaneously,
which results in faster processing. “We know that quantum computers are more powerful than
digital computers,” he says, “but we don’t know by how much yet.”

Research. In studying information technology, quantum computer research scientists think about
possibilities. For example, Davide asks questions in his research such as, “What is the fastest
possible way we can make computers process information?” Davide and other research scientists
use their understanding of quantum theory to come up with solutions. Their research may lead to
problem-solving computer processes that calculate and sort information much faster. For
example, research scientists might develop a theoretical solution that can be run only on quantum
computers designed to produce better weather forecasts.

Experiments. To test whether their theories work, quantum computer research scientists may
conduct experiments or work with experimental physicists. For example, they may create a
quantum environment with computer hardware, then test how particles in that environment react
to different levels of laser intensity. Experiments that verify a theory may lead to improvements,
such as more efficient computer design and faster, more secure communication for computer
networks. But relying on theory means that scientists work with incomplete information—so
they’re sometimes surprised at the outcomes. “Experiments may result in the opposite of what
you expect,” says Davide, “and you analyze the data to try to figure out why.”

To become a quantum computer research scientist, you usually need a doctoral degree (Ph.D.).
But you need some qualities and skills in addition to the formal credential. As researchers,
quantum computer research scientists should enjoy being part of a team and sharing their
findings with others, which may include engineers, mathematicians, physicists, and Ph.D.
students. This collaboration helps bring varied perspectives to solving a problem. “There’s a
cross-utilization of ideas when you work with different groups,” Davide says. “My colleagues
are very smart and open-minded people.”

Like many scientists, quantum computer research scientists must have strong analytical, critical
thinking, and reasoning skills to solve complex problems. Attention to detail is critical as
scientists precisely record their theories and experiments, which must be reproducible and able to
withstand peer review.

Communication skills are also important. To share their research with collaborators or the public,
quantum research scientists must be able to write papers and present their findings at
conferences. They may also need to write proposals for grants to fund research projects.
Quantum computer research scientists usually need a Ph.D. to learn methods of discovery and to
develop the tools needed for researching. Coursework in undergraduate and graduate degree
programs typically includes computer science, mathematics, and physics.

You may decide to pursue a master’s degree with classes in quantum computing before entering
a Ph.D. program. Davide studied physics at the bachelor’s and master’s levels, but he was
passionate about computers, too. Not surprisingly, quantum computing piqued his interest. “It’s a
wonderful interaction between the two disciplines,” he says. Davide earned his Ph.D. in
nanophysics and numerical simulations of condensed matter.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not collect data specifically on quantum
computer research scientists. Instead, BLS may count these workers among physicists, of which
15,650 were employed in May 2015. The median annual wage for physicists in colleges,
universities, and professional schools—where most quantum computer research scientists are
likely to work—was $63,840. That’s more than the median annual wage of $36,200 for all
workers.

Quantum computer research scientists work primarily indoors, in academic settings, and may
travel frequently to attend seminars or conferences. Area of focus or project type may dictate
specific details of their work. For example, testing particularly intricate theories may take days or
months, working either independently or with other scientists.
Whether alone or with colleagues, Davide enjoys his work for the independence his job offers.
“You have lots of intellectual freedom. Nobody really tells you what to do,” he says. “It’s up to
your skills and vision.”

Source: Domingo Angeles, "Quantum computer research scientist," Career Outlook, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
July 2016. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016/youre-a-what/quantum-computer-research-scientist.htm
Realizing the Potential of Quantum Information Science and Advancing High-
Performance Computing
July 26, 2016 at 6:07 PM ET by Altaf H. (Tof) Carim, William T. (Tim) Polk, and Erin Szulman

The Administration reports on challenges, opportunities, and the path forward in quantum
information science, and releases a plan for high-performance computing.

Quantum mechanics describes the behavior and interaction of matter and energy at the scale of
individual atoms or subatomic particles. We intuitively understand the collective effects of
particles at much larger scales, but quantum behavior can often seem strange and
counterintuitive. For example, at the most fundamental level, both matter and radiation
(including visible light) behave in some ways like discrete particles and in other ways like
continuous waves, resulting in surprising properties. These quantum phenomena include
superposition (in which a system simultaneously includes all possible measurement outcomes
with some probability, and only has a fixed value once such a measurement takes place) and
entanglement (a superposition of the states of multiple particles, in which their properties are
correlated with each other). Taking advantage of such properties to process information—
working at the intersection of quantum phenomena with information science—provides unique
and exciting opportunities in sensing, metrology, navigation, communications, fundamental
physics, simulation, new paradigms in computing, and a host of other areas. These exciting
prospects are summarized in a new report from the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC), Advancing Quantum Information Science: National Challenges and Opportunities.

The NSTC report being issued today is the product of an interagency working group that was
created to assess the current status of the field, coordinate activities across the relevant Federal
agencies, engage stakeholders, and consider ways to address impediments and facilitate progress
in quantum information science (QIS). Efforts to date have included internal discussions,
agency-led and interagency workshops, and public requests for information; working group
efforts will continue to include both Federal activity and outreach to the relevant research,
development, and related communities in support of the broad ecosystem needed to realize the
promise of quantum information science.

As a complement to the interagency report, the Department of Energy (DOE) is also publishing
today the report of a recent roundtable on Quantum Sensors at the Intersections of Fundamental
Science, Quantum Information Science, and Computing. The roundtable report provides a
perspective from experts in the research community on promising scientific directions, needs for
additional progress, and potential approaches consistent with the DOE mission. Other agencies
have also held workshops and undertaken other activities reflecting the growing attention to QIS,
including the recent launch of a cross-cutting National Science Foundation “metaprogram” on
Connections in Quantum Information Science that complements and coordinates several existing
programs within specific disciplines.

In addition to having strong connections to other related science and technology initiatives, there
is significant synergy between the QIS effort and the National Strategic Computing Initiative
(NSCI). The NSCI is a whole-of-Nation effort, created by Executive Order on July 29, 2015, to
ensure continued U.S. leadership in high-performance computing (HPC) and to maximize the
benefits of HPC for the economy and scientific discovery.

One key NSCI strategic objective is to establish, over the next 15 years, a viable path forward for
future HPC systems. The NSCI pursues this objective through two concurrent paths:
technologies that accelerate traditional digital computing after the limits of current
semiconductor technologies are reached; and a range of new computing paradigms—including
quantum computing—to address problems beyond the scope of traditional high performance
computing. Some promising options on both NSCI paths depend on QIS. Understanding and
controlling quantum effects will be critical to further miniatur-ization of charge-based
complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) devices, and to refining alternatives for
digital computing such as spin-based CMOS or superconducting computing. Basic and applied
QIS research and development is also needed to clarify the range of computational problems a
potential quantum computer could address, and to resolve the many challenges to fielding a
practical quantum computer.

Today, OSTP is also publishing the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI) Strategic
Plan, authored by the NSCI Executive Council. Realizing the vision of the NSCI will demand a
fully developed HPC ecosystem that meets the needs of government, industry, and academia.
This Strategic Plan (Plan) focuses on areas where government engagement is essential in
creating the technological capability, computational foundations, and workforce capacity to
realize the vision of the NSCI. The Plan identifies the roles assigned to Federal agencies, and
highlights ongoing and prospective activities that will contribute to NSCI’s goals. A combination
of broad commercial drivers and government action is necessary to achieve the vision of the
NSCI, but the success of the initiative depends upon deeper collaboration among the Federal
Government, industry, and academia in the development, commercialization, and deployment of
new HPC technologies and infrastructure. The NSCI strives to establish and support a
collaborative ecosystem in strategic computing that will support scientific discovery and
economic drivers for the 21st century, and that will not naturally evolve from current commercial
activity.

OSTP intends to engage academia, industry, and government in the upcoming months to discuss
activity in both fields, exchange views on key needs and opportunities, and consider how to
maintain vibrant and robust national ecosystems for QIS research and development and for high-
performance computing. These conversations will offer an opportunity to discuss mechanisms
for addressing challenges in these rapidly-developing fields, including disciplinary and
institutional boundaries, education and workforce training, and technology and knowledge
transfer.

Altaf H. (Tof) Carim is Assistant Director for Research Infrastructure at the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy.

William T. (Tim) Polk is Assistant Director for Cybersecurity at the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.

Erin Szulman is Policy Advisor to the Chief of Staff at the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy.

Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/07/26/realizing-potential-quantum-information-science-
and-advancing-high-performance
Quantum Communications

Quantum information science combines two of the great scientific and technological revolutions
of the 20th century: quantum mechanics on the one hand, and computer-based information
science on the other. One of the fundamentally important research areas involved in quantum
information science is quantum communications, which deals with the exchange of information
encoded in quantum states of matter or quantum bits (known as qubits) between both nearby and
distant quantum systems.

In July 2016, the National Science and Technology Council of the Executive Office of the
President, in a report titled "Advancing Quantum Information Science: National Challenges and
Opportunities", described Quantum Information Science (QIS) is “a foundational science,” with
“currently envisioned applications (that) include sensing and metrology, communications,
simulation, and high-performance computing”. The report also pointed out specifically that
“Quantum communication, the ability to transmit information encoded in quantum states of light
or matter, … is currently an active area of development”. The report also states that “In the
longer term, quantum networks will connect distributed quantum sensors… to allow long-
distance transmission of quantum information”. It further stated that solutions “could, with
consistent attention and support, appear within 5 to 10 years.”

In support of this initiative, the Quantum Communication Project in ITL performs fundamental
research on the creation, transmission, interfacing, storage, processing and measurement of
optical qubits – the quantum states of photons. Particular attention is paid to applying this
research to future quantum information technologies.

Our accomplishments include

• high-speed quantum key distribution (QKD) systems for secure communications;

• narrow linewidth single photon sources for atomic interfacing;
• single-photon frequency conversion technologies to interface stationary qubits in the
visible band with flying qubits in the telecommunication bands;
• efficient single photon detectors and ultra-high sensitivity spectrometers for the telecom
wavelengths based on up-conversion technologies.

Our current research program is focused on the development and implementation of quantum
repeaters. A quantum repeater enables quantum information exchange between two distant
quantum systems. Quantum repeaters can be used to extend the operating distance for secure
communications as well as to form future quantum networks. Our ongoing research aims to
develop and implement and characterize the essential building blocks for quantum repeaters
including single photon pair sources, quantum memories and quantum interfaces that can be
practical and scalable when integrated into a quantum communication system. The figure shows
our project roadmap.
The figure shows our project roadmap.

In summary, we perform research and development (R&D) on quantum repeaters and supporting
measurement technologies. Our mission is to bridge the gap between fundamental quantum
research and practical applications in industries and commercialization. Our R&D is aimed to
promote US innovation, industrial competitiveness and enhance the nation's security. For more
information, contact project leader Dr. Xiao Tang. For more information concerning the ITL
Quantum Information program, please select link 'ITL Quantum Information Program'.

Journal papers:

1. O. Slattery, L. Ma, P. Kuo, and X. Tang. “Narrow-linewidth source of greatly non-

degenerate photon pairs for quantum repeaters from a short singly resonant cavity,”
Applied Physics B., 121, 413–419 (2015).
2. Yong-Su Kim, Oliver Slattery, Paulina S. Kuo, and Xiao Tang, “Two-photon interference
with continuous-wave multi-mode coherent light,” Optics Express, Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp.
3611-3620 (2014).
3. O. Slattery, L. Ma, P. Kuo, Y. Kim and X. Tang, “Frequency correlated biphoton
spectroscopy using tunable upconversion detector,” Laser Phys. Lett. 10, 075201(2013).
4. Yong-Su Kim, Oliver Slattery, Paulina S. Kuo, and Xiao Tang, “Conditions for two-
photon interference with coherent pulses,” Physical Review A 87, 063843 (2013).
5. Paulina S. Kuo, Jason S. Pelc, Oliver Slattery, Yong-Su Kim, M. M. Fejer, and Xiao
Tang, “Reducing noise in single-photon frequency conversion,” Optics Letters Vol.38,
No. 8, 1310 (April 15 2013).
6. Paulina S. Kuo, Oliver Slattery, Yong-Su Kim, Jason S. Pelc, Martin M. Fejer, and Xiao
Tang, “Spectral response of an upconversion detector and spectrometer,” Optics Express,
Vol. 21, Issue 19, pp. 22523 (2013).
7. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Single photon frequency up-conversion and its
applications,” Physics Reports, Vol. 521 (2) 69-94, (2012).
8. J. Pelc, P. Kuo, O. Slattery, L. Ma, X. Tang, “Dual-channel, single-photon upconversion
detector at 1.3 microns”, Optics Express, Vol. 20 (17), 19075 (2012)
9. J. Pelc, L. Ma, C. Phillips, C. Langrock, Q. Zhang, O. Slattery, X. Tang, M. Fejer, “Long-
wavelength-pumped upconversion single-photon detector at 1550 nm: performance and
noise analysis,” Optics Express, Vol. 19(22), 21445–21456 (2011)
10. M. Rakher, L. Ma, O. Slattery, X. Tang, and K. Srinivasan, “Simultaneous wave-length
translation and amplitude modulation of single photons from a quantum dot,” Physical
Review Letter, Vol. 107, 083602 (2011)
11. L. Ma, M. Rakher, M. Stevens, O. Slattery, K. Srinivasan and X. Tang, “Temporal
correlation of photons following frequency up-conversion,” Optics Express, Vol. 19
10501-10510 (2011)
12. L. Ma, J. Bienfang, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Up-conversion single-photon detector
using multi-wavelength sampling techniques,” Optics Express, Vol. 19 (6), 5470-5479
(2011)
13. M. Rakher, L. Ma (co-first author), O. Slattery, X. Tang, and K. Srinivasan, “Quantum
transduction of telecommunications-band single photons from a quantum dot by
frequency upconversion,” Nature Photonics, Vol. 4, 786–791,
doi:10.1038/nphoton.2010.221 (2010).
14. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Single photon level spectrum measurement at fiber
communication band using frequency up-conversion technology,” Laser Physics, Vol. 20
(7),1216-1617 (2010).
15. L. Yan, L. Ma and X. Tang, “Bragg-Grating Enhanced Narrow-Band Spontaneous
Parametric Down Conversion,” Optics Express, Vol. 18 (6), 2556-2559 (2010)
16. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Detection and spectral measurement of single photons
in communication bands using up-conversion technology,” Laser Physics, Vol. 20 (5),
1244-1250 (2010)
17. L. Ma, O. Slattery, T. Chang and X. Tang, “Non-degenerated sequential time-bin
entanglement generation using periodically poled KTP waveguide,” Optics Express, Vol.
17(18), 15799–15807 (2009)
18. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Experimental study of high sensitivity infrared
spectrometer with waveguide-based up-conversion detector,” Optics Express, Vol.
17(16), 14395–14404 (2009)
 19. L. Ma, A. Mink and X. Tang, “High Speed Quantum Key Distribution over Optical Fiber
Network System,” Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Vol. 114 (3), 149-177, (2009)
20. L. Ma, S. Nam, H. Xu, B Baek, T. Chang, O. Slattery, A. Mink and X. Tang, “1310 nm
differential phase shift QKD system using superconducting single photon detectors,” New
Journal of Physics, Vol. 11, 054020, (2009)
21. A Mink, J Bienfang, R Carpenter, L. Ma, B Hershman, A Restelli and X. Tang,
“Programmable Instrumentation & GHz signaling for quantum communication systems,”
New Journal of Physics, Vol. 11, 054016, (2009)
22. L. Ma, T. Chang, A. Mink, O. Slattery, B. Hershman and X. Tang “Experimental
Demonstration of a Detection-time-bin-shift Polarization Encoding Quantum Key
Distribution System”, IEEE Communications Letters, Vol. 12(6), 459~461 (2008).
23. L. Ma, A. Mink, H. Xu, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Experimental Demonstration of an
Active Quantum Key Distribution Network with Over Gbps Clock Synchronization”,
IEEE Communication Letters, Vol 11(12), 1019~1021 (2007)
24. H. Xu, L. Ma, A. Mink, B. Hershman, and X. Tang, “1310-nm quantum key distribution
system with up-conversion pump wavelength at 1550 nm”, Optics Express, Vol 15(12),
7247~ 7260 (2007)
25. X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Mink, A. Nakassis, H. Xu, B. Hershman, J. Bienfang, D. Su, R.
Boisvert, C. Clark, and C. Williams, “Experimental study of high speed polarization-
coding quantum key distribution with sifted-key rates over Mbit/s”, Optics Express, Vol.
14 (6), 2062-2070 (2006)

Conference Papers:

1. L. Ma, O. Slattery, P. Kuo and X. Tang, "EIT Quantum Memory with Cs Atomic Vapor
for Quantum Communication", Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 9615, 96150D-1, SPIE Quantum
Communications and Quantum Imaging, (2015).
2. O. Slattery, L. Ma, P. Kuo and X. Tang, "Comparing the Linewidths from Single-Pass
SPDC and Singly-Resonant Cavity SPDC", Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 9615, 961507-1, SPIE
Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging (2015).
3. Paulina S. Kuo, Jason S. Pelc, Oliver Slattery, Lijun Ma and Xiao Tang, "Domain-
engineered PPLN for entangled photon generation and other quantum information
applications," Proc. SPIE, 9136, 913403, (2014).
4. A. Mink, and A. Nakassis, “LDPC Error Correction for Gbit/s QKD”, Proc. SPIE, Vol.
9123, pp 912304-1 to 912304-13, SPIE Defense Security & Sensing, (2014).
5. O. Slattery, L. Ma, P. Kuo, Y Kim, and X. Tang “Tunable up-conversion detector for
single photon and bi-photon infrared spectroscopic applications,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8726,
87260Y-87260Y-9, SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (2013).
6. Paulina S. Kuo, Jason S. Pelc, Oliver Slattery, Yong-Su Kim and Xiao Tang, “Entangled
photon generation in a phase-modulated, quasi-phase matched crystal”, Proc. of SPIE
Vol. 8875 887508-1, SPIE Optics and Photonics (2013).
7. Paulina S. Kuo, Jason S. Pelc, Oliver Slattery, Yong-Su Kim, M. M. Fejer, and Xiao
Tang, “Efficient, low-noise, single-photon frequency conversion”, OSA Technical Digest,
paper JTh2A.86, CLEO 2013 (2013).
8. Paulina S. Kuo, Jason S. Pelc, Oliver Slattery, Yong-Su Kim and Xiao Tang, “Entangled
photon generation in a phase-modulated, quasi-phase matched crystal,” Proc. of SPIE
Vol. 8875 887508-1. SPIE Optics and Photonics (2013).
9. O. Slattery, P. Kuo, Y Kim, L. Ma and X. Tang, "Narrowed Bandwidth SPDC Correlated
Photon Source using Volume Bragg Grating", IX, Proceedings of SPIE 8518, 85180Y1-
10, SPIE Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging (2012).
10. P. S. Kuo, J. S. Pelc, O. Slattery, M. M. Fejer, and X. Tang, “Dual-channel, single-photon
upconversion detector near 1300 nm,” Proceedings of SPIE 8518, 85180U1-12 (2012).
11. P. S. Kuo, J. S. Pelc, O. Slattery, L. Ma, M. M. Fejer, and X. Tang, “Dual-channel,
single-photon upconversion detector at 1300 nm,” Presented in Nonlinear Photonics, OSA
Technical Digest, paper NM3C.6. Optical Society of America (2012).
12. L. Ma, J. Bienfang, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Frequency up-conversion single-photon
detectors for quantum communication systems”, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 8033, 803306-1~
803306-9, SPIE Advanced Photon Counting Techniques V, (2011).
13. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Study on noise reduction in up-conversion single
photon detectors,”, Proc. SPIE, Vol.7815, 781508-1~781508-8, SPIE Quantum
Communications and Quantum Imaging VIII, (2010).
14. L. Yan, L. Ma, and X. Tang, “Narrow-Band Photon Pairs Generated from Spontaneous
Parametric Down Conversion in a Bragg-Grating Enhanced Waveguide,” Proc. SPIE,
Vol.7815, 781511-1~781508-7, SPIE Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging
VIII, (2010).
15. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Ultra-sensitive NIR-spectrometer based on frequency
up-conversion detector,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7680, 76800P-1-~76800P-10, SPIE Next-
Generation Spectroscopic Technologies III. (2010).
16. O. Slattery, L. Ma and X. Tang, “Correlated Photon Pair Generation by a Single Dual-
Element PPKTP Waveguide at over GHz Repetition Rate”, Proc. SPIE, Vol.7465,
74650K-1~74650K-7, SPIE Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging VII,
(2009).
17. L. Ma, O. Slattery, A. Mink and X. Tang, “Low noise up-conversion single photon
detector and its applications in quantum information systems”, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7465,
74650W-1~74650W-13, SPIE Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging VII,
(2009).
18. B. Baek, L. Ma, A. Mink, X. Tang and S. Nam, “Detector performance in long-distance
quantum key distribution using superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors,”
Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7320 73200D-1~73200D-8, SPIE Defense, Security and Sensing 09,
(2009).
19. X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Mink, T. Chang, H. Xu, O. Slattery, A. Nakassis, B. Hershman, D.
Su, and R. F. Boisvert, “High-Speed Quantum Key Distribution System for Optical Fiber
networks in campus and metro areas”, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7092, 70920I-1~70920I-15, SPIE
Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging VI, (2008).
20. L. Ma, T. Chang, A. Mink, O. Slattery, B. Hershman and X. Tang, “Detection-time-bin-
shift Schemes for Polarization Encoding Quantum Key Distribution System,” (invited
 paper), Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7092, 709206-1~709206-10, SPIE Quantum Communications
and Quantum Imaging VI, (2008).
21. H Xu, L. Ma, X. Tang, “Low noise PPLN-based single photon detector”, Proc. SPIE.
6780, 67800U-1, SPIE Optics East 07, (2007).
22. J. C. Bienfang, A. Restelli, D. Rogers, A. Mink, B. j. Hershman, T. Nakassis, X. Tang, L.
Ma, H. Xu, D. H. Su, C. W. Clark, C. J. Williams, “High-repetition rate quantum key
distribution”, Proc. SPIE. 6780, 67800C-1, SPIE Optics East 07, (2007).
23. D. Rogers, J. Bienfang, A. Mink, B. Hershman, A. Nakassis, X. Tang, L. Ma, D. Su, C.
Williams, and C. Clark, “High-speed photon counting techniques for broadband quantum
key distribution,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6372, 637211 SPIE Optics East 06, (2006).
24. L. Ma, H. Xu, X. Tang, “Polarization recovery and auto-compensation in quantum key
distribution network”, SPIE Quantum Communications and Quantum Imaging IV, Proc.
SPIE 6305, 630513-1~ 630513-6, (2006).
25. X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Mink, A. Nakassis, H. Xu, B. Hershman, J. Bienfang, D. Su, R.
Boisvert, C. Clark, and C. Williams, “Demonstration of active quantum key distribution
network.”, Proc. SPIE 6305, 630506-1~ 630506-6, SPIE Quantum Communications and
Quantum Imaging IV, (2006).
26. D. Rogers, J. Bienfang, A. Mink, B. Hershman, A. Nakassis, X. Tang, L. Ma, D. Su, C.
Williams, and C. Clark, “Free-space quantum cryptography in the H-alpha Fraunhofer
window.”, Proc. SPIE 6304, 630417-1~ 630417-10, SPIE Optics and Photonics 06,
(2006).
27. X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Mink, A. Nakassis, H. Xu, B. Hershman, J. Bienfang, D. Su, R.
Boisvert, C. Clark, and C. Williams, “Quantum Key Distribution system operating at
sifted key-rate over 4Mbit/s”, Proc. SPIE 6244, 62440P-1~ 62440P-8, SPIE Defense and
Security 06, (2006).
28. A. Mink, X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Nakassis, B. Hershman, J. Bienfang, D. Su, R. F. Boisvert,
C. Clark, and C. Williams, “High Speed Quantum Key Distribution System Supports
One-Time Pad Encryption of Real-Time Video”, Proc. SPIE 6244, 62440M-1~62440M-
7, SPIE Defense and Security 06, (2006).
29. X. Tang, L. Ma, A. Mink, A. Nakassis, B. Hershman, J. Bienfang, R. Boisvert, C. Clark,
and C. Williams, “High Speed Fiber-Based Quantum Key Distribution using Polarization
Encoding,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5893: 1A-1~1A-9, SPIE Quantum Communications and
Quantum Imaging III, (2005).

Book Chapters:

1. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang, “Single photon detection using frequency up-conversion
with pulse pumping,” Chapter 4 in Photodiodes - Communications, Bio-Sensings,
Measurements and High-Energy Physics, InTech, ISBN 978-953-307-277-7, (2011).
2. A. Mink, L. Ma, B. Hershman and X. Tang, “An application of quantum networks for
secure video surveillance”, Chapter 6 in Video Surveillance, In-Tech, ISBN: 978-953-
307-436-8, (2011).
3. L. Ma, O. Slattery and X. Tang “NIR Single photon detectors with up-conversion
technology and its applications in quantum communication systems” Chapter 15 in
Advances in Lasers and Electro optics, N. Costa and A. Cartaxo ed. In-Tech, ISBN: 978-
953-307-088-9, (2010).
Dates
Started: January, 2004

Created November 22, 2016, Updated November 16, 2017

Source: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/quantum-communications
Quantum Computing at NASA
NASA’s QuAIL team aims to demonstrate that quantum computing and quantum algorithms
may someday dramatically improve the agency’s ability to solve difficult optimization problems
for missions in aeronautics, Earth and space sciences, and space exploration.

Support structure for installation of the D-Wave Vesuvius processor, which is cooled to 20
millikelvin (near absolute zero).

The hope is that quantum computing will vastly improve a wide range of tasks that can lead to
new discoveries and technologies, and which may significantly change the way we solve real-
world problems.

Beginning with the D-Wave Two™ quantum computer, NASA’s QuAIL team is evaluating
various quantum computing approaches to help address NASA challenges. Initial work focuses
on theoretical and empirical analysis of quantum annealing approaches to difficult optimization
problems.

The research team is also studying how the effects of noise, imprecision in the quantum
annealing parameters, and thermal processes affect the efficacy and robustness of quantum
annealing approaches to these problems. Over the next five years, the team will also develop
quantum AI algorithms, problem decomposition and hardware embedding techniques, and
quantum-classical hybrid algorithms.

NASA welcomes researchers at other institutions who are interested in collaborating with the
QuAIL team in these areas to contact the QuAIL team.
 Support structure for installation of the D-Wave Vesuvius processor,
which is cooled to 20 millikelvin (near absolute zero).

In support of NASA's Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (QuAIL), the NAS facility
hosts a 1,097-qubit D-Wave 2X™ quantum computer. The QuAIL project is a collaborative
effort among NASA, Google, and Universities Space Research Association (USRA) to explore
the potential for quantum computers to tackle optimization problems that are difficult or
impossible for traditional supercomputers to handle.

Source: https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/dash/groups/physics/quail/
https://www.nas.nasa.gov/projects/quantum.html
Quantum Programs at IARPA

As part of its mission to address some of the most difficult challenges in the Intelligence
Community by investing in high-risk, high-payoff research, IARPA sponsors several applied
research programs that explore the potential and possibilities in quantum computing. Current and
previous quantum computing programs include:

Coherent Superconducting Qubits (CSQ), which is designed to demonstrate a reproducible,

ten-fold increase in coherence times in superconducting qubits;

Logical Qubits (LogiQ), which aims to build the first logical qubit;

Multi-Qubit Coherent Operations (MQCO), which is working to develop the foundation of

an error-free quantum computer;

Quantum Computer Science (QCS), which developed the world’s first high-level quantum
programming language and compilers; and

Quantum Enhanced Optimization (QEO), which seeks to harness quantum effects required
to enhance quantum annealing solutions to hard combinatorial optimization problems.

Quantum Computer Science (QCS)

Quantum computing holds great promise for solving important classically intractable
computational problems. Ongoing work in theoretical and experimental physics continues to
make advances in a number of technologies that might one day underlay a quantum information
processor. Relatively little investment has been made in exploring the computer science side of
quantum information science (QIS) even though the challenges that quantum computing poses to
the world of computer science are on a par with the challenges posed to the world of physics.

The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Quantum Computer Science
(QCS) Program explores questions relating to the computational resources required to run
quantum algorithms on realistic quantum computers.
Any implementation of a quantum algorithm requires not only programming the algorithm at a
logical level but also the incorporation of error correction and control schemes at the physical
level, and resource estimation must account for all of these factors. The QCS program is
developing a tool chain to study these issues throughout the computing process.

The tools will include an integrated development environment for the quantum programming
languages already developed by the program, compilers to generate logical circuits, and tools for
analyzing quantum error correction and control protocols. Through its research QCS will build a
foundation for measuring and reducing the resources required to program and implement
complex quantum algorithms of realistic size.

Source: https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/qcs

Quantum computers are in theory capable of simulating the interactions of molecules at a level
of detail far beyond the capabilities of even the largest supercomputers today. Such simulations
could revolutionize chemistry, biology and materials science, but the development of quantum
computers has been limited by the ability to increase the number of quantum bits, or qubits, that
encode, store and access large amounts of data.

In a paper published in the Journal of Applied Physics, a team of researchers at the Georgia Tech
Research Institute (GTRI) and Honeywell International have demonstrated a new device that
allows more electrodes to be placed on a chip – an important step that could help increase qubit
densities and bring us one step closer to a quantum computer that can simulate molecules or
perform other algorithms of interest. This work was funded by the Intelligence Advanced
Research Projects Activity (IARPA).

Source: https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/newsroom/iarpa-in-the-news/2015/509-new-chip-architecture-may-
provide-foundation-for-quantum-
computer?highlight=WyJxdWFudHVtIiwiY29tcHV0ZXIiLCJjb21wdXRlcidzIiwicXVhbnR1bSBjb21wdXRlciJd

Coherent Superconducting Qubits (CSQ)

The goal of the CSQ program is to demonstrate a reproducible, ten-fold increase in coherence
times in superconducting qubits. To achieve this goal, researchers are focused on developing 1)
fundamental understanding of defects that currently limit coherence times (T1 and T2) and
readout fidelity; 2) means to characterize, measure and definitively discriminate between
separate defect mechanisms contributing to loss and dephasing; and 3) novel designs, materials
and fabrication methods to eliminate these defects.

Logical Qubits (LogiQ)

The LogiQ Program seeks to overcome the limitations of current multi-qubit systems by building
a logical qubit from a number of imperfect physical qubits. LogiQ envisions that program
success will require a multi-disciplinary approach that increases the fidelity of quantum gates,
state preparation, and qubit readout; improves classical control; implements active quantum
feedback; has the ability to reset and reuse qubits; and performs further system improvements.

Additionally, LogiQ seeks a modular architecture design of two coupled logical qubits that
creates a flexible and feasible path to larger systems. Modular designs facilitate the incorporation
of next-generation advances with minimal constraints, while maintaining or improving
performance.

Multi-Qubit Coherent Operations (MQCO)

The Multi-Qubit Coherent Operations Program aims to resolve the technical challenges involved
in fabricating and operating multiple qubits in close proximity. The main themes of the program
include qubit fabrication and yield; cross talk within the multi-qubit system; incorporation of the
controls necessary to operate multiple qubits; coupling qubits to generate a universal gate set for
quantum operations; and minimizing the overall system footprint. The program is comprised of
different technologies including atomic and solid state based qubits. The end goal of the program
is to execute quantum algorithms using multiple qubits and to evaluate the performance using a
metric that can scale to higher qubit numbers.
Quantum Enhanced Optimization (QEO)

QEO seeks to harness quantum effects required to enhance quantum annealing solutions to hard
combinatorial optimization problems. The physics underlying quantum enhancement will be
corroborated by design and demonstration of research-scale annealing test beds comprised of
novel superconducting qubits, architectures, and operating procedures. All work will serve to
demonstrate a plausible path to enhancement and a basis for design of application-scale quantum
annealers.

State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit

In 2015 IRAPA stated: Quantum computing becomes viable when a quantum state can be
protected from environment-induced error. If quantum bits (qubits) are sufficiently reliable,
errors are sparse and quantum error correction (QEC) is capable of identifying and correcting
them. Adding more qubits improves the preservation of states by guaranteeing that increasingly
larger clusters of errors will not cause logical failure—a key requirement for large-scale systems.
Using QEC to extend the qubit lifetime remains one of the outstanding experimental challenges
in quantum computing. Here we report the protection of classical states from environmental bit-
flip errors and demonstrate the suppression of these errors with increasing system size. We use a
linear array of nine qubits, which is a natural step towards the two-dimensional surface code
QEC scheme7, and track errors as they occur by repeatedly performing projective quantum non-
demolition parity measurements. Relative to a single physical qubit, we reduce the failure rate in
retrieving an input state by a factor of 2.7 when using five of our nine qubits and by a factor of
8.5 when using all nine qubits after eight cycles. Additionally, we tomographically verify
preservation of the non-classical Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state. The successful suppression
of environment-induced errors will motivate further research into the many challenges associated
with building a large-scale superconducting quantum computer.

Source: https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/newsroom/iarpa-in-the-news/2015/457-state-preservation-by-repetitive-
error-detection-in-a-superconducting-quantum-
circuit?highlight=WyJxdWFudHVtIiwiY29tcHV0ZXIiLCJjb21wdXRlcidzIiwicXVhbnR1bSBjb21wdXRlciJd
NIST is a leader in Research in Quantum Science

Quantum physics drives much of the research at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). Explaining this research is a challenge, because quantum physics—nature's
rules for the smallest particles of matter and light—inspires words like weird, curious, and
counter-intuitive. The quantum world is strange and invisible in the context of everyday life. And
yet, quantum physics can be explained and at least partially demonstrated visually.

By its very nature, quantum science sets fundamental limits on precision measurements, so by
necessity NIST is a leader in basic and applied research in quantum science. Some of the most
fundamental quantum research in the world is carried out in partnerships between NIST and top
universities, such as JILA (link is external), the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) (link is external)
and the Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science (QuICS) (link is external).
Scientists in these institutes leverage the combined resources of the partners to advance research
in the control of atoms and molecules and development of ultra-fast lasers capable of
manipulating states of matter. The discoveries that have been made in these institutes continue to
be applied at NIST to meeting new measurement challenges, such as the development of the
world’s best atomic clocks and lasers.

An emerging research focus at NIST is understanding the potential for quantum-based

technology to transform security, computing and communications, and to develop the
measurement and standards infrastructure necessary to exploit this potential. Breakthroughs at
NIST enabled the first forays into real-world quantum computing and tested the limits of
quantum information and security. NIST is also developing the technology to harness the power
of quantum computing in the everyday world through nanotechnology.

Source: https://www.nist.gov/topics/quantum-information-science

NIST physicist Ray Simmonds recently collaborated with MFA graduate candidate Sam Mitchell
of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), to create a dance piece based on the laws of
quantum physics. The piece, Dunamis Novem (link is external) (Latin for "the chance happening
of nine things"),* premiered at The La Jolla Playhouse Forum Theatre in January, as a part of
Mitchell's thesis work.
The project has practical benefits such as education, Simmonds says. "While quantum mechanics
is a well-established theory, proven true overwhelmingly by experiments, it is still confounding
to most people, even those in science," Simmonds and Mitchell noted in describing their work.

"At its heart, it describes nature in terms of possible realities with probable outcomes, with
almost no predictable certainty. We have taken some of the probabilistic rules that govern
quantum systems and integrated them into a creative process. The results are then born from an
artistic aesthetic and an algorithmic code that produces dynamics that embody in some way
randomness, concepts of quantum entanglement, and the effects of observation or measurement."

The dances are based on nine quantized energy levels of a harmonic oscillator—like the
mechanical micro-drum built in Simmonds' NIST lab (see animation)—with each successive
level exactly one 'quantum' or unit of energy higher than the level just below. For each level,
Mitchell created corresponding dance actions or phrases with increasing intensities of movement,
with names like "crumble" and "hug the world". Dancers are much more likely to remember
choreography through a visual description than a number.

Simmonds arranged for a random number generator to produce sequences of the numbers from
0-8, representing either smooth oscillating or noisy, "hot" motion. Four sequences of both types
of motion were generated, one for each of the four dancers. How the dancers negotiated the
space together, the lighting, and the music were all chosen to help emulate the ambiance of these
orderly or noisy types of quantum motion.

Overall, the dances demonstrate several features of the quantum world, with the dancers
representing both the individual and collective behavior of an oscillator, with particles or quanta
of energy randomly appearing and disappearing. This unpredictable behavior is characteristic of
the quantum world. Each dancer forms a piece of a quantum "superposition"— multiple
coexisting energy states—which can characterize the movements of an oscillator.

To demonstrate quantum entanglement, the four dancers touch each other and their sequences
then become synchronized, evoking a linkage or correlation among their individual behaviors.
Entanglement is essential for technologies such as quantum computers, which, if they can be
built, could solve problems considered intractable today. Simmonds' research group relies on
quantum properties like this; they have entangled the motion of the micro-drum with microwave
light particles. The dance also demonstrates that a measurement, symbolized by a beam of light,
can cause a quantum state or entanglement to collapse, as shown by one dancer falling out of
synch with the others.

*Simmonds explains: "Dunamis is Aristotle's Latin term meaning that something 'might chance
to happen or not to happen.' Novem is Latin for the number nine. We stuck it together to mean
the chance happening of nine things."

Q & A with Physicist Ray Simmonds and Choreographer Sam Mitchell

1. What got you interested in dancing and dance choreography?

Mitchell: It was such a perfect combination of everything I loved about sports, art and music.
Dance and choreography are really challenging fields for people with limitless imaginations.

Simmonds: I always liked the freedom I felt when dancing. I could be creative and just let go of
my analytic mind. This is true during choreography too. Analysis can then happen later.

2. What inspired you to combine dance with quantum physics?

Mitchell: It was a book that I read in 1995 called "The Tao of Physics".

Simmonds: I always found it surprising how simple rules can lead to complex behavior. Brian
Eno explored this when generating ambient music. It seemed that the natural laws of quantum
physics could also play out in a human dance. And, a performance like this could help educate
through a physical experience.

3. What was the most challenging part of this project?

Mitchell: Trying to get the dancers to understand our process and have them be okay with not
being entirely in the spotlight. We created this work from a holistic approach vs. from the
individual's point of view. That can be hard for performers. As you can see, they met the
challenge!

Simmonds: Working close to my computer and far away from Sam and the dancers!
Sam Mitchell is a director/choreographer. He is originally from Imperial Valley, California, and
is of Native American descent, from the Yaqui tribe. Sam earned a BFA in dance from
University of California (UC) Santa Barbara and an MFA in choreography from UC San Diego
and will soon begin a PhD program in drama and theatre at UC San Diego/UC Irvine. Sam
teaches dance and movement workshops throughout the United States and abroad. He enjoys
surfing, playing guitar and relaxing at home with his wife and son.

Ray Simmonds is a physicist. He grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. He attended Santa
Barbara City College, where he studied mechanical engineering and dramatic arts, before
transferring to the University of California, Berkeley, where he received MS and PhD degrees in
physics. As an undergraduate he participated in modern dance and theater performances and took
classes in modern dance. In 2002 Ray joined the National Institute of Standards & Technology
(NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, where he conducts quantum physics research. Ray enjoys spending
time with his wife and two children and gets outdoors as much as possible.

Source: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/05/what-quantum-physics-dancers-explain

NIST Kicks Off Effort to Defend Encrypted Data from Quantum Computer Threat

If an exotic quantum computer is invented that could break the codes we depend on to protect
confidential electronic information, what will we do to maintain our security and privacy? That's
the overarching question posed by a new report from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), whose cryptography specialists are beginning the long journey toward
effective answers.

NIST Internal Report (NISTIR) 8105: Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography details the status
of research into quantum computers, which would exploit the often counterintuitive world of
quantum physics to solve problems that are intractable for conventional computers. If such
devices are ever built, they will be able to defeat many of our modern cryptographic systems,
such as the computer algorithms used to protect online bank transactions. NISTIR 8105 outlines
a long-term approach for avoiding this vulnerability before it arises.

"There has been a lot of research into quantum computers in recent years, and everyone from
major computer companies to the government want their cryptographic algorithms to be what we
call 'quantum resistant,'" said NIST mathematician Dustin Moody. "So if and when someone
does build a large-scale quantum computer, we want to have algorithms in place that it can't
crack."

The report shares NIST's current understanding of the status of quantum-resistant cryptography,
and details what the agency is doing to mitigate risk in the future. One overall recommendation
for the near term is that organizations focus on "crypto agility," or the rapid ability to switch out
whatever algorithms they are using for new ones that are safer.

Creating those newer, safer algorithms is the longer-term goal, Moody says. A key part of this
effort will be an open collaboration with the public, which will be invited to devise and vet
cryptographic methods that—to the best of experts' knowledge—will be resistant to quantum
attack. NIST plans to launch this collaboration formally sometime in the next few months, but in
general, Moody says it will resemble past competitions (link is external) such as the one for
developing the SHA-3 hash algorithm, used in part for authenticating digital messages.

"It will be a long process involving public vetting of quantum-resistant algorithms," Moody said.
"And we're not expecting to have just one winner. There are several systems in use that could be
broken by a quantum computer—public-key encryption and digital signatures, to take two
examples—and we will need different solutions for each of those systems."

Many current algorithms rely on the difficulty that conventional computers have with factoring
very large numbers, a difficulty that a quantum computer can overcome. Defenses that rely on
different mathematical approaches might stymie a quantum computer, and there is worldwide
research interest in developing them.

While no one has yet come close to building a quantum computer that could threaten the systems
we currently use, Moody says it is important to think about the future before it arrives, as it will
take years to vet the candidates.

"Historically, it has taken a long time from deciding a cryptographic system is good until we
actually get it out there as a disseminated standard in products on the market. It can take 10 to 20
years," he said. "Companies have to respond to all the changes. So we feel it's important to start
moving on this now."
NIST Adds to Quantum Computing Toolkit with Mixed-Atom Logic Operations

December 16, 2015

BOULDER, Colo.–Physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have
added to their collection of ingredients for future quantum computers by performing logic
operations—basic computing steps—with two atoms of different elements. This hybrid design
could be an advantage in large computers and networks based on quantum physics.

The NIST experiment, described in the Dec. 17, 2015, issue of Nature (link is external),
manipulated one magnesium and one beryllium ion (charged atom) confined in a custom trap
(see photo). The scientists used two sets of laser beams to entangle the two ions—establishing a
special quantum link between their properties—and to perform two types of logic operations, a
controlled NOT (CNOT) gate and a SWAP gate. The same issue of Nature describes similar
work with two forms of calcium ions performed at the University of Oxford.

"Hybrid quantum computers allow the unique advantages of different types of quantum systems
to be exploited together in a single platform," said lead author Ting Rei Tan. "Many research
groups are pursuing this general approach. Each ion species is unique, and certain ones are better
suited for certain tasks such as memory storage, while others are more suited to provide
interconnects for data transfer between remote systems."

Gates are used to build circuits or programs. As in classical computing, a quantum bit (qubit) can
have a value of 0 or 1. But unlike classical bits, a qubit can also be in a "superposition" of both 0
and 1 values at the same time. In the NIST experiment, the qubits are based on the ions' spin
directions (spin up is 1 and spin down is 0). A CNOT gate flips the second (target) qubit if the
first (control) qubit is a 1; if it is a 0, the target bit is unchanged. If the control qubit is in a
superposition, the ions become entangled. A SWAP gate interchanges the qubit states, including
superpositions.

The two types of ions vary in their response to light, so lasers can be tuned to manipulate one
without disturbing the other. This minimizes interference. But getting the whole setup to operate
coherently was a challenge. The researchers developed a technique to track and stabilize the laser
beam phases, that is, the exact positions of the undulating light waves.
"For the logic gate to work, the phase has to be at the correct values. Also, these phases have to
be stable, so we can apply the same condition over many repetitions," Tan said.

If they can be built, quantum computers could solve problems now considered intractable, such
as breaking today's best data encryption codes. The same NIST group has demonstrated many
other building blocks for quantum computers based on trapped ions. For example, the group
demonstrated the first quantum logic gate (a CNOT gate) on individual qubits in 1995 using a
single beryllium ion.

NIST's latest techniques provide a complete or "universal" set of quantum gates—meaning they
could perform any possible computation—using ions of multiple elements. A universal set of
quantum gates is one of the so-called DiVincenzo criteria (link is external), which describe the
elements needed to build a practical quantum computer.

NIST's new mixed-atom gates could also help make better simulators to model quantum systems
and could enable faster and simpler measurements in applications such as NIST's experimental
quantum logic clock.

The mixed-atom gates rely on NIST's technique for entangling ions demonstrated more than a
decade ago. Multiple carefully tuned laser beams apply an oscillating force to a pair of ions. If
the ions are in different internal states, they feel different laser forces that alter the ions' external
motions. This coupling of internal states with external motions has the effect of entangling the
ions.

The research was supported by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence
Advanced Research Projects Activity, and the Office of Naval Research.

Source: T.R. Tan, J.P. Gaebler, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, D. Leibfried and D.J. Wineland. 2015. Multi-element
logic gates for trapped ion qubits. Nature. Dec. 17. DOI: 10.1038/nature16186 https://www.nist.gov/news-
events/news/2015/12/nist-adds-quantum-computing-toolkit-mixed-atom-logic-operations
NSF invests $30 million to pursue transformative advances at frontiers of computing and
information science

New Expeditions in Computing awards represent NSF’s single largest investments in the field

February 27, 2018

The National Science Foundation (NSF) announces three new Expeditions in Computing awards,
each providing $10 million in funding over five years to multi-investigator research teams
pursuing large-scale, far-reaching and potentially transformative research in computer and
information science and engineering. This year's awards aim to enable game-changing advances
in real-time decision making, quantum computing and non-invasive biomedical imaging.

"The Expeditions projects being awarded today are not only taking on challenging research
problems in computer and information science and engineering, but they are also offering the
potential to yield tremendous benefits to multiple sectors of our society," said Jim Kurose, NSF
assistant director for Computer and Information Science and Engineering. "We are delighted to
be able to fund these projects, which represent the largest single investments in our portfolio."

Since the inception of the program a decade ago, NSF has funded 22 Expeditions in Computing
awards, including these three. Over the years, NSF-funded Expeditions awards have pursued
foundational research in a range of areas spanning computing hardware and software, wireless
networks, robotics, Big Data, artificial intelligence (AI), and synthetic biology and molecular
programming, to name a few.

This year's projects aim to revolutionize the design and development of secure, autonomous
systems. They also aim to more rapidly bring to market practical applications of quantum
computing and enable non-invasive and easy-to-use diagnostic imaging of the human body that
could increase the quality of healthcare in remote areas. Below are descriptions of the three
projects funded this year, along with their principal investigators and associated institutions.

Secure, Real-Time Decisions on Live Data, Ion Stoica, University of California, Berkeley.
 A new era is rising in which AI systems will play an increasingly central role in people’s lives
by revolutionizing healthcare, transportation and the way business is conducted. This
Expeditions project seeks to build AI decision systems to address these challenges by developing
open source platforms, tools and algorithms for Real-time, Intelligent, Secure and Explainable
(RISE) decisions. The project will also empower a large community of pioneers to build
innovative applications and solutions, as well as broaden participation in research activities by
allowing students and researchers across many disciplines to contribute.

Enabling Practical-scale Quantum Computing, Frederic Chong, The University of Chicago.

Quantum computing sits at the precipice of a potentially game-changing revolution in the field
of computer and information science. Quantum machines may soon be capable of performing
computations that advance AI, computer security, chemistry and other fields in ways that are
extremely difficult or even impossible for today's computers. The multi-institutional Enabling
Practical-scale Quantum Computing (EPiQC) Expeditions project will help accelerate the
potential of this new paradigm by reducing the gap that exists today between theoretical
algorithms and practical quantum computing architectures. By developing new algorithms,
software and hardware designs tailored to key properties of quantum technologies capable of 100
to 1,000 quantum bits -- where a quantum bit is the single unit of quantum information -- this
project will increase the efficiency of practical quantum computation and aid in transitioning
quantum computing out of the laboratory and into practical use. Partnering institutions include
the Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton
University and University of California, Santa Barbara.

Computational Photo-Scatterography: Unraveling Scattered Photons for Bio-imaging,

Ashutosh Sabharwal, Rice University.

Light scatters as it travels through the human body. As this happens, the spatial information
from different points within the body becomes entangled. The principal goal of this Expeditions
project is to develop a computational imaging system, called Computational Photo-
Scatterography (CPS), that effectively unravels scattered light and facilitates non-invasive bio-
imaging deep beneath the skin at cellular-level resolutions. The project has the potential to
fundamentally transform medicine and healthcare delivery by enabling live views of cross
sections of human anatomy simply by pointing a camera at any part of the body. Such an
advancement would put individual users at the center of their healthcare experience and make
them true partners in diagnosis, treatment and wellness. Beyond healthcare, the project could
lead to cross-cutting applications in consumer imaging, automotive navigation, robotics,
surveillance, atmospheric science, materials science and more. Partnering institutions include
Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports
fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year
(FY) 2017, its budget is $7.5 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000
colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives more than 48,000
competitive proposals for funding and makes about 12,000 new funding awards.

Source: https://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=244648&org=NSF
American Leadership in Quantum Technology
October 24, 2017

Carl J. Williams

Deputy Director, Physical Measurement Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

United States Department of Commerce

Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology United States House of
Representatives

Introduction

Chairwoman Comstock, Ranking Member Lipinski, Chairman Weber, Raking Member Veasey,
and members of the Subcommittees, I am Dr. Carl Williams, the Acting Director of the Physical
Measurement Laboratory (PML) at the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss NIST’s roles in quantum science and quantum computing.

As this nation’s national metrology institute, NIST’s overall mission is to promote U.S.
innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. NIST does
this through programs focused on national priorities from cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing
and the digital economy to precision metrology, biosciences, and more.

NIST conducts basic and applied research in quantum science to advance the field of
fundamental metrology as part of its core mission, by developing more precise measurement
tools and technologies to address industry’s increasingly challenging requirements. This work
has positioned NIST both as a global leader among national metrology institutes, and as one of
the world’s leading centers of quantum research and engineering. While NIST’s work in
quantum science is revolutionizing the world of metrology, it also has direct application to
quantum communications and quantum computation. Today, I’ll describe in more detail some of
NIST’s quantum research efforts and how they are being leveraged to positively advance the
field.
Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Science

Quantum mechanics revolutionized science in the 20th century, leading to technological

breakthroughs including the invention of the laser and the transistor. Today’s most advanced
communication and computation technologies are based on those mid-20th century inventions.

Science and society is poised for a second quantum revolution in the 21st century, one in which
we will employ our new-found ability to exploit quantum mechanical phenomena to push
beyond the limits of classical computing and communications. Phenomena such as superposition
(the ability of a particle to be in several different states at the same time) and entanglement (the
ability of two particles to share information even at a distance) lie at the heart of what makes a
quantum computer so much more powerful than even today’s most advanced classical
supercomputers.

So, what are quantum computing and quantum information? Unlike classical computers, which
process high and low voltages as 1’s and 0’s to form bits of information that get shuttled around,
quantum computers manipulate quantum bits of information, or qubits. A qubit’s information is
in the form of a discrete state, such as the magnetic spin of an electron. Due to quantum
mechanical phenomena such as superposition, these qubits can be both a 1 and a 0 at the same
time.

To understand this, we can imagine a normal classical bit as able to represent only two points on
the surface of a sphere—such as the north and south poles of the earth. In contrast, a qubit could
represent any point on the surface of that sphere. This superposition, together with the shared
fate resulting from entanglement between multiple qubits together, is what gives a quantum
computer the superior computational power that will make it uniquely capable of solving
complex problems, including perhaps most notably the breaking of current encryption schemes.

NIST’s expertise in quantum science is mainly focused on the use of quantized states of light and
matter and their manipulation and interaction as quantum bits of information to make ultra-
precise sensors and measurement tools. This application falls under a broader field of study that
we refer to as “quantum information science,” which lies at the intersection of computer science,
mathematics, and quantum science. The breakthroughs that NIST is making in this field will
have direct relevance and application to quantum computing.
Recent Investments and Advancements Abroad

Many nations view leadership in quantum computing as critical to making significant

breakthroughs in medicine, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and defense, and to reaping the
rewards from those investments and breakthroughs. The U.S. has long been viewed as a leader in
quantum science, information, and computing. Significant historic investment by the U.S.
government has supported a robust base of fundamental research, and this has led to several
transformational breakthroughs in the field.

Today, U.S. leadership in quantum science and technology is increasingly dependent on

significant investments from U.S. technology giants and major defense companies with a natural
interest in the many commercial applications of quantum technology beyond computing. These
applications include quantum communications, quantum algorithms and software, data security,
imaging, and quantum sensors, and could be applied to anything from national security to the
Internet of Things, to advanced sensors for gas and oil exploration. Applications for quantum
sensors include novel approaches to precision navigation and timing, as well as technologies that
could provide a backup or holdover function for global positioning systems or GPS.

While the U.S. has made significant breakthroughs, the rest of the world has not been standing
still—and U.S. companies are taking notice. Worldwide interest and investment in quantum
computing and related technologies has spiked in recent years, following important and
increasingly complex technological demonstrations by overseas research efforts.

The European Union has launched an effort to invest 2 billion euros over the next 10 years in a
recently launched EU Flagship Quantum Program. The United Kingdom has created a set of
quantum hubs aimed at exploiting the various application spaces within quantum information
science.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is China’s rapid investment in quantum technology and the
dramatic advances by China in the area of quantum communication. Earlier this year, China sent
entangled photons from a satellite to the ground 1200 kilometers away, smashing several
quantum communication distance records. More recently, China has demonstrated the world’s
first atomic clock in space using cold atoms, which can far outperform the atomic clocks in U.S.
GPS, and can further support future advanced quantum networks.
NIST’s History and Role in Quantum Computing and Information

At NIST, our researchers study and harness the quantum mechanical properties of light and
matter in some of the most well-controlled and defined measurement environments to create the
world’s most sensitive and precise sensors and atomic clocks. NIST has been a leader in the field
of quantum information from the beginning, and its multiple Nobel Prize-winning contributions
have helped move quantum computing and quantum information from purely scientific fields of
study to technological ones.

NIST scientists began researching quantum information in the early 1990s in their quest to make
better atomic clocks. Qubits and atomic clocks may seem worlds apart, but experimentally they
are very much the same thing. By 2000, NIST had established a formal quantum information
program.

Atomic Clocks: The Power of One Qubit

Atomic clocks define the second and tell time with amazing precision. For example, the most
accurate U.S. atomic clock currently used for defining the second is the NIST-F2. It keeps time
to an accuracy of less than a millionth of a billionth of a second. Stated in another way, the
NIST-F2 clock will not lose a second in at least 300 million years. And just this month, NIST
published a description of a radically new atomic clock design—the three-dimensional (3-D)
quantum gas atomic clock. With a precision of just 3.5 parts error in 10 quintillion (1 followed
by 19 zeros) in about 2 hours, it is the first atomic clock to ever reach the 10 quintillion
threshold, and promises to usher in an era of dramatically improved measurements and
technologies across many areas based on controlled quantum systems.

These breakthroughs in precision timekeeping have critical real-world applications to navigation

and timing. Today, commercial atomic clocks contained in GPS satellites provide the
timekeeping precision that we take for granted when we use our GPS devices to pinpoint our
location to within a meter almost anywhere on earth.

NIST’s most advanced atomic clocks, so precise that they will not lose a second over the life of
the universe, also are being applied to make the world’s most sensitive measurements of
quantities other than time. For example, NIST is actively pursuing the use of atomic clocks as
quantum sensors, another application of quantum information, for a range of entirely new
technologies. NIST is now able to detect the barely perceptible slowing of time in a large
gravitational potential. This is the second form of time dilation predicted by Einstein in his
general theory of relativity and may help scientists detect gravitational waves or prospectors find
hidden oil reserves and mineral deposits. The technology might even have the potential to allow
scientists to predict earthquakes days or even weeks before a cataclysmic event.

Quantum Logic

NIST’s breakthroughs in the measurement of time also have laid the technological foundations
for how to manipulate quantum information. NIST’s pioneering work in the cooling and trapping
of ions and atoms to improve timekeeping provided NIST researchers with the experimental
platform to demonstrate the first two-qubit quantum logic gate in 1995, by controlling and
entangling the energy levels of two ions. Logic gates in classical computers are used to process
information. By analogy, quantum logic gates form the basic building block for quantum
computing. Scaling up to experiments involving multiple logic gates provides a platform to test
more complex quantum computing theory.

Other Quantum Computing Technologies

Atomic clocks are just one example of NIST’s research focused on measurement science that has
applications to quantum computing. NIST also is the world’s leader in specially designed
devices, made from superconductors, known as Josephson Junctions. Josephson Junction
technology is used by NIST to realize and disseminate NIST’s quantum voltage standard. The
quantum voltage standard is also integral to the proposed 2019 effort to redefine the international
system of units (colloquially, the metric system) to be based on fundamental constants of nature,
as defined through world-leading experiments at NIST such as the “electronic kilogram”. This
same technology is being explored as a key competitor to trapped ions and atoms as another way
to manipulate and store quantum information.

Additionally, Superconductors are used by researchers at NIST to make ultra-sensitive single

photon detectors used in precision photonic measurements at NIST and by external stakeholders.
These specially designed sensors have become essential components in experiments at NIST to
test the foundations of quantum mechanics and realize quantum teleportation. In quantum
teleportation, quantum information gets transmitted instantaneously from one qubit to another.
Discrete photons, like ions and atoms, can also be carefully controlled and entangled to form
qubits. Prior to China’s recent 1200 kilometer demonstration, NIST had held the distance record
for quantum teleportation, transmitting information between photons separated by 100
kilometers. Progress in quantum teleportation is expected to be essential for eventual commercial
quantum computing, and for other forms of quantum information transfer.

In the end, building a quantum computer will involve many disparate quantum technologies.
Those technologies will need to be integrated to provide long-term storage and memory,
transmission or teleportation, transduction, and detection of qubits while not corrupting the
qubit’s extremely delicate state.

Quantum Information Theory and Validation and Verification

In 2002, NIST hired its first quantum information theorist. This began a quantum information
program which has led to new and improved approaches for quantum error correction,
techniques for reliably characterizing quantum states produced in the laboratory, and concepts
for randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. These concepts have provided crucial insights,
which NIST has used to further improve our experimental efforts and those of other research
groups. For example, randomized benchmarking has become the standard by which research
groups around the world characterize and compare the quality of their computational paradigms.

Quantum Algorithms and Post-Quantum Cryptography

NIST programs on quantum algorithms and post-quantum cryptography further build on our core
efforts in quantum information theory with a focus on addressing security challenges anticipated
when practical quantum computers are realized. NIST, working with industry, has played a
leading role since the 1970s in developing cryptography standards. Today’s classical computers
and computer networks employing Public Key Cryptography are using cryptography
standardized by NIST. Unfortunately, these standards will not be resistant to attack by quantum
computers. NIST researchers are using their understanding of quantum algorithms to create new

classical encryption algorithms, commonly referred to as post-quantum cryptography, that will

be resistant to quantum computing attacks.

NIST’s Joint Institutes with Universities

NIST also supports joint centers with the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) and the
University of Maryland (UMD). JILA at UC was founded in 1962 and has been doing research
in quantum science and in atomic clocks and is evolving into quantum information science. Two
joint centers in quantum information science at UMD were established more recently. The Joint
Quantum Institute (JQI) was established in 2006 through a cooperative effort between NIST,
UMD, and the Laboratory for Physical Sciences. The Joint Center for Quantum Information and
Computer Science (QuICS) was established in 2014 to complement JQI’s experimental and
theoretical work by focusing the use of quantum systems to process, transmit and store quantum
information. Taken together, NIST’s joint institutes interact strongly to push the frontiers of
quantum science, information, and computing and provide a training ground for industry’s future
quantum workforce.

Conclusion

NIST recognizes that it has an essential role to play in U.S. leadership in quantum computing and
information. However, that role is not to build a quantum computer. NIST’s role, consistent with
its mission, is to develop the foundational knowledge and measurement science support for U.S.
leadership in quantum computing, to create the basis for characterizing quantum logic gates, to
explore approaches to quantum control and error correction, to develop rudimentary quantum
processors that are capable of creating the exotic quantum states that will allow improvement of
our measurements beyond the standard quantum limit, and to ensure that our cybersecurity
infrastructure remains resilient in the quantum era. Part of this foundational knowledge will
come from using NIST’s measurement platforms to experimentally conduct quantum simulations
and validate quantum computing theory. NIST also anticipates that the early adoption of the
quantum technologies that emerge as NIST continues to develop the world’s most precise atomic
clocks (quantum logic clocks) and quantum based sensors will ultimately provide substantial
support to the effort to build a quantum computer.

NIST is extremely proud of its world-class quantum science, quantum information, mathematics,
and computer science programs, and we appreciate the support of this Committee for NIST’s
research efforts. Sustained advancements by NIST in these fields continue to underpin success in
many parts of NIST’s measurement science mission and contribute to U.S. leadership in
quantum computing. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.

Source: https://www.nist.gov/speech-testimony/american-leadership-quantum-technology
Simple is Beautiful in Quantum Computing
Defect spins in diamond were controlled with a simpler, geometric method, leading to faster
computing.

Quantum computers use electron spin orientation at a defect site in diamond to store information.
The electron spin can be up (+1), down (-1), or anything in between. The spin (left, red arrow) is
represented as a vector on a sphere. To change the spin from Position 1 to 2 normally requires
two separate optical pulses. However, here a particular single pulse has accomplished the same
electronic transition. This single pulse makes the electron travel on a geometric loop, analogous
to a Möbius strip (right, a surface with one side and one boundary), such that its position is
changed in a robust way after completing the loop.

Quantum computing could solve problems impossible for today’s supercomputers. The challenge
for this new form of computing is processing the quantum bits (qubits) that represent data. A
qubit can be made by controlling the orientation of an electron’s spin at a defect site in diamond.
To solve a problem, a quantum computer uses logic gates to couple multiple qubits and output
new information. Scientists designed a new protocol that can be used to develop fast, robust
logic gates for qubits. The simple gates reorient electron spin on defect sites in diamond. This
new finding would allow faster and more efficient manipulation of the electron spins or qubits.

Researchers exert a new form of fast geometric control on the electron’s spin orientation. This
enables faster and fewer gates to achieve the same operation on the qubit as conventional
techniques, thus facilitating the development of future quantum computers. As an added bonus,
the new gates are also less sensitive to noise than today’s operations (specifically, sequential,
multi-pulse operations). Noise can destroy quantum information. Controlling qubits has the
potential to bring us closer to practical quantum computers. It could advance our ability to
develop high fidelity quantum logic.

Classical computers are number crunching machines, performing basic arithmetical operations
on numbers. In computer language, these numbers are expressed in binary number units of zeros
and ones, also called bits. Each bit, therefore, stores the smallest piece of information and can
accept a value of either 1 or 0. Similar to classical computers, quantum computers are designed
to operate on quantum bits. An extraordinary property of qubits is that they can be of any value
equal to or between -1 and +1, until we measure them. As in a classical computer, the initial
states of qubits need to be prepared before quantum data processing or data storage.
Diamond is a very promising material for quantum information processing. In diamond, a
nitrogen atom can replace a carbon atom. When the nitrogen is next to a missing carbon atom in
the crystalline lattice, this is called a nitrogen-vacancy defect. As well as possessing charge, this
impurity possesses a property known as spin that can be used to store quantum information. Its
spin can be initialized, manipulated, and “read out” with a laser at room temperature, unlike
other quantum computing architectures that require low temperatures. This single impurity can
emit one photon at a time. A photon can carry one qubit of information. Researchers discovered
a simple method to prepare and manipulate the quantum state of a nitrogen-vacancy center acting
as a qubit. Gates are used to prepare and manipulate the electronic transitions of qubits. A
geometric gate relies on the evolution or geometric path of the spin instead of energy differences
involved in the gates used in traditional computers. This particular geometric gate utilizes a
single laser pulse to send the electron spin through a high-speed cycle. The geometry of the cycle
is controlled by the single laser pulse and determines the final gate operations and electronic
transitions. Further, careful control of the pulse energy significantly improved the fidelity of the
electronic transition compared to traditional multi-pulse techniques, simplifying the path to
practical quantum technologies.

Source: https://science.energy.gov/bes/highlights/2017/bes-2017-11-a/
Appendix A: Quantum Algorithm Zoo - math.nist.gov
Source: https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&page=2&query=quantum+computing

This is a comprehensive catalog of quantum algorithms. If you notice any errors or omissions, please email me at
. Your help is appreciated and will be acknowledged.

Algebraic and Number Theoretic Algorithms

Algorithm: Factoring
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Given an n-bit integer, find the prime factorization. The quantum algorithm of Peter Shor solves this in
O˜(n3) time [82,125]. The fastest known classical algorithm for integer factorization is the general number field
sieve, which is believed to run in time 2O˜(n1/3). The best rigorously proven upper bound on the classical
complexity of factoring is O(2n/4+o(1)) via the Pollard-Strassen algorithm [252, 362]. Shor's factoring algorithm
breaks RSA public-key encryption and the closely related quantum algorithms for discrete logarithms break the
DSA and ECDSA digital signature schemes and the Diffie-Hellman key-exchange protocol. A quantum algorithm
even faster than Shor's for the special case of factoring “semiprimes”, which are widely used in cryptography, is
given in [271]. If small factors exist, Shor's algorithm can be beaten by a quantum algorithm using Grover search to
speed up the elliptic curve factorization method [366]. Additional optimized versions of Shor's algorithm are given
in [384, 386]. There are proposed classical public-key cryptosystems not believed to be broken by quantum
algorithms, cf. [248]. At the core of Shor's factoring algorithm is order finding, which can be reduced to the Abelian
hidden subgroup problem, which is solved using the quantum Fourier transform. A number of other problems are
known to reduce to integer factorization including the membership problem for matrix groups over fields of odd
order [253], and certain diophantine problems relevant to the synthesis of quantum circuits [254].

Algorithm: Discrete-log
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: We are given three n-bit numbers a, b, and N, with the promise that b=asmodN for some s. The task is
to find s. As shown by Shor [82], this can be achieved on a quantum computer in poly(n) time. The fastest known
classical algorithm requires time superpolynomial in n. By similar techniques to those in [82], quantum computers
can solve the discrete logarithm problem on elliptic curves, thereby breaking elliptic curve cryptography [109, 14].
A further optimization to Shor's algorithm is given in [385]. The superpolynomial quantum speedup has also been
extended to the discrete logarithm problem on semigroups [203, 204]. See also Abelian Hidden Subgroup.

Algorithm: Pell's Equation

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Given a positive nonsquare integer d, Pell's equation is x2−dy2=1. For any such d there are infinitely
many pairs of integers (x,y) solving this equation. Let (x1,y1) be the pair that minimizes x+yd−−√. If d is an n-bit
integer (i.e. 0≤d<2n ), (x1,y1) may in general require exponentially many bits to write down. Thus it is in general
impossible to find (x1,y1) in polynomial time. Let R=log(x1+y1d−−√). ⌊R⌉ uniquely identifies (x1,y1). As shown by
Hallgren [49], given a n-bit number d, a quantum computer can find ⌊R⌉ in poly(n) time. No polynomial time
classical algorithm for this problem is known. Factoring reduces to this problem. This algorithm breaks the
Buchman-Williams cryptosystem. See also Abelian hidden subgroup.

Algorithm: Principal Ideal

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: We are given an n-bit integer d and an invertible ideal I of the ring Z[d−−√]. I is a principal ideal if
there exists α∈Q(d−−√) such that I=αZ[d−−√]. α may be exponentially large in d. Therefore α cannot in general
even be written down in polynomial time. However, ⌊logα⌉ uniquely identifies α. The task is to determine whether I
is principal and if so find ⌊logα⌉. As shown by Hallgren, this can be done in polynomial time on a quantum
computer [49]. A modified quantum algorithm for this problem using fewer qubits was given in [131]. A quantum
algorithm solving the principal ideal problem in number fields of arbitrary degree (i.e. scaling polynomially in the
degree) was subsequently given in [329]. Factoring reduces to solving Pell's equation, which reduces to the principal
ideal problem. Thus the principal ideal problem is at least as hard as factoring and therefore is probably not in P. See
also Abelian hidden subgroup.

Algorithm: Unit Group

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: The number field Q(θ) is said to be of degree d if the lowest degree polynomial of which θ is a root
has degree d. The set O of elements of Q(θ) which are roots of monic polynomials in Z[x] forms a ring, called the
ring of integers of Q(θ). The set of units (invertible elements) of the ring O form a group denoted O∗. As shown by
Hallgren [50], and independently by Schmidt and Vollmer [116], for any Q(θ) of fixed degree, a quantum computer
can find in polynomial time a set of generators for O∗ given a description of θ. No polynomial time classical
algorithm for this problem is known. Hallgren and collaborators subsequently discovered how to achieve polynomial
scaling in the degree [213]. See also [329]. The algorithms rely on solving Abelian hidden subgroup problems over
the additive group of real numbers.

Algorithm: Class Group

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: The number field Q(θ) is said to be of degree d if the lowest degree polynomial of which θ is a root
has degree d. The set O of elements of Q(θ) which are roots of monic polynomials in Z[x] forms a ring, called the
ring of integers of Q(θ). For a ring, the ideals modulo the prime ideals form a group called the class group. As
shown by Hallgren [50], a quantum computer can find in a set of generators for the class group of the ring of
integers of any constant degree number field, given a description of θ in time poly(log(|O|)). An improved quantum
algorithm, whose runtime is also polynomial in d was subsequently given in [329]. No polynomial time classical
algorithm for these problems are known. See also Abelian hidden subgroup.

Algorithm: Gauss Sums

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let Fq be a finite field. The elements other than zero of Fq form a group F×q under multiplication, and
the elements of Fq form an (Abelian but not necessarily cyclic) group F+q under addition. We can choose some
character χ× of F×q and some character χ+ of F+q. The corresponding Gauss sum is the inner product of these
characters: ∑x≠0∈Fqχ+(x)χ×(x) As shown by van Dam and Seroussi [90], Gauss sums can be estimated to
polynomial precision on a quantum computer in polynomial time. Although a finite ring does not form a group
under multiplication, its set of units does. Choosing a representation for the additive group of the ring, and choosing
a representation for the multiplicative group of its units, one can obtain a Gauss sum over the units of a finite ring.
These can also be estimated to polynomial precision on a quantum computer in polynomial time [90]. No
polynomial time classical algorithm for estimating Gauss sums is known. Discrete log reduces to Gauss sum
estimation [90]. Certain partition functions of the Potts model can be computed by a polynomial-time quantum
algorithm related to Gauss sum estimation [47].

Algorithm:Solving Exponential Congruences

Speedup:Polynomial
Description: We are given a,b,c,f,g∈Fq. We must find integers x,y such that afx+bgy=c. As shown in [111],
quantum computers can solve this problem in O˜(q3/8) time whereas the best classical algorithm requires O˜(q9/8)
time. The quantum algorithm of [111] is based on the quantum algorithms for discrete logarithms and searching.
Algorithm: Matrix Elements of Group Representations
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: All representations of finite groups and compact linear groups can be expressed as unitary matrices
given an appropriate choice of basis. Conjugating the regular representation of a group by the quantum Fourier
transform circuit over that group yields a direct sum of the group's irreducible representations. Thus, the efficient
quantum Fourier transform over the symmetric group [196], together with the Hadamard test, yields a fast quantum
algorithm for additively approximating individual matrix elements of the arbitrary irreducible representations of Sn.
Similarly, using the quantum Schur transform [197], one can efficiently approximate matrix elements of the
irreducible representations of SU(n) that have polynomial weight. Direct implementations of individual irreducible
representations for the groups U(n), SU(n), SO(n), and An by efficient quantum circuits are given in [106]. Instances
that appear to be exponentially hard for known classical algorithms are also identified in [106].

Algorithm: Verifying Matrix Products

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Given three n×n matrices, A,B, and C, the matrix product verification problem is to decide whether
AB=C. Classically, the best known algorithm achieves this in time O(n2), whereas the best known classical
algorithm for matrix multiplication runs in time O(n2.373). Ambainis et al. discovered a quantum algorithm for this
problem with runtime O(n7/4) [6]. Subsequently, Buhrman and Špalek improved upon this, obtaining a quantum
algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n5/3) [19]. This latter algorithm is based on results regarding quantum
walks that were proven in [85].

Algorithm: Subset-sum
Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Given a list of integers x1,…,xn, and a target integer s, the subset-sum problem is to determine
whether the sum of any subset of the given integers adds up to s. This problem is NP-complete, and therefore is
unlikely to be solvable by classical or quantum algorithms with polynomial worst-case complexity. In the hard
instances the given integers are of order 2n. In [178], a quantum algorithm is given that solves this problem in time
20.241n, up to polynomial factors. This quantum algorithm works by applying a variant of Ambainis's quantum
walk algorithm for element-distinctness [7]to speed up a sophisticated classical algorithm for this problem due to
Howgrave-Graham and Joux. The fastest known classical algorithm for subset-sum runs in time 20.291n, up to
polynomial factors.

Algorithm: Decoding
Speedup: Varies
Description: Classical error correcting codes allow the detection and correction of bit-flips by storing data
reduntantly. Maximum-likelihood decoding for arbitrary linear codes is NP-complete in the worst case, but for
structured codes or bounded error efficient decoding algorithms are known. Quantum algorithms have been
formulated to speed up the decoding of convolutional codes [238] and simplex codes [239].

Algorithm: Constraint Satisfaction

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Constraint satisfaction problems, many of which are NP-hard, are ubiquitous in computer science, a
canonical example being 3-SAT. If one wishes to satisfy as many constraints as possible rather than all of them,
these become combinatorial optimization problems. (See also entry on adiabatic algorithms.) The brute force
solution to constraint satisfaction problems can be quadratically sped up using Grover's algorithm. However, most
constaint satisfaction problems are solvable by classical algorithms that (although still exponential-time) run more
than quadratically faster than brute force checking of all possible solutions. Nevertheless, a polynomial quantum
speedup over the fastest known classical algorithm for 3-SAT is given in [133], and polynomial quantum speedups
for some other constraint satisfaction problems are given in [134, 298]. A commonly used classical algorithm for
constraint satisfaction is backtracking, and for some problems this algorithm is the fastest known. A general
quantum speedup for backtracking algorithms is given in [264].

Algorithm: Quantum Cryptanalysis

Speedup: Various
Description: It is well-known that Shor's algorithms for factoring and discrete logarithms [82,125] completely break
the RSA and Diffie-Hellman cryptosystems, as well as their elliptic-curve-based variants [109, 14]. (A number of
"post-quantum" public-key cryptosystems have been proposed to replace these primitives, which are not known to
be broken by quantum attacks.) Beyond Shor's algorithm, there is a growing body of work on quantum algorithms
specifically designed to attack cryptosystems. These generally fall into three categories. The first is quantum
algorithms providing polynomial or sub-exponential time attacks on cryptosystems under standard assumptions. In
particular, the algorithm of Childs, Jao, and Soukharev for finding isogenies of elliptic curves breaks certain elliptic
curve based cryptosystems in subexponential time that were not already broken by Shor's algorithm [283]. The
second category is quantum algorithms achieving polynomial improvement over known classical cryptanalytic
attacks by speeding up parts of these classical algorithms using Grover search, quantum collision finding, etc. Such
attacks on private-key [284, 285, 288, 315, 316] and public-key [262, 287] primitives, do not preclude the use of the
associated cryptosystems but may influence choice of key size. The third category is attacks that make use of
quantum superposition queries to block ciphers. These attacks in many cases completely break the cryptographic
primitives [286, 289, 290, 291, 292]. However, in most practical situations such superposition queries are unlikely to
be feasible.

Oracular Algorithms
Algorithm: Searching
Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are given an oracle with N allowed inputs. For one input w ("the winner") the corresponding
output is 1, and for all other inputs the corresponding output is 0. The task is to find w. On a classical computer this
requires Ω(N) queries. The quantum algorithm of Lov Grover achieves this using O(N−−√) queries [48], which is
optimal [216]. This has algorithm has subsequently been generalized to search in the presence of multiple "winners"
[15], evaluate the sum of an arbitrary function [15,16,73], find the global minimum of an arbitrary function [35,75,
255], take advantage of alternative initial states [100] or nonuniform probabilistic priors [123], work with oracles
whose runtime varies between inputs [138], approximate definite integrals [77], and converge to a fixed-point [208,
209]. The generalization of Grover's algorithm known as amplitude estimation [17] is now an important primitive in
quantum algorithms. Amplitude estimation forms the core of most known quantum algorithms related to collision
finding and graph properties. One of the natural applications for Grover search is speeding up the solution to NP-
complete problems such as 3-SAT. Doing so is nontrivial, because the best classical algorithm for 3-SAT is not
quite a brute force search. Nevertheless, amplitude amplification enables a quadratic quantum speedup over the best
classical 3-SAT algorithm, as shown in [133]. Quadratic speedups for other constraint satisfaction problems are
obtained in [134]. For further examples of application of Grover search and amplitude amplification see [261, 262].
A problem closely related to, but harder than, Grover search, is spatial search, in which database queries are limited
by some graph structure. On sufficiently well-connected graphs, O(n−−√) quantum query complexity is still
achievable [274,275,303, 304, 305, 306, 330].

Algorithm: Abelian Hidden Subgroup

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let G be a finitely generated Abelian group, and let H be some subgroup of G such that G/H is finite.
Let f be a function on G such that for any g1,g2∈G, f(g1)=f(g2) if and only if g1 and g2 are in the same coset of H.
The task is to find H (i.e. find a set of generators for H) by making queries to f. This is solvable on a quantum
computer using O(log|G|) queries, whereas classically Ω(|G|) are required. This algorithm was first formulated in full
generality by Boneh and Lipton in [14]. However, proper attribution of this algorithm is difficult because, as
described in chapter 5 of [76], it subsumes many historically important quantum algorithms as special cases,
including Simon's algorithm [108], which was the inspiration for Shor's period finding algorithm, which forms the
core of his factoring and discrete-log algorithms. The Abelian hidden subgroup algorithm is also at the core of the
Pell's equation, principal ideal, unit group, and class group algorithms. In certain instances, the Abelian hidden
subgroup problem can be solved using a single query rather than order log(|G|), as shown in [30].

Algorithm: Non-Abelian Hidden Subgroup

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let G be a finitely generated group, and let H be some subgroup of G that has finitely many left cosets.
Let f be a function on G such that for any g1,g2, f(g1)=f(g2) if and only if g1 and g2 are in the same left coset of H.
The task is to find H (i.e. find a set of generators for H) by making queries to f. This is solvable on a quantum
computer using O(log(|G|) queries, whereas classically Ω(|G|) are required [37,51]. However, this does not qualify as
an efficient quantum algorithm because in general, it may take exponential time to process the quantum states
obtained from these queries. Efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem are known for certain
specific non-Abelian groups [81,55,72,53,9,22,56,71,57,43,44,28,126,207,273]. A slightly outdated survey is given
in [69]. Of particular interest are the symmetric group and the dihedral group. A solution for the symmetric group
would solve graph isomorphism. A solution for the dihedral group would solve certain lattice problems [78]. Despite
much effort, no polynomial-time solution for these groups is known, except in special cases [312]. However,
Kuperberg [66] found a time 2O(logN√)) algorithm for finding a hidden subgroup of the dihedral group DN. Regev
subsequently improved this algorithm so that it uses not only subexponential time but also polynomial space [79]. A
further improvement in the asymptotic scaling of the required number of qubits is obtained in [218]. Quantum query
speedups (though not necessarily efficient quantum algorithms in terms of gate count) for somewhat more general
problems of testing for isomorphisms of functions under sets of permutations are given in [311]

Algorithm: Bernstein-Vazirani
Speedup: Polynomial Directly, Superpolynomial Recursively
Description: We are given an oracle whose input is n bits and whose output is one bit. Given input x∈{0,1}n, the
output is x⊙h, where h is the "hidden" string of n bits, and ⊙ denotes the bitwise inner product modulo 2. The task
is to find h. On a classical computer this requires n queries. As shown by Bernstein and Vazirani [11], this can be
achieved on a quantum computer using a single query. Furthermore, one can construct recursive versions of this
problem, called recursive Fourier sampling, such that quantum computers require exponentially fewer queries than
classical computers [11]. See [256, 257] for related work on the ubiquity of quantum speedups from generic
quantum circuits and [258, 270] for related work on a quantum query speedup for detecting correlations between the
an oracle function and the Fourier transform of another.

Algorithm: Deutsch-Jozsa
Speedup: Exponential over P, none over BPP
Description: We are given an oracle whose input is n bits and whose output is one bit. We are promised that out of
the 2n possible inputs, either all of them, none of them, or half of them yield output 1. The task is to distinguish the
balanced case (half of all inputs yield output 1) from the constant case (all or none of the inputs yield output 1). It
was shown by Deutsch [32] that for n=1, this can be solved on a quantum computer using one query, whereas any
deterministic classical algorithm requires two. This was historically the first well-defined quantum algorithm
achieving a speedup over classical computation. (A related, more recent, pedagogical example is given in [259].) A
single-query quantum algorithm for arbitrary n was developed by Deutsch and Jozsa in [33]. Although
probabilistically easy to solve with O(1) queries, the Deutsch-Jozsa problem has exponential worst case
deterministic query complexity classically.
Algorithm: Formula Evaluation
Speedup: Polynomial
Description: A Boolean expression is called a formula if each variable is used only once. A formula corresponds to
a circuit with no fanout, which consequently has the topology of a tree. By Reichardt's span-program formalism, it is
now known [158] that the quantum query complexity of any formula of O(1) fanin on N variables is Θ(N−−√). This
result culminates from a long line of work [27,8,80,159,160], which started with the discovery by Farhi et al. [38]
that NAND trees on 2n variables can be evaluated on quantum computers in time O(20.5n) using a continuous-time
quantum walk, whereas classical computers require Ω(20.753n) queries. In many cases, the quantum formula-
evaluation algorithms are efficient not only in query complexity but also in time-complexity. The span-program
formalism also yields quantum query complexity lower bounds [149]. Although originally discovered from a
different point of view, Grover's algorithm can be regarded as a special case of formula evaluation in which every
gate is OR. The quantum complexity of evaluating non-boolean formulas has also been studied [29], but is not as
fully understood. Childs et al. have generalized to the case in which input variables may be repeated (i.e. the first
layer of the circuit may include fanout) [101]. They obtained a quantum algorithm using O(min{N,S−−√,N1/2G1/4})
queries, where N is the number of input variables not including multiplicities, S is the number of inputs counting
multiplicities, and G is the number of gates in the formula. References [164], [165], and [269] consider special cases
of the NAND tree problem in which the number of NAND gates taking unequal inputs is limited. Some of these
cases yield superpolynomial separation between quantum and classical query complexity.

Algorithm: Gradients, Structured Search, and Learning Polynomials

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Suppose we are given a oracle for computing some smooth function f:Rd→R. The inputs and outputs
to f are given to the oracle with finitely many bits of precision. The task is to estimate ∇f at some specified point
x0∈Rd. As shown in [61], a quantum computer can achieve this using one query, whereas a classical computer
needs at least d+1 queries. In [20], Bulger suggested potential applications for optimization problems. As shown in
appendix D of [62], a quantum computer can use the gradient algorithm to find the minimum of a quadratic form in
d dimensions using O(d) queries, whereas, as shown in [94], a classical computer needs at least Ω(d2) queries.
Single query quantum algorithms for finding the minima of basins based on Hamming distance were given in
[147,148,223]. The quantum algorithm of [62] can also extract all d2 matrix elements of the quadratic form using
O(d) queries, and more generally, all dn nth derivatives of a smooth function of d variables in O(dn−1) queries. As
shown in [130,146], quadratic forms and multilinear polynomials in d variables over a finite field may be extracted
with a factor of d fewer quantum queries than are required classically.

Algorithm: Hidden Shift

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: We are given oracle access to some function f on ZN. We know that f(x) = g(x+s) where g is a known
function and s is an unknown shift. The hidden shift problem is to find s. By reduction from Grover's problem it is
clear that at least N−−√ queries are necessary to solve hidden shift in general. However, certain special cases of the
hidden shift problem are solvable on quantum computers using O(1) queries. In particular, van Dam et al. showed
that this can be done if f is a multiplicative character of a finite ring or field [89]. The previously discovered shifted
Legendre symbol algorithm [88,86] is subsumed as a special case of this, because the Legendre symbol (xp) is a
multiplicative character of Fp. No classical algorithm running in time O(polylog(N)) is known for these problems.
Furthermore, the quantum algorithm for the shifted Legendre symbol problem would break a certain cryptographic
pseudorandom generator given the ability to make quantum queries to the generator [89]. A quantum speedup for
hidden shift problems of difference sets is given in [312], and this also subsumes the Legendre symbol problem as a
special case. Roetteler has found exponential quantum speedups for finding hidden shifts of certain nonlinear
Boolean functions [105,130]. Building on this work, Gavinsky, Roetteler, and Roland have shown [142] that the
hidden shift problem on random boolean functions f:Zn2→Z2 has O(n) average case quantum complexity, whereas
the classical query complexity is Ω(2n/2). The results in [143], though they are phrased in terms of the hidden
subgroup problem for the dihedral group, imply that the quantum query complexity of the hidden shift problem for
an injective function on ZN is O(log n), whereas the classical query complexity is Θ(N−−√). However, the best
known quantum circuit complexity for injective hidden shift on ZN is O(2ClogN√), achieved by Kuperberg's sieve
algorithm [66].

Algorithm: Polynomial interpolation

Speedup: Constant factor
Description: Let p(x)=adxd+…+a1x+a0 be a polynomial over the finite field GF(q). One is given access to an
oracle that, given x∈GF(q), returns p(x). The polynomial interpolation problem is, by making queries to the oracle,
to determine the coefficients ad,…,a0. Classically, d+1 queries are necessary and sufficient. Quantumly, d/2+1/2
queries are necessary and d/2+1 queries are sufficient [360,361].

Algorithm: Pattern matching

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Given strings T of length n and P of length m < n, both from some finite alphabet, the pattern matching
problem is to find an occurrence of P as a substring of T or to report that P is not a substring of T. More generally, T
and P could be d-dimensional arrays rather than one-dimensional arrays (strings). Then, the pattern matching
problem is to return the location of P as a m×m×…×m block within the n×n×…×n array T or report that no such
location exists. The Ω(N−−√) query lower bound for unstructured search [216] implies that the worst-case quantum
query complexity of this problem is Ω(n−−√+m−−√). A quantum algorithm achieving this, up to logarithmic factors,
was obtained in [217]. This quantum algorithm works through the use of Grover's algorithm together with a classical
method called deterministic sampling. More recently, Montanaro showed that superpolynomial quantum speedup
can be achieved on average case instances of pattern matching, provided that m is greater than logarithmic in n.
Specifically, the quantum algorithm given in [215] solves average case pattern matching in
O˜((n/m)d/22O(d3/2logm√)) time. This quantum algorithm is constructed by generalizing Kuperberg's quantum
sieve algorithm [66] for dihedral hidden subgroup and hidden shift problems so that it can operate in d dimensions
and accomodate small amounts of noise, and then classically reducing the pattern matching problem to this noisy d-
dimensional version of hidden shift.

Algorithm: Linear Systems

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: We are given oracle access to an n×n matrix A and some description of a vector b. We wish to find
some property of f(A)b for some efficiently computable function f. Suppose A is a Hermitian matrix with O(polylog
n) nonzero entries in each row and condition number k. As shown in [104], a quantum computer can in O(k2logn)
time compute to polynomial precision various expectation values of operators with respect to the vector f(A)b
(provided that a quantum state proportional to b is efficiently constructable). For certain functions, such as f(x)=1/x,
this procedure can be extended to non-Hermitian and even non-square A. The runtime of this algorithm was
subsequently improved to O(klog3klogn) in [138]. Exponentially improved scaling of runtime with precision was
obtained in [263]. Extensions of this quantum algorithm have been applied to problems of estimating
electromagnetic scattering crossections [249] (see also [369] for a different approach), solving linear differential
equations [156, 296], estimating electrical resistance of networks [210], least-squares curve-fitting [169], solving
Toeplitz systems [297], and machine learning [214,222,250,251,309]. Some limitations of the quantum machine
learning algorithms based on linear systems are nicely summarized in [246]. In [220] it was shown that quantum
computers can invert well-conditioned n×n matrices using only O(logn) qubits, whereas the best classical algorithm
uses order log2n bits. Subsequent improvements to this quantum algorithm are given in [279].

Algorithm: Ordered Search

Speedup: Constant factor
Description: We are given oracle access to a list of N numbers in order from least to greatest. Given a number x, the
task is to find out where in the list it would fit. Classically, the best possible algorithm is binary search which takes
log2N queries. Farhi et al. showed that a quantum computer can achieve this using 0.53 log2N queries [39].
Currently, the best known deterministic quantum algorithm for this problem uses 0.433 log2N queries [103]. A
lower bound of ln2πlog2N quantum queries has been proven for this problem [219, 24]. In [10], a randomized
quantum algorithm is given whose expected query complexity is less than 13log2N.

Algorithm: Graph Properties in the Adjacency Matrix Model

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Let G be a graph of n vertices. We are given access to an oracle, which given a pair of integers in
{1,2,...,n} tells us whether the corresponding vertices are connected by an edge. Building on previous work
[35,52,36], Dürr et al. [34] show that the quantum query complexity of finding a minimum spanning tree of
weighted graphs, and deciding connectivity for directed and undirected graphs have Θ(n3/2) quantum query
complexity, and that finding lowest weight paths has O(n3/2log2n) quantum query complexity. Deciding whether a
graph is bipartite, detecting cycles, and deciding whether a given vertex can be reached from another (st-
connectivity) can all be achieved using a number of queries and quantum gates that both scale as O˜(n3/2), and only
logarithmically many qubits, as shown in [317], building upon [13, 272, 318]. A span-program-based quantum
algorithm for detecting trees of a given size as minors in O˜(n) time is given in [240]. A graph property is sparse if
there exists a constant c such that every graph with the property has a ratio of edges to vertices at most c. Childs and
Kothari have shown that all sparse graph properties have query complexity Θ(n2/3) if they cannot be characterized
by a list of forbidden subgraphs and o(n2/3) (little-o) if they can [140]. The former algorithm is based on Grover
search, the latter on the quantum walk formalism of [141]. By Mader's theorem, sparse graph properties include all
nontrivial minor-closed properties. These include planarity, being a forest, and not containing a path of given length.
According to the widely-believed Aanderaa-Karp-Rosenberg conjecture, all of the above problems have Ω(n2)
classical query complexity. Another interesting computational problem is finding a subgraph H in a given graph G.
The simplest case of this finding the triangle, that is, the clique of size three. The fastest known quantum algorithm
for this finds a triangle in O(n5/4) quantum queries [319], improving upon [276, 175, 171, 70, 152, 21]. Stronger
quantum query complexity upper bounds are known when the graphs are sufficiently sparse [319, 320]. Classically,
triangle finding requires Ω(n2) queries [21]. More generally, a quantum computer can find an arbitrary subgraph of
k vertices using O(n2−2/k−t) queries where t=(2k−d−3)/(k(d+1)(m+2)) and d and m are such that H has a vertex of
degree d and m+d edges [153]. This improves on the previous algorithm of [70]. In some cases, this query
complexity is beaten by the quantum algorithm of [140], which finds H using O˜(n32−1vc(H)+1) queries, provided
G is sparse, where vc(H) is the size of the minimal vertex cover of H. A quantum algorithm for finding constant-
sized sub-hypergraphs over 3-uniform hypergraphs in O(n1.883) queries is given in [241].

Algorithm: Graph Properties in the Adjacency List Model

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Let G be a graph of N vertices, M edges, and degree d. We are given access to an oracle which, when
queried with the label of a vertex and j∈{1,2,…,d} outputs the jth neighbor of the vertex or null if the vertex has
degree less than d. Suppose we are given the promise that G is either bipartite or is far from bipartite in the sense
that a constant fraction of the edges would need to be removed to achieve bipartiteness. Then, as shown in [144], the
quantum complexity of deciding bipartiteness is O˜(N1/3). Also in [144], it is shown that distinguishing expander
graphs from graphs that are far from being expanders has quantum complexity O˜(N1/3) and Ω˜(N1/4), whereas the
classical complexity is Θ˜(N−−√). The key quantum algorithmic tool is Ambainis' algorithm for element
distinctness. In [34], it is shown that finding a minimal spanning tree has quantum query complexity Θ(NM−−−−√),
deciding graph connectivity has quantum query complexity Θ(N) in the undirected case, and Θ˜(NM−−−−√) in the
directed case, and computing the lowest weight path from a given source to all other vertices on a weighted graph
has quantum query complexity Θ˜(NM−−−−√). In [317] quantum algorithms are given for st-connectivity, deciding
bipartiteness, and deciding whether a graph is a forest, which run in O˜(Nd−−√) time and use only logarithmically
many qubits.
Algorithm: Welded Tree
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Some computational problems can be phrased in terms of the query complexity of finding one's way
through a maze. That is, there is some graph G to which one is given oracle access. When queried with the label of a
given node, the oracle returns a list of the labels of all adjacent nodes. The task is, starting from some source node
(i.e. its label), to find the label of a certain marked destination node. As shown by Childs et al. [26], quantum
computers can exponentially outperform classical computers at this task for at least some graphs. Specifically,
consider the graph obtained by joining together two depth-n binary trees by a random "weld" such that all nodes but
the two roots have degree three. Starting from one root, a quantum computer can find the other root using poly(n)
queries, whereas this is provably impossible using classical queries.

Algorithm: Collision Finding and Element Distinctness

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Suppose we are given oracle access to a two to one function f on a domain of size N. The collision
problem is to find a pair x,y∈{1,2,…,N} such that f(x) = f(y). The classical randomized query complexity of this
problem is Θ(N−−√), whereas, as shown by Brassard et al., a quantum computer can achieve this using O(N1/3)
queries [18]. (See also [315].) Removing the promise that f is two-to-one yields a problem called element
distinctness, which has Θ(N) classical query complexity. Improving upon [21], Ambainis gives a quantum algorithm
with query complexity of O(N2/3) for element distinctness, which is optimal [7, 374]. The problem of deciding
whether any k-fold collisions exist is called k-distinctness. Improving upon [7,154], the best quantum query
complexity for k-distinctness is O(n3/4−1/(4(2k−1))) [172, 173]. For k=2,3 this is also the time-complexity, up to
logarithmic factors, by [7]. For k>3 the fastest known quantum algorithm has time complexity O(n(k−1)/k) [363].
Given two functions f and g, on domains of size N and M, respectively a claw is a pair x,y such that f(x) = g(y). In
the case that N=M, the algorithm of [7] solves claw-finding in O(N2/3) queries, improving on the previous
O(N3/4logN) quantum algorithm of [21]. Further work gives improved query complexity for various parameter
regimes in which N≠M [364, 365]. More generally, a related problem to element distinctness, is, given oracle access
to a sequence, to estimate the kth frequency moment Fk=∑jnkj, where nj is the number of times that j occurs in the
sequence. An approximately quadratic speedup for this problem is obtained in [277]. See also graph collision.

Algorithm: Graph Collision

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are given an undirected graph of n vertices and oracle access to a labelling of the vertices by 1 and
0. The graph collision problem is, by querying this oracle, to decide whether there exist a pair of vertices, connected
by an edge, both of which are labelled 1. One can embed Grover's unstructured search problem as an instance of
graph collision by choosing the star graph, labelling the center 1, and labelling the remaining vertices by the
database entries. Hence, this problem has quantum query complexity Ω(n−−√) and classical query complexity Θ(n).
In [70], Magniez, Nayak, and Szegedy gave a O(N2/3)-query quantum algorithm for graph collision on general
graphs. This remains the best upper bound on quantum query complexity for this problem on general graphs.
However, stronger upper bounds have been obtained for several special classes of graphs. Specifically, the quantum
query complexity on a graph G is O˜(n−−√+l√) where l is the number of non-edges in G [161], O(n−−√α1/6) where
α is the size of the largest independent set of G [172], O(n−−√+α∗−−√) where α∗ is the maximum total degree of
any independent set of G [200], and O(n−−√t1/6) where t is the treewidth of G [201]. Furthermore, the quantum
query complexity is O˜(n−−√) with high probability for random graphs in which the presence or absence of an edge
between each pair of vertices is chosen independently with fixed probability, (i.e. Erdős-Rényi graphs) [200]. See
[201] for a summary of these results as well as new upper bounds for two additional classes of graph that are too
complicated to describe here.

Algorithm: Matrix Commutativity

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are given oracle access to k matrices, each of which are n×n. Given integers i,j∈{1,2,…,n}, and
x∈{1,2,…,k} the oracle returns the ij matrix element of the xth matrix. The task is to decide whether all of these k
matrices commute. As shown by Itakura [54], this can be achieved on a quantum computer using O(k4/5n9/5)
queries, whereas classically this requires Ω(kn2) queries.

Algorithm: Group Commutativity

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are given a list of k generators for a group G and access to a blackbox implementing group
multiplication. By querying this blackbox we wish to determine whether the group is commutative. The best known
classical algorithm is due to Pak and requires O(k) queries. Magniez and Nayak have shown that the quantum query
complexity of this task is Θ˜(k2/3) [139].

Algorithm: Hidden Nonlinear Structures

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Any Abelian group G can be visualized as a lattice. A subgroup H of G is a sublattice, and the cosets
of H are all the shifts of that sublattice. The Abelian hidden subgroup problem is normally solved by obtaining
superposition over a random coset of the Hidden subgroup, and then taking the Fourier transform so as to sample
from the dual lattice. Rather than generalizing to non-Abelian groups (see non-Abelian hidden subgroup), one can
instead generalize to the problem of identifying hidden subsets other than lattices. As shown by Childs et al. [23]
this problem is efficiently solvable on quantum computers for certain subsets defined by polynomials, such as
spheres. Decker et al. showed how to efficiently solve some related problems in [31, 212].

Algorithm: Center of Radial Function

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are given an oracle that evaluates a function f from Rd to some arbitrary set S, where f is
spherically symmetric. We wish to locate the center of symmetry, up to some precision. (For simplicity, let the
precision be fixed.) In [110], Liu gives a quantum algorithm, based on a curvelet transform, that solves this problem
using a constant number of quantum queries independent of d. This constitutes a polynomial speedup over the
classical lower bound, which is Ω(d) queries. The algorithm works when the function f fluctuates on sufficiently
small scales, e.g., when the level sets of f are sufficiently thin spherical shells. The quantum algorithm is shown to
work in an idealized continuous model, and nonrigorous arguments suggest that discretization effects should be
small.

Algorithm: Group Order and Membership

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Suppose a finite group G is given oracularly in the following way. To every element in G, one assigns
a corresponding label. Given an ordered pair of labels of group elements, the oracle returns the label of their
product. There are several classically hard problems regarding such groups. One is to find the group's order, given
the labels of a set of generators. Another task is, given a bitstring, to decide whether it corresponds to a group
element. The constructive version of this membership problem requires, in the yes case, a decomposition of the
given element as a product of group generators. Classically, these problems cannot be solved using polylog(|G|)
queries even if G is Abelian. For Abelian groups, quantum computers can solve these problems using polylog(|G|)
queries by reduction to the Abelian hidden subgroup problem, as shown by Mosca [74]. Furthermore, as shown by
Watrous [91], quantum computers can solve these problems using polylog(|G|) queries for any solvable group. For
groups given as matrices over a finite field rather than oracularly, the order finding and constructive membership
problems can be solved in polynomial time by using the quantum algorithms for discrete log and factoring [124].
See also group isomorphism.
Algorithm: Group Isomorphism
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let G be a finite group. To every element of G is assigned an arbitrary label (bit string). Given an
ordered pair of labels of group elements, the group oracle returns the label of their product. Given access to the
group oracles for two groups G and G', and a list of generators for each group, we must decide whether G and G' are
isomorphic. For Abelian groups, we can solve this problem using poly(log |G|, log |G'|) queries to the oracle by
applying the quantum algorithm of [127], which decomposes any Abelian group into a canonical direct product of
cyclic groups. The quantum algorithm of [128] solves the group isomorphism problem using poly(log |G|, log |G'|)
queries for a certain class of non-Abelian groups. Specifically, a group G is in this class if G has a normal Abelian
subgroup A and an element y of order coprime to |A| such that G = A, y. Zatloukal has recently given an exponential
quantum speedup for some instances of a problem closely related to group isomorphism, namely testing equivalence
of group extensions [202].

Algorithm: Statistical Difference

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Suppose we are given two black boxes A and B whose domain is the integers 1 through T and whose
range is the integers 1 through N. By choosing uniformly at random among allowed inputs we obtain a probability
distribution over the possible outputs. We wish to approximate to constant precision the L1 distance between the
probability distributions determined by A and B. Classically the number of necessary queries scales essentially
linearly with N. As shown in [117], a quantum computer can achieve this using O(N−−√) queries. Approximate
uniformity and orthogonality of probability distributions can also be decided on a quantum computer using O(N1/3)
queries. The main tool is the quantum counting algorithm of [16]. A further improved quantum algorithm for this
task is obtained in [265].

Algorithm: Finite Rings and Ideals

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Suppose we are given black boxes implementing the addition and multiplication operations on a finite
ring R, not necessarily commutative, along with a set of generators for R. With respect to addition, R forms a finite
Abelian group (R,+). As shown in [119], on a quantum computer one can find in poly(log |R|) time a set of additive
generators {h1,…,hm}⊂R such that (R,+)≃⟨h1⟩×…×⟨hM⟩ and m is polylogarithmic in |R|. This allows efficient
computation of a multiplication tensor for R. As shown in [118], one can similarly find an additive generating set for
any ideal in R. This allows one to find the intersection of two ideals, find their quotient, prove whether a given ring
element belongs to a given ideal, prove whether a given element is a unit and if so find its inverse, find the additive
and multiplicative identities, compute the order of an ideal, solve linear equations over rings, decide whether an
ideal is maximal, find annihilators, and test the injectivity and surjectivity of ring homomorphisms. As shown in
[120], one can also use a quantum computer to efficiently decide whether a given polynomial is identically zero on a
given finite black box ring. Known classical algorithms for these problems scale as poly(|R|).

Algorithm: Counterfeit Coins

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Suppose we are given N coins, k of which are counterfeit. The real coins are all of equal weight, and
the counterfeit coins are all of some other equal weight. We have a pan balance and can compare the weight of any
pair of subsets of the coins. Classically, we need Ω(klog(N/k)) weighings to identify all of the counterfeit coins. We
can introduce an oracle such that given a pair of subsets of the coins of equal cardinality, it outputs one bit indicating
balanced or unbalanced. Building on previous work by Terhal and Smolin [137], Iwama et al. have shown [136] that
on a quantum computer, one can identify all of the counterfeit coins using O(k1/4) queries. The core techniques
behind the quantum speedup are amplitude amplification and the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm.

Algorithm: Matrix Rank

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: Suppose we are given oracle access to the (integer) entries of an n×m matrix A. We wish to determine
the rank of the matrix. Classically this requires order nm queries. Building on [149], Belovs [150] gives a quantum
algorithm that can use fewer queries given a promise that the rank of the matrix is at least r. Specifically, Belovs'
algorithm uses O(r(n−r+1)−−−−−−−−−−√LT) queries, where L is the root-mean-square of the reciprocals of the r
largest singular values of A and T is a factor that depends on the sparsity of the matrix. For general A,
T=O(nm−−−√). If A has at most k nonzero entries in any row or column then T=O(klog(n+m)). (To achieve the
corresponding query complexity in the k-sparse case, the oracle must take a column index as input, and provide a list
of the nonzero matrix elements from that column as output.) As an important special case, one can use these
quantum algorithms for the problem of determining whether a square matrix is singular, which is sometimes referred
to as the determinant problem. For general A the quantum query complexity of the determinant problem is no lower
than the classical query complexity [151]. However, [151] does not rule out a quantum speedup given a promise on
A, such as sparseness or lack of small singular values.

Algorithm: Matrix Multiplication over Semirings

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: A semiring is a set endowed with addition and multiplication operations that obey all the axioms of a
ring except the existence additive inverses. Matrix multiplication over various semirings has many applications to
graph problems. Matrix multiplication over semirings can be sped up by straightforward Grover improvements upon
schoolbook multiplication, yielding a quantum algorithm that multiplies a pair of n×n matrices in O˜(n5/2) time. For
some semirings this algorithm outperforms the fastest known classical algorithms and for some semirings it does not
[206]. A case of particular interest is the Boolean semiring, in which OR serves as addition and AND serves as
multiplication. No quantum algorithm is known for Boolean semiring matrix multiplication in the general case that
beats the best classical algorithm, which has complexity n2.373. However, for sparse input our output, quantum
speedups are known. Specifically, let A,B be n by n Boolean matrices. Let C=AB, and let l be the number of entries
of C that are equal to 1 (i.e. TRUE). Improving upon [19, 155, 157], the best known upper bound on quantum query
complexity is O˜(nl√), as shown in [161]. If instead the input matrices are sparse, a quantum speedup over the fastest
known classical algorithm also has been found in a certain regime [206]. For detailed comparison to classical
algorithms, see [155, 206]. Quantum algorithms have been found to perform matrix multiplication over the
(max,min) semiring in O˜(n2.473) time and over the distance dominance semiring in O˜(n2.458) time [206]. The
fastest known classical algorithm for both of these problems has O˜(n2.687) complexity.

Algorithm: Subset finding

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: We are oracle access to a function f:D→R where D and R are finite sets. Some property P⊂(D×R)k is
specified, for example as an explicit list. Our task is to find a size-k subset of D satisfying P, i.e.
((x1,f(x1)),…,(xk,f(xk)))∈P, or reject if none exists. As usual, we wish to do this with the minimum number of
queries to f. Generalizing the result of [7], it was shown in [162] that this can be achieved using O(|D|k/(k+1))
quantum queries. As an noteworthy special case, this algorithm solves the k-subset-sum problem of finding k
numbers from a list with some desired sum. A matching lower bound for the quantum query complexity is proven in
[163].

Algorithm: Search with Wildcards

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: The search with wildcards problem is to identify a hidden n-bit string x by making queries to an oracle
f. Given S⊆{1,2,…,n} and y∈{0,1}|S|, f returns one if the substring of x specified by S is equal to y, and returns zero
otherwise. Classically, this problem has query complexity Θ(n). As shown in [167], the quantum query complexity
of this problem is Θ(n−−√). Interestingly, this quadratic speedup is achieved not through amplitude amplification or
quantum walks, but rather through use of the so-called Pretty Good Measurement. The paper [167] also gives a
quantum speedup for the related problem of combinatorial group testing. This result and subsequent faster quantum
algorithms for group testing are discussed in the entry on Junta Testing and Group Testing.

Algorithm: Network flows

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: A network is a directed graph whose edges are labeled with numbers indicating their carrying
capacities, and two of whose vertices are designated as the source and the sink. A flow on a network is an
assignment of flows to the edges such that no flow exceeds that edge's capacity, and for each vertex other than the
source and sink, the total inflow is equal to the total outflow. The network flow problem is, given a network, to find
the flow that maximizes the total flow going from source to sink. For a network with n vertices, m edges, and integer
capacities of maximum magnitude U, [168] gives a quantum algorithm to find the maximal flow in time
O(min{n7/6m−−√ U1/3,nU−−−√m}×logn). The network flow problem is closely related to the problem of finding a
maximal matching of a graph, that is, a maximal-size subset of edges that connects each vertex to at most one other
vertex. The paper [168] gives algorithms for finding maximal matchings that run in time O(nm+n−−−−−√logn) if the
graph is bipartite, and O(n2(m/n−−−−√+logn)logn) in the general case. The core of these algorithms is Grover
search. The known upper bounds on classical complexity of the network flow and matching problems are
complicated to state because different classical algorithms are preferable in different parameter regimes. However,
in certain regimes, the above quantum algorithms beat all known classical algorithms. (See [168] for details.)

Algorithm: Electrical Resistance

Speedup: Exponential
Description: We are given oracle access to a weighted graph of n vertices and maximum degree d whose edge
weights are to be interpreted as electrical resistances. Our task is to compute the resistance between a chosen pair of
vertices. Wang gave two quantum algorithms in [210] for this task that run in time poly(logn,d,1/ϕ,1/ϵ), where ϕ is
the expansion of the graph, and the answer is to be given to within a factor of 1+ϵ. Known classical algorithms for
this problem are polynomial in n rather than logn. One of Wang's algorithms is based on a novel use of quantum
walks. The other is based on the quantum algorithm of [104] for solving linear systems of equations. The first
quantum query complexity upper bounds for the electrical resistance problem in the adjacency query model are
given in [280] using approximate span programs.

Algorithm: Machine Learning

Speedup: Varies
Description: Maching learning encompasses a wide variety of computational problems and can be attacked by a
wide variety of algorithmic techniques. This entry summarizes quantum algorithmic techniques for improved
machine learning. Many of the quantum algorithms here are cross-listed under other headings. In
[214,222,250,251,309,338,339,359], quantum algorithms for solving linear systems [104] are applied to speed up
cluster-finding, principal component analysis, binary classification, and various forms of regression, provided the
data satisfies certain conditions. In [222], these quantum algorithms for linear systems are applied to speed up the
characterization of persistent homology from data sets. A cluster-finding method not based on the linear systems
algorithm of [104] is given in [336]. The papers [192,195,344,345,346,347,348] explore the use of adiabatic
optimization techniques to speed up the training of classifiers. In [221], a method is proposed for training Boltzmann
machines by manipulating coherent quantum states with amplitudes proportional to the Boltzmann weights.
Polynomial speedups can be obtained by applying Grover search and related techniques such as amplitude
amplification to amenable subroutines of state of the art classical machine learning algorithms. See, for example
[358,340,341,342,343]. Other quantum machine learning algorithms not falling into one of the above categories
include [337,349]. Some limitations of quantum machine learning algorithms are nicely summarized in [246]. Many
other quantum query algorithms that extract hidden structure of the black-box function could be cast as machine
learning algorithms. See for example [146,23,11,31,212]. Query algorithms for learning the majority and
"battleship" functions are given in [224]. Large quantum advantages for learning from noisy oracles are given in
[236,237]. Several recent review articles [299,332,333] and a book [331] are available which summarize the state of
the field. There is a related body of work, not strictly within the standard setting of quantum algorithms, regarding
quantum learning in the case that the data itself is quantum coherent. See e.g.
[350,334,335,351,352,353,354,355,356,357].

Algorithm: Junta Testing and Group Testing

Speedup: Polynomial
Description: A function f:{0,1}n→{0,1} is a k-junta if it depends on at most k of its input bits. The k-junta testing
problem is to decide whether a given function is a k-junta or is ϵ-far from any k-junta. Althoug it is not obvious, this
problem is closely related to group testing. A group testing problem is defined by a function f:{1,2,…,n}→{0,1}.
One is given oracle access to F, which takes as input subsets of {1,2,…,n}. F(S) = 1 if there exists x∈S such that f(x)
= 1 and F(S) = 0 otherwise. In [266] a quantum algorithm is given solving the k-junta problem using O˜(k/ϵ−−−√)
queries and O˜(nk/ϵ−−−√) time. This is a quadratic speedup over the classical complexity, and improves upon a
previous quantum algorithm for k-junta testing given in [267]. A polynomial speedup for a gapped (i.e.
approximation) version of group testing is also given in [266], improving upon the earlier results of [167,268].

Approximation and Simulation Algorithms

Algorithm: Quantum Simulation
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: It is believed that for any physically realistic Hamiltonian H on n degrees of freedom, the
corresponding time evolution operator e−iHt can be implemented using poly(n,t) gates. Unless BPP=BQP, this
problem is not solvable in general on a classical computer in polynomial time. Many techniques for quantum
simulation have been developed for general classes of Hamiltonians
[25,95,92,5,12,170,205,211,244,245,278,293,294,295,372,382], chemical dynamics [63,68,227,310,375], condensed
matter physics [1,99, 145], relativistic quantum mechanics (the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations)
[367,369,370,371], open quantum systems [376, 377,378,379], and quantum field theory
[107,166,228,229,230,368]. The exponential complexity of classically simulating quantum systems led Feynman to
first propose that quantum computers might outperform classical computers on certain tasks [40]. Although the
problem of finding ground energies of local Hamiltonians is QMA-complete and therefore probably requires
exponential time on a quantum computer in the worst case, quantum algorithms have been developed to approximate
ground [102,231,232,233,234,235,308,321,322,380,381] and thermal [132,121,281,282,307] states for some classes
of Hamiltonians. Efficient quantum algorithms have been also obtained for preparing certain classes of tensor
network states [323,324,325,326,327,328].

Algorithm: Knot Invariants

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: As shown by Freedman [42, 41], et al., finding a certain additive approximation to the Jones
polynomial of the plat closure of a braid at ei2π/5 is a BQP-complete problem. This result was reformulated and
extended to ei2π/k for arbitrary k by Aharonov et al. [4,2]. Wocjan and Yard further generalized this, obtaining a
quantum algorithm to estimate the HOMFLY polynomial [93], of which the Jones polynomial is a special case.
Aharonov et al. subsequently showed that quantum computers can in polynomial time estimate a certain additive
approximation to the even more general Tutte polynomial for planar graphs [3]. It is not fully understood for what
range of parameters the approximation obtained in [3] is BQP-hard. (See also partition functions.) Polynomial-time
quantum algorithms have also been discovered for additively approximating link invariants arising from quantum
doubles of finite groups [174]. (This problem is not known to be BQP-hard.) As shown in [83], the problem of
finding a certain additive approximation to the Jones polynomial of the trace closure of a braid at ei2π/5 is DQC1-
complete.
Algorithm: Three-manifold Invariants
Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: The Turaev-Viro invariant is a function that takes three-dimensional manifolds as input and produces a
real number as output. Homeomorphic manifolds yield the same number. Given a three-manifold specified by a
Heegaard splitting, a quantum computer can efficiently find a certain additive approximation to its Turaev-Viro
invariant, and this approximation is BQP-complete [129]. Earlier, in [114], a polynomial-time quantum algorithm
was given to additively approximate the Witten-Reshitikhin-Turaev (WRT) invariant of a manifold given by a
surgery presentation. Squaring the WRT invariant yields the Turaev-Viro invariant. However, it is unknown whether
the approximation achieved in [114] is BQP-complete. A suggestion of a possible link between quantum
computation and three-manifold invariants was also given in [115].

Algorithm: Partition Functions

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: For a classical system with a finite set of states S the partition function is Z=∑s∈Se−E(s)/kT, where T
is the temperature and k is Boltzmann's constant. Essentially every thermodynamic quantity can be calculated by
taking an appropriate partial derivative of the partition function. The partition function of the Potts model is a special
case of the Tutte polynomial. A quantum algorithm for approximating the Tutte polynomial is given in [3]. Some
connections between these approaches are discussed in [67]. Additional algorithms for estimating partition functions
on quantum computers are given in [112,113,45,47]. A BQP-completeness result (where the "energies" are allowed
to be complex) is also given in [113]. A method for approximating partition functions by simulating thermalization
processes is given in [121]. A quadratic speedup for the approximation of general partition functions is given in
[122]. A method based on quantum walks, achieving polynomial speedup for evaluating partition functions is given
in [265].

Algorithm: Adiabatic Algorithms

Speedup: Unknown
Description: In adiabatic quantum computation one starts with an initial Hamiltonian whose ground state is easy to
prepare, and slowly varies the Hamiltonian to one whose ground state encodes the solution to some computational
problem. By the adiabatic theorem, the system will track the instantaneous ground state provided the variation of the
Hamiltonian is sufficiently slow. The runtime of an adiabatic algorithm scales at worst as 1/γ3 where γ is the
minimum eigenvalue gap between the ground state and the first excited state [185]. If the Hamiltonian is varied
sufficiently smoothly, one can improve this to O˜(1/γ2) [247]. Adiabatic quantum computation was first proposed by
Farhi et al. as a method for solving NP-complete combinatorial optimization problems [96, 186]. Adiabatic quantum
algorithms for optimization problems typically use "stoquastic" Hamiltonians, which do not suffer from the sign
problem. Such algorithms are sometimes referred to as quantum annealing. Adiabatic quantum computation with
non-stoquastic Hamiltonians is as powerful as the quantum circuit model [97]. Adiabatic algorithms using stoquastic
Hamiltonians are probably less powerful [183], but may be nevertheless more powerful than classical computation.
The asymptotic runtime of adiabatic optimization algorithms is notoriously difficult to analyze, but some progress
has been achieved [179,180,181,182,187,188,189,190,191,226]. (Also relevant is an earlier literature on quantum
annealing, which originally referred to a classical optimization algorithm that works by simulating a quantum
process, much as simulated annealing is a classical optimization algorithm that works by simulating a thermal
process. See e.g. [199, 198].) Adiabatic quantum computers can perform a process somewhat analogous to Grover
search in O(N−−√) time [98]. Adiabatic quantum algorithms achieving quadratic speedup for a more general class of
problems are constructed in [184] by adapting techniques from [85]. Adiabatic quantum algorithms have been
proposed for several specific problems, including PageRank [176], machine learning [192, 195], and graph problems
[193, 194]. Some quantum simulation algorithms also use adiabatic state preparation.

Algorithm: Quantum Approximate Optimization

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: For many combinatorial optimization problems, finding the exact optimal solution is NP-complete.
There are also hardness-of-approximation results proving that finding an approximation with sufficiently small error
bound is NP-complete. For certain problems there is a gap between the best error bound achieved by a polynomial-
time classical approximation algorithm and the error bound proven to be NP-hard. In this regime there is potential
for exponential speedup by quantum computation. In [242] a new quantum algorithmic technique called the
Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) was proposed for finding approximate solutions to
combinatorial optimization problems. In [243] it was subsequently shown that QAOA solves a combinatorial
optimization problem called Max E3LIN2 with a better approximation ratio than any polynomial-time classical
algorithm known at the time. However, an efficient classical algorithm achieving an even better approximation ratio
(in fact, the approximation ratio saturating the limit set by hardness-of-approximation) was subsequently discovered
[260]. Presently, the power of QAOA relative to classical computing is an active area of research [300, 301, 302,
314].

Algorithm: Semidefinite Programming

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Given a list of m + 1 Hermitian n×n matrices C,A1,A2,…,Am and m numbers b1,…,bm, the problem of
semidefinite programming is to find the positive semidefinite n×n matrix X that maximizes tr(CX) subject to the
constraints tr(AjX)≤bj for j=1,2,…,m. Semidefinite programming has many applications in operations research,
combinatorial optimization, and quantum information, and it includes linear programming as a special case.
Improving upon [313], a quantum algorithm is given in [383] that approximately solves semidefinite programs to
within ±ϵ in time O˜(m−−√logm⋅poly(logn,r,ϵ−1)), where r is the rank of the semidefinite program. This constitutes
a quadratic speedup over the fastest classical algorithms when r is small compared to n. The quantum algorithm is
based on amplitude amplification and quantum Gibbs sampling [121, 307].

Algorithm: Zeta Functions

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let f(x,y) be a degree-d polynomial over a finite field Fp. Let Nr be the number of projective solutions
to f(x,y = 0 over the extension field Fpr. The zeta function for f is defined to be Zf(T)=exp(∑∞r=1NrrTr).
Remarkably, Zf(T) always has the form Zf(T)=Qf(T)(1−pT)(1−T) where Qf(T) is a polynomial of degree 2g and
g=12(d−1)(d−2) is called the genus of f. Given Zf(T) one can easily compute the number of zeros of f over any
extension field Fpr. One can similarly define the zeta function when the original field over which f is defined does
not have prime order. As shown by Kedlaya [64], quantum computers can determine the zeta function of a genus g
curve over a finite field Fpr in poly(logp,r,g) time. The fastest known classical algorithms are all exponential in
either log(p) or g. In a diffent, but somewhat related contex, van Dam has conjectured that due to a connection
between the zeros of Riemann zeta functions and the eigenvalues of certain quantum operators, quantum computers
might be able to efficiently approximate the number of solutions to equations over finite fields [87].

Algorithm: Weight Enumerators

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Let C be a code on n bits, i.e. a subset of Zn2. The weight enumerator of C is SC(x,y)=∑c∈Cx|c|yn−|c|
where |c| denotes the Hamming weight of c. Weight enumerators have many uses in the study of classical codes. If C
is a linear code, it can be defined by C={c:Ac=0} where A is a matrix over Z2 In this case
SC(x,y)=∑c:Ac=0x|c|yn−|c|. Quadratically signed weight enumerators (QWGTs) are a generalization of this:
S(A,B,x,y)=∑c:Ac=0(−1)cTBcx|c|yn−|c|. Now consider the following special case. Let A be an n×n matrix over Z2
such that diag(A)=I. Let lwtr(A) be the lower triangular matrix resulting from setting all entries above the diagonal in
A to zero. Let l,k be positive integers. Given the promise that |S(A,lwtr(A),k,l)|≥12(k2+l2)n/2 the problem of
determining the sign of S(A,lwtr(A),k,l) is BQP-complete, as shown by Knill and Laflamme in [65]. The evaluation
of QWGTs is also closely related to the evaluation of Ising and Potts model partition functions [67,45,46].
Algorithm: Simulated Annealing
Speedup: Polynomial
Description: In simulated annealing, one has a series of Markov chains defined by stochastic matrices
M1,M2,…,Mn. These are slowly varying in the sense that their limiting distributions pi1,π2,…,πn satisfy |πt+1−πt|<ϵ
for some small ϵ. These distributions can often be thought of as thermal distributions at successively lower
temperatures. If π1 can be easily prepared, then by applying this series of Markov chains one can sample from πn.
Typically, one wishes for πn to be a distribution over good solutions to some optimization problem. Let δi be the gap
between the largest and second largest eigenvalues of Mi. Let δ=miniδi. The run time of this classical algorithm is
proportional to 1/δ. Building upon results of Szegedy [135,85], Somma et al. have shown [84, 177] that quantum
computers can sample from πn with a runtime proportional to 1/δ√. Additional methods by which classical Markov
chain Monte Carlo algorithms can be sped up using quantum walks are given in [265].

Algorithm: String Rewriting

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: String rewriting is a fairly general model of computation. String rewriting systems (sometimes called
grammars) are specified by a list of rules by which certain substrings are allowed to be replaced by certain other
substrings. For example, context free grammars, are equivalent to the pushdown automata. In [59], Janzing and
Wocjan showed that a certain string rewriting problem is PromiseBQP-complete. Thus quantum computers can
solve it in polynomial time, but classical computers probably cannot. Given three strings s,t,t', and a set of string
rewriting rules satisfying certain promises, the problem is to find a certain approximation to the difference between
the number of ways of obtaining t from s and the number of ways of obtaining t' from s. Similarly, certain problems
of approximating the difference in number of paths between pairs of vertices in a graph, and difference in transition
probabilities between pairs of states in a random walk are also BQP-complete [58].

Algorithm: Matrix Powers

Speedup: Superpolynomial
Description: Quantum computers have an exponential advantage in approximating matrix elements of powers of
exponentially large sparse matrices. Suppose we are have an N×N symmetric matrix A such that there are at most
polylog(N) nonzero entries in each row, and given a row index, the set of nonzero entries can be efficiently
computed. The task is, for any 1 < i < N, and any m polylogarithmic in N, to approximate (Am)ii the ith diagonal
matrix element of Am. The approximation is additive to within bmϵ where b is a given upper bound on |A| and ϵ is of
order 1/polylog(N). As shown by Janzing and Wocjan, this problem is PromiseBQP-complete, as is the
corresponding problem for off-diagonal matrix elements [60]. Thus, quantum computers can solve it in polynomial
time, but classical computers probably cannot.

Acknowledgments
I thank the following people for contributing their expertise (in chronological order).

• Daniel Lidar
• Wim van Dam
• Geordie Rose
• Yi-Kai Liu
• Robin Kothari
• Martin Schwarz
• Dorit Aharonov
• Alessandro Cosentino
• Andrew Childs
 • Stacey Jeffery
• Lov Grover
• Eduin H. Serna
• Charles Greathouse
• Juan Bermejo-Vega
• Luis Kowada
• Keith Britt
• Aram Harrow
• Zafer Gedik
• David Cornwell
• Cedric Lin
• Shelby Kimmel
• Jeremy Singer
• Dan Boneh
• Rich Schroeppel
• Yuan Su
• Tim Stevens
• Martin Ekerå

References
1

Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd

Simulation of many-body Fermi systems on a universal quantum computer.
Physical Review Letters, 79(13):2586-2589, 1997.
arXiv:quant-ph/9703054

2
Dorit Aharonov and Itai Arad
The BQP-hardness of approximating the Jones polynomial.
New Journal of Physics 13:035019, 2011.
arXiv:quant-ph/0605181

3
Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Elad Eban, and Zeph Landau
Polynomial quantum algorithms for additive approximations of the Potts model and other points of the
Tutte plane.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702008, 2007.

4
Dorit Aharonov, Vaughan Jones, and Zeph Landau
A polynomial quantum algorithm for approximating the Jones polynomial.
In Proceedings of the 38th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2006.
arXiv:quant-ph/0511096

5
Dorit Aharonov and Amnon Ta-Shma
Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge.
 In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2003.
arXiv:quant-ph/0301023.

6
A. Ambainis, H. Buhrman, P. Høyer, M. Karpinizki, and P. Kurur
Quantum matrix verification.
Unpublished Manuscript, 2002.

7
Andris Ambainis
Quantum walk algorithm for element distinctness.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 37:210-239, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0311001

8
Andris Ambainis, Andrew M. Childs, Ben W.Reichardt, Robert Špalek, and Shengyu Zheng
Every AND-OR formula of size N can be evaluated in time n1/2+o(1)

on a quantum computer.
In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 363-372,
2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0703015 and arXiv:0704.3628

9
Dave Bacon, Andrew M. Childs, and Wim van Dam
From optimal measurement to efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over
semidirect product groups.
In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 469-478, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0504083

10
Michael Ben-Or and Avinatan Hassidim
Quantum search in an ordered list via adaptive learning.
arXiv:quant-ph/0703231, 2007.

11
Ethan Bernstein and Umesh Vazirani
Quantum complexity theory.
In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 11-20, 1993.

12
D.W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders
Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians.
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 270(2):359-371, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0508139

13
A. Berzina, A. Dubrovsky, R. Frivalds, L. Lace, and O. Scegulnaja
Quantum query complexity for some graph problems.
 In Proceedings of the 30th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practive of Computer Science,
pages 140-150, 2004.

14
D. Boneh and R. J. Lipton
Quantum cryptanalysis of hidden linear functions.
In Don Coppersmith, editor, CRYPTO '95, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 424-437. Springer-
Verlag, 1995.

15
M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp
Tight bounds on quantum searching.
Fortschritte der Physik, 46:493-505, 1998.

16
G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp
Quantum counting.
arXiv:quant-ph/9805082, 1998.

17
Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp
Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation.
In Samuel J. Lomonaco Jr. and Howard E. Brandt, editors, Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information: A Millennium Volume, volume 305 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series. American
Mathematical Society, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0005055

18
Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp
Quantum algorithm for the collision problem.
ACM SIGACT News, 28:14-19, 1997.
arXiv:quant-ph/9705002

19
Harry Buhrman and Robert Špalek
Quantum verification of matrix products.
In Proceedings of the 17th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 880-889, 2006.
arXiv:quant-ph/0409035

20
David Bulger
Quantum basin hopping with gradient-based local optimisation.
arXiv:quant-ph/0507193, 2005.

21
Harry Burhrman, Christoph Dürr, Mark Heiligman, Peter Høyer, Frédéric Magniez, Miklos Santha, and
Ronald de Wolf
Quantum algorithms for element distinctness.
 In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 131-137, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0007016

22
Dong Pyo Chi, Jeong San Kim, and Soojoon Lee
Notes on the hidden subgroup problem on some semi-direct product groups.
Phys. Lett. A 359(2):114-116, 2006.
arXiv:quant-ph/0604172

23
A. M. Childs, L. J. Schulman, and U. V. Vazirani
Quantum algorithms for hidden nonlinear structures.
In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 395-404, 2007.
arXiv:0705.2784

24
Andrew Childs and Troy Lee
Optimal quantum adversary lower bounds for ordered search.
Proceedings of ICALP 2008
arXiv:0708.3396

25
Andrew M. Childs
Quantum information processing in continuous time.
PhD thesis, MIT, 2004.

26
Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Enrico Deotto, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel A. Spielman
Exponential algorithmic speedup by quantum walk.
In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 59-68, 2003.
arXiv:quant-ph/0209131

27
Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Stephen P. Jordan, and David Yeung
Discrete-query quantum algorithm for NAND trees.
Theory of Computing, 5:119-123, 2009.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702160

28
Andrew M. Childs and Wim van Dam
Quantum algorithm for a generalized hidden shift problem.
In Proceedings of the 18th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1225-1232, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0507190.

29
Richard Cleve, Dmitry Gavinsky, and David L. Yeung
Quantum algorithms for evaluating MIN-MAX trees.
In Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography, pages 11-15,
 Springer, 2008. (LNCS Vol. 5106)
arXiv:0710.5794.

30
J. Niel de Beaudrap, Richard Cleve, and John Watrous
Sharp quantum versus classical query complexity separations.
Algorithmica, 34(4):449-461, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0011065v2.

31
Thomas Decker, Jan Draisma, and Pawel Wocjan
Quantum algorithm for identifying hidden polynomials.
Quantum Information and Computation, 9(3):215-230, 2009.
arXiv:0706.1219.

32
David Deutsch
Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle, and the universal quantum computer.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 400:97-117, 1985.

33
David Deutsch and Richard Jozsa
Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 493:553-558, 1992.

34
Christoph Dürr, Mark Heiligman, Peter Høyer, and Mehdi Mhalla
Quantum query complexity of some graph problems.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(6):1310-1328, 2006.
arXiv:quant-ph/0401091.

35
Christoph Dürr and Peter Høyer
A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum.
arXiv:quant-ph/9607014, 1996.

36
Christoph Dürr, Mehdi Mhalla, and Yaohui Lei
Quantum query complexity of graph connectivity.
arXiv:quant-ph/0303169, 2003.

37
Mark Ettinger, Peter Høyer, and Emanuel Knill
The quantum query complexity of the hidden subgroup problem is polynomial.
Information Processing Letters, 91(1):43-48, 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0401083.

38
 Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann
A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree.
Theory of Computing 4:169-190, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702144.

39
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser
Invariant quantum algorithms for insertion into an ordered list.
arXiv:quant-ph/9901059, 1999.

40
Richard P. Feynman
Simulating physics with computers.
International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6/7):467-488, 1982.

41
Michael Freedman, Alexei Kitaev, and Zhenghan Wang
Simulation of topological field theories by quantum computers.
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 227:587-603, 2002.

42
Michael Freedman, Michael Larsen, and Zhenghan Wang
A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation.
Comm. Math. Phys. 227(3):605-622, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0001108.

43
K. Friedl, G. Ivanyos, F. Magniez, M. Santha, and P. Sen
Hidden translation and translating coset in quantum computing.
SIAM Journal on Computing Vol. 43, pp. 1-24, 2014.
Appeared earlier in Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1-9, 2003.
arXiv:quant-ph/0211091.

44
D. Gavinsky
Quantum solution to the hidden subgroup problem for poly-near-Hamiltonian-groups.
Quantum Information and Computation, 4:229-235, 2004.

45
Joseph Geraci
A new connection between quantum circuits, graphs and the Ising partition function
Quantum Information Processing, 7(5):227-242, 2008.
arXiv:0801.4833.

46
Joseph Geraci and Frank Van Bussel
A theorem on the quantum evaluation of weight enumerators for a certain class of cyclic Codes with a note
on cyclotomic cosets.
arXiv:cs/0703129, 2007.
47
Joseph Geraci and Daniel A. Lidar
On the exact evaluation of certain instances of the Potts partition function by quantum computers.
Comm. Math. Phys. Vol. 279, pg. 735, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0703023.

48
Lov K. Grover
Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack.
Physical Review Letters, 79(2):325-328, 1997.
arXiv:quant-ph/9605043.

49
Sean Hallgren
Polynomial-time quantum algorithms for Pell's equation and the principal ideal problem.
In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2002.

50
Sean Hallgren
Fast quantum algorithms for computing the unit group and class group of a number field.
In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2005.

51
Sean Hallgren, Alexander Russell, and Amnon Ta-Shma
Normal subgroup reconstruction and quantum computation using group representations.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 32(4):916-934, 2003.

52
Mark Heiligman
Quantum algorithms for lowest weight paths and spanning trees in complete graphs.
arXiv:quant-ph/0303131, 2003.

53
Yoshifumi Inui and François Le Gall
Efficient quantum algorithms for the hidden subgroup problem over a class of semi-direct product groups.
Quantum Information and Computation, 7(5/6):559-570, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0412033.

54
Yuki Kelly Itakura
Quantum algorithm for commutativity testing of a matrix set.
Master's thesis, University of Waterloo, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0509206.

55
Gábor Ivanyos, Frédéric Magniez, and Miklos Santha
Efficient quantum algorithms for some instances of the non-abelian hidden subgroup problem.
In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 263-270,
 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0102014.

56
Gábor Ivanyos, Luc Sanselme, and Miklos Santha
An efficient quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem in extraspecial groups.
In Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0701235.

57
Gábor Ivanyos, Luc Sanselme, and Miklos Santha
An efficient quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem in nil-2 groups.
In LATIN 2008: Theoretical Informatics, pg. 759-771, Springer (LNCS 4957).
arXiv:0707.1260.

58
Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan
BQP-complete problems concerning mixing properties of classical random walks on sparse graphs.
arXiv:quant-ph/0610235, 2006.

59
Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan
A promiseBQP-complete string rewriting problem.
Quantum Information and Computation, 10(3/4):234-257, 2010.
arXiv:0705.1180.

60
Dominik Janzing and Pawel Wocjan
A simple promiseBQP-complete matrix problem.
Theory of Computing, 3:61-79, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0606229.

61
Stephen P. Jordan
Fast quantum algorithm for numerical gradient estimation.
Physical Review Letters, 95:050501, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0405146.

62
Stephen P. Jordan
Quantum Computation Beyond the Circuit Model.
PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008.
arXiv:0809.2307.

63
Ivan Kassal, Stephen P. Jordan, Peter J. Love, Masoud Mohseni, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik
Quantum algorithms for the simulation of chemical dynamics.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol. 105, pg. 18681, 2008.
arXiv:0801.2986.
64
Kiran S. Kedlaya
Quantum computation of zeta functions of curves.
Computational Complexity, 15:1-19, 2006.
arXiv:math/0411623.

65
E. Knill and R. Laflamme
Quantum computation and quadratically signed weight enumerators.
Information Processing Letters, 79(4):173-179, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/9909094.

66
Greg Kuperberg
A subexponential-time quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(1):170-188, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0302112.

67
Daniel A. Lidar
On the quantum computational complexity of the Ising spin glass partition function and of knot invariants.
New Journal of Physics Vol. 6, pg. 167, 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0309064.

68
Daniel A. Lidar and Haobin Wang
Calculating the thermal rate constant with exponential speedup on a quantum computer.
Physical Review E, 59(2):2429-2438, 1999.
arXiv:quant-ph/9807009.

69
Chris Lomont
The hidden subgroup problem - review and open problems.
arXiv:quant-ph/0411037, 2004.

70
Frédéric Magniez, Miklos Santha, and Mario Szegedy
Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(2):413-424, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0310134.

71
Carlos Magno, M. Cosme, and Renato Portugal
Quantum algorithm for the hidden subgroup problem on a class of semidirect product groups.
arXiv:quant-ph/0703223, 2007.

72
Cristopher Moore, Daniel Rockmore, Alexander Russell, and Leonard Schulman
The power of basis selection in Fourier sampling: the hidden subgroup problem in affine groups.
 In Proceedings of the 15th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1113-1122, 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0211124.

73
M. Mosca
Quantum searching, counting, and amplitude amplification by eigenvector analysis.
In R. Freivalds, editor, Proceedings of International Workshop on Randomized Algorithms, pages 90-100,
1998.

74
Michele Mosca
Quantum Computer Algorithms.
PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1999.

75
Ashwin Nayak and Felix Wu
The quantum query complexity of approximating the median and related statistics.
In Proceedings of 31st ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 1999.
arXiv:quant-ph/9804066.

76
Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

77
Erich Novak
Quantum complexity of integration.
Journal of Complexity, 17:2-16, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0008124.

78
Oded Regev
Quantum computation and lattice problems.
In Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002.
arXiv:cs/0304005.

79
Oded Regev
A subexponential time algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem with polynomial space.
arXiv:quant-ph/0406151, 2004.

80
Ben Reichardt and Robert Špalek
Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating formulas.
Proceedings of STOC 2008
arXiv:0710.2630.

81
 Martin Roetteler and Thomas Beth
Polynomial-time solution to the hidden subgroup problem for a class of non-abelian groups.
arXiv:quant-ph/9812070, 1998.

82
Peter W. Shor
Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484-1509, 1997.
arXiv:quant-ph/9508027.

83
Peter W. Shor and Stephen P. Jordan
Estimating Jones polynomials is a complete problem for one clean qubit.
Quantum Information and Computation, 8(8/9):681-714, 2008.
arXiv:0707.2831.

84
R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, and H. Barnum
Quantum simulated annealing.
arXiv:0712.1008, 2007.

85
M. Szegedy
Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms.
In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pg. 32, 2004.

86
Wim van Dam
Quantum algorithms for weighing matrices and quadratic residues.
Algorithmica, 34(4):413-428, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0008059.

87
Wim van Dam
Quantum computing and zeros of zeta functions.
arXiv:quant-ph/0405081, 2004.

88
Wim van Dam and Sean Hallgren
Efficient quantum algorithms for shifted quadratic character problems.
arXiv:quant-ph/0011067, 2000.

89
Wim van Dam, Sean Hallgren, and Lawrence Ip
Quantum algorithms for some hidden shift problems.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(3):763-778, 2006.
arXiv:quant-h/0211140.

90
 Wim van Dam and Gadiel Seroussi
Efficient quantum algorithms for estimating Gauss sums.
arXiv:quant-ph/0207131, 2002.

91
John Watrous
Quantum algorithms for solvable groups.
In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 60-67, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0011023.

92
Stephen Wiesner
Simulations of many-body quantum systems by a quantum computer.
arXiv:quant-ph/9603028, 1996.

93
Pawel Wocjan and Jon Yard
The Jones polynomial: quantum algorithms and applications in quantum complexity theory.
Quantum Information and Computation 8(1/2):147-180, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0603069.

94
Andrew Yao
On computing the minima of quadratic forms.
In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 23-26, 1975.

95
Christof Zalka
Efficient simulation of quantum systems by quantum computers.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 454:313, 1996.
arXiv:quant-ph/9603026.

96
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser
Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution.
arXiv:quant-ph/0001106, 2000.

97
Dorit Aharonov, Wim van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev
Adiabatic Quantum Computation is Equivalent to Standard Quantum Computation.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):166-194, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0405098

98
Jérémie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf
Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution.
Physical Review A, 65(4):042308, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0107015
99
L.-A. Wu, M.S. Byrd, and D. A. Lidar
Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer.
Physical Review Letters, 89(6):057904, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0108110

100
Eli Biham, Ofer Biham, David Biron, Markus Grassl, and Daniel Lidar
Grover's quantum search algorithm for an arbitrary initial amplitude distribution.
Physical Review A, 60(4):2742, 1999.
arXiv:quant-ph/9807027 and arXiv:quant-ph/0010077

101
Andrew Childs, Shelby Kimmel, and Robin Kothari
The quantum query complexity of read-many formulas
In Proceedings of ESA 2012, pg. 337-348, Springer. (LNCS 7501)
arXiv:1112.0548, 2011.

102
Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Anthony D. Dutoi, Peter J. Love, and Martin Head-Gordon
Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies.
Science, 309(5741):1704-1707, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0604193

103
A. M. Childs, A. J. Landahl, and P. A. Parrilo
Quantum algorithms for the ordered search problem via semidefinite programming.
Physical Review A, 75 032335, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0608161

104
Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd
Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations.
Physical Review Letters 15(103):150502, 2009.
arXiv:0811.3171.

105
Martin Roetteler
Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear Boolean functions.
Proceedings of SODA 2010
arXiv:0811.3208.

106
Stephen P. Jordan
Fast quantum algorithms for approximating the irreducible representations of groups.
arXiv:0811.0562, 2008.

107
 Tim Byrnes and Yoshihisa Yamamoto
Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer.
Physical Review A, 73, 022328, 2006.
arXiv:quant-ph/0510027.

108
D. Simon
On the Power of Quantum Computation.
In Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pg. 116-123, 1994.

109
John Proos and Christof Zalka
Shor's discrete logarithm quantum algorithm for elliptic curves.
Quantum Information and Computation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pg.317-344, 2003.
arXiv:quant-ph/0301141.

110
Yi-Kai Liu
Quantum algorithms using the curvelet transform.
Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 391-400.
arXiv:0810.4968.

111
Wim van Dam and Igor Shparlinski
Classical and quantum algorithms for exponential congruences.
Proceedings of TQC 2008, pg. 1-10.
arXiv:0804.1109.

112
Itai Arad and Zeph Landau
Quantum computation and the evaluation of tensor networks.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(7):3089-3121, 2010.
arXiv:0805.0040.

113
M. Van den Nest, W. Dür, R. Raussendorf, and H. J. Briegel
Quantum algorithms for spin models and simulable gate sets for quantum computation.
Physical Review A, 80:052334, 2009.
arXiv:0805.1214.

114
Silvano Garnerone, Annalisa Marzuoli, and Mario Rasetti
Efficient quantum processing of 3-manifold topological invariants.
Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 13(6):1601-1652, 2009.
arXiv:quant-ph/0703037.

115
Louis H. Kauffman and Samuel J. Lomonaco Jr.
q-deformed spin networks, knot polynomials and anyonic topological quantum computation.
 Journal of Knot Theory, Vol. 16, No. 3, pg. 267-332, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0606114.

116
Arthur Schmidt and Ulrich Vollmer
Polynomial time quantum algorithm for the computation of the unit group of a number field.
In Proceedings of the 37th Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pg. 475-480, 2005.

117
Sergey Bravyi, Aram Harrow, and Avinatan Hassidim
Quantum algorithms for testing properties of distributions.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57(6):3971-3981, 2011.
arXiv:0907.3920.

118
Pawel M. Wocjan, Stephen P. Jordan, Hamed Ahmadi, and Joseph P. Brennan
Efficient quantum processing of ideals in finite rings.
arXiv:0908.0022, 2009.

119
V. Arvind, Bireswar Das, and Partha Mukhopadhyay
The complexity of black-box ring problems.
In Proceedings of COCCOON 2006, pg 126-145.

120
V. Arvind and Partha Mukhopadhyay
Quantum query complexity of multilinear identity testing.
In Proceedings of STACS 2009, pg. 87-98.

121
David Poulin and Pawel Wocjan
Sampling from the thermal quantum Gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum
computer.
Physical Review Letters 103:220502, 2009.
arXiv:0905.2199

122
Pawel Wocjan, Chen-Fu Chiang, Anura Abeyesinghe, and Daniel Nagaj
Quantum speed-up for approximating partition functions.
Physical Review A 80:022340, 2009.
arXiv:0811.0596

123
Ashley Montanaro
Quantum search with advice.
In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Theory of quantum computation, communication, and
cryptography (TQC 2010)
arXiv:0908.3066
124
Laszlo Babai, Robert Beals, and Akos Seress
Polynomial-time theory of matrix groups.
In Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 55-64.

125
Peter Shor
Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring.
In Proceedings of FOCS 1994, pg. 124-134.

126
Aaron Denney, Cristopher Moore, and Alex Russell
Finding conjugate stabilizer subgroups in PSL(2;q) and related groups.
Quantum Information and Computation 10(3):282-291, 2010.
arXiv:0809.2445.

127
Kevin K. H. Cheung and Michele Mosca
Decomposing finite Abelian groups.
Quantum Information and Computation 1(2):26-32, 2001.
arXiv:cs/0101004.

128
François Le Gall
An efficient quantum algorithm for some instances of the group isomorphism problem.
In Proceedings of STACS 2010.
arXiv:1001.0608.

129
Gorjan Alagic, Stephen Jordan, Robert Koenig, and Ben Reichardt
Approximating Turaev-Viro 3-manifold invariants is universal for quantum computation.
Physical Review A 82, 040302(R), 2010.
arXiv:1003.0923

130
Martin Rötteler
Quantum algorithms to solve the hidden shift problem for quadratics and for functions of large Gowers
norm.
In Proceedings of MFCS 2009, pg 663-674.
arXiv:0911.4724.

131
Arthur Schmidt
Quantum Algorithms for many-to-one Functions to Solve the Regulator and the Principal Ideal Problem.
arXiv:0912.4807, 2009.

132
K. Temme, T.J. Osborne, K.G. Vollbrecht, D. Poulin, and F. Verstraete
Quantum Metropolis Sampling.
 Nature, Vol. 471, pg. 87-90, 2011.
arXiv:0911.3635.

133
Andris Ambainis
Quantum Search Algorithms.
SIGACT News, 35 (2):22-35, 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0504012

134
Nicolas J. Cerf, Lov K. Grover, and Colin P. Williams
Nested quantum search and NP-hard problems.
Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 10 (4-5):311-338, 2000.

135
Mario Szegedy
Spectra of Quantized Walks and a δϵ−−√

rule.
arXiv:quant-ph/0401053, 2004.

136
Kazuo Iwama, Harumichi Nishimura, Rudy Raymond, and Junichi Teruyama
Quantum Counterfeit Coin Problems.
In Proceedings of 21st International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC2010), LNCS
6506, pp.73-84, 2010.
arXiv:1009.0416

137
Barbara Terhal and John Smolin
Single quantum querying of a database.
Physical Review A 58:1822, 1998.
arXiv:quant-ph/9705041

138
Andris Ambainis
Variable time amplitude amplification and a faster quantum algorithm for solving systems of linear
equations.
arXiv:1010.4458, 2010.

139
Frédéric Magniez and Ashwin Nayak
Quantum complexity of testing group commutativity.
In Proceedings of 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. LNCS
3580, pg. 1312-1324, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0506265

140
Andrew Childs and Robin Kothari
Quantum query complexity of minor-closed graph properties.
 In Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2011), pg.
661-672
arXiv:1011.1443

141
Frédéric Magniez, Ashwin Nayak, Jérémie Roland, and Miklos Santha
Search via quantum walk.
In Proceedings STOC 2007, pg. 575-584.
arXiv:quant-ph/0608026

142
Dmitry Gavinsky, Martin Roetteler, and Jérémy Roland
Quantum algorithm for the Boolean hidden shift problem.
In Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computing and combinatorics (COCOON
'11), 2011.
arXiv:1103.3017

143
Mark Ettinger and Peter Høyer
On quantum algorithms for noncommutative hidden subgroups.
Advances in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pg. 239-251, 2000.
arXiv:quant-ph/9807029

144
Andris Ambainis, Andrew Childs, and Yi-Kai Liu
Quantum property testing for bounded-degree graphs.
In Proceedings of RANDOM '11: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6845, pp. 365-376, 2011.
arXiv:1012.3174

145
G. Ortiz, J.E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme
Quantum algorithms for Fermionic simulations.
Physical Review A 64: 022319, 2001.
arXiv:cond-mat/0012334

146
Ashley Montanaro
The quantum query complexity of learning multilinear polynomials.
Information Processing Letters, 112(11):438-442, 2012.
arXiv:1105.3310.

147
Tad Hogg
Highly structured searches with quantum computers.
Physical Review Letters 80: 2473, 1998.

148
 Markus Hunziker and David A. Meyer
Quantum algorithms for highly structured search problems.
Quantum Information Processing, Vol. 1, No. 3, pg. 321-341, 2002.

149
Ben Reichardt
Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every
Boolean function.
In Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '09), pg. 544-
551, 2009.
arXiv:0904.2759

150
Aleksandrs Belovs
Span-program-based quantum algorithm for the rank problem.
arXiv:1103.0842, 2011.

151
Sebastian Dörn and Thomas Thierauf
The quantum query complexity of the determinant.
Information Processing Letters Vol. 109, No. 6, pg. 305-328, 2009.

152
Aleksandrs Belovs
Span programs for functions with constant-sized 1-certificates.
In Proceedings of STOC 2012, pg. 77-84.
arXiv:1105.4024.

153
Troy Lee, Frédéric Magniez, and Mikos Santha
A learning graph based quantum query algorithm for finding constant-size subgraphs.
Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 2012, Article 10, 2012.
arXiv:1109.5135.

154
Aleksandrs Belovs and Troy Lee
Quantum algorithm for k-distinctness with prior knowledge on the input.
arXiv:1108.3022, 2011.

155
François Le Gall
Improved output-sensitive quantum algorithms for Boolean matrix multiplication.
In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA '12), 2012.

156
Dominic Berry
Quantum algorithms for solving linear differential equations.
arXiv:1010.2745, 2010.
157
Virginia Vassilevska Williams and Ryan Williams
Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix, and triangle problems.
In 51st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '10) pg. 645 - 654, 2010.

158
Ben W. Reichardt
Reflections for quantum query algorithms.
In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pg. 560-569, 2011.
arXiv:1005.1601

159
Ben W. Reichardt
Span-program-based quantum algorithm for evaluating unbalanced formulas.
arXiv:0907.1622, 2009.

160
Ben W. Reichardt
Faster quantum algorithm for evaluating game trees.
In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pg. 546-559, 2011.
arXiv:0907.1623

161
Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez
Improving quantum query complexity of Boolean matrix multiplication using graph collision.
In Proceedings of ICALP 2012, pg. 522-532.
arXiv:1112.5855.

162
Andrew M. Childs and Jason M. Eisenberg
Quantum algorithms for subset finding.
Quantum Information and Computation 5(7):593-604, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0311038.

163
Aleksandrs Belovs and Robert Špalek
Adversary lower bound for the k-sum problem.
In Proceedings of ITCS 2013, pg. 323-328.
arXiv:1206.6528.

164
Bohua Zhan, Shelby Kimmel, and Avinatan Hassidim
Super-polynomial quantum speed-ups for Boolean evaluation trees with hidden structure.
ITCS 2012: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ACM, pg. 249-265.
arXiv:1101.0796

165
Shelby Kimmel
Quantum adversary (upper) bound.
 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming - ICALP 2012 Volume 7391, p.
557-568.
arXiv:1101.0797

166
Stephen Jordan, Keith Lee, and John Preskill
Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories.
Science, Vol. 336, pg. 1130-1133, 2012.
arXiv:1111.3633

167
Andris Ambainis and Ashley Montanaro
Quantum algorithms for search with wildcards and combinatorial group testing.
arXiv:1210.1148, 2012.

168
Andris Ambainis and Robert Špalek
Quantum algorithms for matching and network flows.
Proceedings of STACS 2007, pg. 172-183.
arXiv:quant-ph/0508205

169
Nathan Wiebe, Daniel Braun, and Seth Lloyd
Quantum data-fitting.
Physical Review Letters 109, 050505, 2012.
arXiv:1204.5242

170
Andrew Childs and Nathan Wiebe
Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations.
Quantum Information and Computation 12, 901-924, 2012.
arXiv:1202.5822

171
Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez
Nested quantum walks with quantum data structures.
In Proceedings of the 24th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'13), pg. 1474-1485,
2013.
arXiv:1210.1199

172
Aleksandrs Belovs
Learning-graph-based quantum algorithm for k-distinctness.
Proceedings of STOC 2012, pg. 77-84.
arXiv:1205.1534, 2012.

173
 Andrew Childs, Stacey Jeffery, Robin Kothari, and Frédéric Magniez
A time-efficient quantum walk for 3-distinctness using nested updates.
arXiv:1302.7316, 2013.

174
Hari Krovi and Alexander Russell
Quantum Fourier transforms and the complexity of link invariants for quantum doubles of finite groups.
Commun. Math. Phys. 334, 743-777, 2015
arXiv:1210.1550

175
Troy Lee, Frédéric Magniez, and Miklos Santha
Improved quantum query algorithms for triangle finding and associativity testing.
arXiv:1210.1014, 2012.

176
Silvano Garnerone, Paolo Zanardi, and Daniel A. Lidar
Adiabatic quantum algorithm for search engine ranking.
Physical Review Letters 108:230506, 2012.

177
R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, H. Barnum, and E. Knill
Quantum simulations of classical annealing.
Physical Review Letters 101:130504, 2008.
arXiv:0804.1571

178
Daniel J. Bernstein, Stacey Jeffery, Tanja Lange, and Alexander Meurer
Quantum algorithms for the subset-sum problem.
from cr.yp.to.

179
Boris Altshuler, Hari Krovi, and Jérémie Roland
Anderson localization casts clouds over adiabatic quantum optimization.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(28):12446-12450, 2010.
arXiv:0912.0746

180
Ben Reichardt
The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima.
In Proceedings of STOC 2004, pg. 502-510. [Erratum].

181
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann
Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms versus simulated annealing.
arXiv:quant-ph/0201031, 2002.

182
 E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, D. Gosset, S. Gutmann, H. B. Meyer, and P. Shor
Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths.
Quantum Information and Computation, 11(3/4):181-214, 2011.
arXiv:0909.4766.

183
Sergey Bravyi, David P. DiVincenzo, Roberto I. Oliveira, and Barbara M. Terhal
The Complexity of Stoquastic Local Hamiltonian Problems.
Quantum Information and Computation, 8(5):361-385, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0606140.

184
Rolando D. Somma and Sergio Boixo
Spectral gap amplification.
SIAM Journal on Computing, 42:593-610, 2013.
arXiv:1110.2494.

185
Sabine Jansen, Mary-Beth Ruskai, Ruedi Seiler
Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation.
Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48:102111, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0603175.

186
E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda
A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem.
Science, 292(5516):472-475, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0104129.

187
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel Nagaj
How to make the quantum adiabatic algorithm fail.
International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(3):503-516, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0512159.

188
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel Nagaj
Unstructured randomness, small gaps, and localization.
Quantum Information and Computation, 11(9/10):840-854, 2011.
arXiv:1010.0009.

189
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann
Quantum adiabatic evolution algorithms with different paths.
arXiv:quant-ph/0208135, 2002.

190
Wim van Dam, Michele Mosca, and Umesh Vazirani
How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation?
 In Proceedings of FOCS 2001, pg. 279-287.
arXiv:quant-ph/0206003 [See also this.]

191
E. Farhi, D. Gosset, I. Hen, A. W. Sandvik, P. Shor, A. P. Young, and F. Zamponi
The performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm on random instances of two optimization problems on
regular hypergraphs.
Physical Review A, 86:052334, 2012.
arXiv:1208.3757.

192
Kristen L. Pudenz and Daniel A. Lidar
Quantum adiabatic machine learning.
Quantum Information Processing, 12:2027, 2013.
arXiv:1109.0325.

193
Frank Gaitan and Lane Clark
Ramsey numbers and adiabatic quantum computing.
Physical Review Letters, 108:010501, 2012.
arXiv:1103.1345.

194
Frank Gaitan and Lane Clark
Graph isomorphism and adiabatic quantum computing.
Physical Review A, 89(2):022342, 2014.
arXiv:1304.5773, 2013.

195
Hartmut Neven, Vasil S. Denchev, Geordie Rose, and William G. Macready
Training a binary classifier with the quantum adiabatic algorithm.
arXiv:0811.0416, 2008.

196
Robert Beals
Quantum computation of Fourier transforms over symmetric groups.
In Proceedings of STOC 1997, pg. 48-53.

197
Dave Bacon, Isaac L. Chuang, and Aram W. Harrow
The quantum Schur transform: I. efficient qudit circuits.
In Proceedings of SODA 2007, pg. 1235-1244.
arXiv:quant-ph/0601001.

198
S. Morita, H. Nishimori
Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing.
Journal of Methematical Physics, 49(12):125210, 2008.
199
A. B. Finnila, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, J. D. Doll
Quantum annealing: a new method for minimizing multidimensional functions.
Chemical Physics Letters, 219:343-348, 1994.

200
D. Gavinsky and T. Ito
A quantum query algorithm for the graph collision problem.
arXiv:1204.1527, 2012.

201
Andris Ambainis, Kaspars Balodis, Jānis Iraids, Raitis Ozols, and Juris Smotrovs
Parameterized quantum query complexity of graph collision.
arXiv:1305.1021, 2013.

202
Kevin C. Zatloukal
Classical and quantum algorithms for testing equivalence of group extensions.
arXiv:1305.1327, 2013.

203
Andrew Childs and Gábor Ivanyos
Quantum computation of discrete logarithms in semigroups.
arXiv:1310.6238, 2013.

204
Matan Banin and Boaz Tsaban
A reduction of semigroup DLP to classic DLP.
arXiv:1310.7903, 2013.

205
D. W. Berry, R. Cleve, and R. D. Somma
Exponential improvement in precision for Hamiltonian-evolution simulation.
arXiv:1308.5424, 2013.

206
François Le Gall and Harumichi Nishimura
Quantum algorithms for matrix products over semirings.
arXiv:1310.3898, 2013.

207
Nolan Wallach
A quantum polylog algorithm for non-normal maximal cyclic hidden subgroups in the affine group of a
finite field.
arXiv:1308.1415, 2013.

208
Lov Grover
Fixed-point quantum search.
 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95(15):150501, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0503205

209
Tathagat Tulsi, Lov Grover, and Apoorva Patel
A new algorithm for fixed point quantum search.
Quantum Information and Computation 6(6):483-494, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0505007

210
Guoming Wang
Quantum algorithms for approximating the effective resistances of electrical networks.
arXiv:1311.1851

211
Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma
Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians
arXiv:1312.1414

212
Thomas Decker, Peter Høyer, Gabor Ivanyos, and Miklos Santha
Polynomial time quantum algorithms for certain bivariate hidden polynomial problems
arXiv:1305.1543

213
Kirsten Eisenträger, Sean Hallgren, Alexei Kitaev, and Fang Song
A quantum algorithm for computing the unit group of an arbitrary degree number field
In Proceedings of STOC 2014 pg. 293-302.

214
Seth Lloyd, Masoud Mohseni, and Patrick Robentrost
Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning
arXiv:1307.0411

215
Ashley Montanaro
Quantum pattern matching fast on average
arXiv:1408.1816

216
Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani
Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing
SIAM J. Comput. 26(5):1524-1540, 1997
arXiv:quant-ph/9701001

217
H. Ramesh and V. Vinay
String matching in O˜(n−−√+m−−√)
 quantum time
Journal of Discrete Algorithms 1:103-110, 2003
arXiv:quant-ph/0011049

218
Greg Kuperberg
Another subexponential-time quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem
In Proceedings of TQC pg. 20-34, 2013
arXiv:1112.3333

219
Peter Høyer, Jan Neerbek, and Yaoyun Shi
Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness
In Proceedings of ICALP pg. 346-357, 2001
arXiv:quant-ph/0102078

220
Amnon Ta-Shma
Inverting well conditioned matrices in quantum logspace
In Proceedings of STOC 2013 pg. 881-890.

221
Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore
Quantum deep learning
arXiv:1412.3489

222
Seth Lloyd, Silvano Garnerone, and Paolo Zanardi
Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of big data
arXiv:1408.3106

223
David A. Meyer and James Pommersheim
Single-query learning from abelian and non-abelian Hamming distance oracles
arXiv:0912.0583

224
Markus Hunziker, David A. Meyer, Jihun Park, James Pommersheim, and Mitch Rothstein
The geometry of quantum learning
Quantum Information Processing 9:321-341, 2010.
arXiv:quant-ph/0309059

225
Lawrence M. Ioannou and Michele Mosca
Limitations on some simple adiabatic quantum algorithms
International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(3):419-426, 2008.
arXiv:quant-ph/0702241

226
 Michael Jarret and Stephen P. Jordan
Adiabatic optimization without local minima
Quantum Information and Computation, 15(3/4):0181-0199, 2015.
arXiv:1405.7552

227
Matthew B. Hastings, Dave Wecker, Bela Bauer, and Matthias Troyer
Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry
Quantum Information and Computation, 15(1/2):0001-0021, 2015.
arXiv:1403.1539

228
Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill
Quantum simulation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories
Quantum Information and Computation, 14(11/12):1014-1080, 2014.
arXiv:1112.4833

229
Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill
Quantum algorithms for fermionic quantum field theories
arXiv:1404.7115

230
Gavin K. Brennen, Peter Rohde, Barry C. Sanders, and Sukhi Singh
Multi-scale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets
arXiv:1412.0750

231
Hefeng Wang, Sabre Kais, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Mark R. Hoffmann.
Quantum algorithm for obtaining the energy spectrum of molecular systems
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 10(35):5388-5393, 2008.
arXiv:0907.0854

232
Ivan Kassal and Alán Aspuru-Guzik
Quantum algorithm for molecular properties and geometry optimization
Journal of Chemical Physics, 131(22), 2009.
arXiv:0908.1921

233
James D. Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik
Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum computers
Molecular Physics, 109(5):735-750, 2011.
arXiv:1001.3855

234
Borzu Toloui and Peter J. Love
Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry based on the sparsity of the CI-matrix
arXiv:1312.2529
235
James D. Whitfield
Spin-free quantum computational simulations and symmetry adapted states
Journal of Chemical Physics, 139(2):021105, 2013.
arXiv:1306.1147

236
Andrew W. Cross, Graeme Smith, and John A. Smolin
Quantum learning robust to noise
arXiv:1407.5088

237
Aram W. Harrow and David J. Rosenbaum
Uselessness for an oracle model with internal randomness
Quantum Information and Computation 14(7/8):608-624, 2014
arXiv:1111.1462

238
Jon R. Grice and David A. Meyer
A quantum algorithm for Viterbi decoding of classical convolutional codes
arXiv:1405.7479

239
Alexander Barg and Shiyu Zhou
A quantum decoding algorithm of the simplex code
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Allerton Conference, 1998
Available at author's homepage.

240
Guoming Wang
Span-program-based quantum algorithm for tree detection
arXiv:1309.7713, 2013.

241
François Le Gall, Harumichi Nishimura, and Seiichiro Tani
Quantum algorithm for finding constant-sized sub-hypergraphs over 3-uniform hypergraphs
In Proceedings of COCOON, 2014. pg. 429-440
arXiv:1310.4127

242
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann
A quantum approximate optimization algorithm
arXiv:1411.4028, 2014.

243
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann
A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem
arXiv:1412.6062, 2014.
244
Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma
Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series
arXiv:1412.4687, 2014.

245
Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, and Robin Kothari
Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters
arXiv:1501.01715, 2015.

246
Scott Aaronson
Read the fine print
Nature Physics 11:291-293, 2015.
[fulltext]

247
Alexander Elgart and George A. Hagedorn
A note on the switching adiabatic theorem
Journal of Mathematical Physics 53(10):102202, 2012.
arXiv:1204.2318

248
Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, and Erik Dahmen, Eds.
Post-Quantum Cryptography
Springer, 2009.

249
B. D. Clader, B. C. Jacobs, and C. R. Sprouse
Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm
Phys. Rev. Lett. 110:250504, 2013.
arXiv:1301.2340

250
S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost
Quantum principal component analysis
Nature Physics. 10(9):631, 2014.
arXiv:1307.0401

251
Patrick Rebentrost, Masoud Mohseni, and Seth Lloyd
Quantum support vector machine for big data classification
Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503, 2014.
arXiv:1307.0471

252
J. M. Pollard
Theorems on factorization and primality testing
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 76:521-228, 1974.
253
L. Babai, R. Beals, and A. Seress
Polynomial-time theory of matrix groups
In Proceedings of STOC 2009, pg. 55-64.

254
Neil J. Ross and Peter Selinger
Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approximations of z-rotations
arXiv:1403.2975, 2014.

255
L. A. B. Kowada, C. Lavor, R. Portugal, and C. M. H. de Figueiredo
A new quantum algorithm for solving the minimum searching problem
International Journal of Quantum Information, Vol. 6, No. 3, pg. 427-436, 2008.

256
Sean Hallgren and Aram Harrow
Superpolynomial speedups based on almost any quantum circuit
Proceedings of ICALP 2008, pg. 782-795.
arXiv:0805.0007

257
Fernando G.S.L. Brandao and Michal Horodecki
Exponential quantum speed-ups are generic
Quantum Information and Computation, Vol. 13, Pg. 0901, 2013
arXiv:1010.3654

258
Scott Aaronson and Andris Ambainis
Forrelation: A problem that optimally separates quantum from classical computing.
arXiv:1411.5729, 2014.

259
Z. Gedik
Computational speedup with a single qutrit
arXiv:1403.5861, 2014.

260
Boaz Barak, Ankur Moitra, Ryan O'Donnell, Prasad Raghavendra, Oded Regev, David Steurer, Luca
Trevisan, Aravindan Vijayaraghavan, David Witmer, and John Wright
Beating the random assignment on constraint satisfaction problems of bounded degree
arXiv:1505.03424, 2015.

261
David Cornwell
Amplified Quantum Transforms
arXiv:1406.0190, 2015.

262
 T. Laarhoven, M. Mosca, and J. van de Pol
Solving the shortest vector problem in lattices faster using quantum search
Proceedings of PQCrypto13, pp. 83-101, 2013.
arXiv:1301.6176

263
Andrew M. Childs, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma
Quantum linear systems algorithm with exponentially improved dependence on precision
arXiv:1511.02306, 2015.

264
Ashley Montanaro
Quantum walk speedup of backtracking algorithms
arXiv:1509.02374, 2015.

265
Ashley Montanaro
Quantum speedup of Monte Carlo methods
arXiv:1504.06987, 2015.

266
Andris Ambainis, Aleksandrs Belovs, Oded Regev, and Ronald de Wolf
Efficient quantum algorithms for (gapped) group testing and junta testing
arXiv:1507.03126, 2015.

267
A. Atici and R. A. Servedio
Quantum algorithms for learning and testing juntas
Quantum Information Processing, 6(5):323-348, 2007.
arXiv:0707.3479

268
Aleksandrs Belovs
Quantum algorithms for learning symmetric juntas via the adversary bound
Computational Complexity, 24(2):255-293, 2015.
(Also appears in proceedings of CCC'14).
arXiv:1311.6777

269
Stacey Jeffery and Shelby Kimmel
NAND-trees, average choice complexity, and effective resistance
arXiv:1511.02235, 2015.

270
Scott Aaronson, Shalev Ben-David, and Robin Kothari
Separations in query complexity using cheat sheets
arXiv:1511.01937, 2015.

271
 Frédéric Grosshans, Thomas Lawson, François Morain, and Benjamin Smith
Factoring safe semiprimes with a single quantum query
arXiv:1511.04385, 2015.

272
Agnis Āriņš
Span-program-based quantum algorithms for graph bipartiteness and connectivity
arXiv:1510.07825, 2015.

273
Juan Bermejo-Vega and Kevin C. Zatloukal
Abelian hypergroups and quantum computation
arXiv:1509.05806, 2015.

274
Andrew Childs and Jeffrey Goldstone
Spatial search by quantum walk
Physical Review A, 70:022314, 2004.
arXiv:quant-ph/0306054

275
Shantanav Chakraborty, Leonardo Novo, Andris Ambainis, and Yasser Omar
Spatial search by quantum walk is optimal for almost all graphs
arXiv:1508.01327, 2015.

276
François Le Gall
Improved quantum algorithm for triangle finding via combinatorial arguments
In Proceedings of the 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pg.
216-225, 2014.
arXiv:1407.0085

277
Ashley Montanaro
The quantum complexity of approximating the frequency moments
arXiv:1505.00113, 2015.

278
Rolando D. Somma
Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems
arXiv:1503.06319, 2015.

279
Bill Fefferman and Cedric Yen-Yu Lin
A complete characterization of unitary quantum space
arXiv:1604.01384, 2016.

280
 Tsuyoshi Ito and Stacey Jeffery
Approximate span programs
arXiv:1507.00432, 2015.

281
Arnau Riera, Christian Gogolin, and Jens Eisert
Thermalization in nature and on a quantum computer
Physical Review Letters, 108:080402 (2012)
arXiv:1102.2389.

282
Michael J. Kastoryano and Fernando G. S. L. Brandao
Quantum Gibbs Samplers: the commuting case
Communications in Mathematical Physics, 344(3):915-957 (2016)
arXiv:1409.3435.

283
Andrew M. Childs, David Jao, and Vladimir Soukharev
Constructing elliptic curve isogenies in quantum subexponential time
Journal of Mathematical Cryptology, 8(1):1-29 (2014)
arXiv:1012.4019.

284
Markus Grassl, Brandon Langenberg, Martin Roetteler, and Rainer Steinwandt
Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates
arXiv:1512.04965, 2015.

285
M. Ami, O. Di Matteo, V. Gheorghiu, M. Mosca, A. Parent, and J. Schanck
Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3
arXiv:1603.09383, 2016.

286
Marc Kaplan, Gaetan Leurent, Anthony Leverrier, and Maria Naya-Plasencia
Quantum differential and linear cryptanalysis
arXiv:1510.05836, 2015.

287
Scott Fluhrer
Quantum Cryptanalysis of NTRU
Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2015/676, 2015.

288
Marc Kaplan
Quantum attacks against iterated block ciphers
arXiv:1410.1434, 2014.

289
 H. Kuwakado and M. Morii
Quantum distinguisher between the 3-round Feistel cipher and the random permutation
In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pg. 2682-2685, 2010.

290
H. Kuwakado and M. Morii
Security on the quantum-type Even-Mansour cipher
In Proceedings of International Symposium on Information Theory and its Applications (ISITA), pg. 312-
316, 2012.

291
Martin Roetteler and Rainer Steinwandt
A note on quantum related-key attacks
arXiv:1306.2301, 2013.

292
Thomas Santoli and Christian Schaffner
Using Simon's algorithm to attack symmetric-key cryptographic primitives
arXiv:1603.07856, 2016.

293
Rolando D. Somma
A Trotter-Suzuki approximation for Lie groups with applications to Hamiltonian simulation
arXiv:1512.03416, 2015.

294
Guang Hao Low and Isaac Chuang
Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing
arXiv:1606.02685, 2016.

295
Dominic W. Berry and Leonardo Novo
Corrected quantum walk for optimal Hamiltonian simulation
arXiv:1606.03443, 2016.

296
Ashley Montanaro and Sam Pallister
Quantum algorithms and the finite element method
arXiv:1512.05903, 2015.

297
Lin-Chun Wan, Chao-Hua Yu, Shi-Jie Pan, Fei Gao, and Qiao-Yan Wen
Quantum algorithm for the Toeplitz systems
arXiv:1608.02184, 2016.

298
Salvatore Mandra, Gian Giacomo Guerreschi, and Alan Aspuru-Guzik
Faster than classical quantum algorithm for dense formulas of exact satisfiability and occupation problems
arXiv:1512.00859, 2015.
299
J. Adcock, E. Allen, M. Day, S. Frick, J. Hinchliff, M. Johnson, S. Morley-Short, S. Pallister, A. Price, and
S. Stanisic
Advances in quantum machine learning
arXiv:1512.02900, 2015.

300
Cedric Yen-Yu Lin and Yechao Zhu
Performance of QAOA on typical instances of constraint satisfaction problems with bounded degree
arXiv:1601.01744, 2016.

301
Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer
Training a quantum optimizer
arXiv:1605.05370, 2016.

302
Edward Farhi and Aram W. Harrow
Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm
arXiv:1602.07674, 2016.

303
Thomas G. Wong
Quantum walk search on Johnson graphs
arXiv:1601.04212, 2016.

304
Jonatan Janmark, David A. Meyer, and Thomas G. Wong
Global symmetry is unnecessary for fast quantum search
Physical Review Letters 112:210502, 2014.
arXiv:1403.2228

305
David A. Meyer and Thomas G. Wong
Connectivity is a poor indicator of fast quantum search
Physical Review Letters 114:110503, 2014.
arXiv:1409.5876

306
Thomas G. Wong
Spatial search by continuous-time quantum walk with multiple marked vertices
Quantum Information Processing 15(4):1411-1443, 2016.
arXiv:1501.07071

307
Anirban Naryan Chowdhury and Rolando D. Somma
Quantum algorithms for Gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation
arXiv:1603.02940, 2016.
308
Edward Farhi, Shelby Kimmel, and Kristan Temme
A quantum version of Schoning's algorithm applied to quantum 2-SAT
arXiv:1603.06985, 2016.

309
Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash
Quantum recommendation systems
arXiv:1603.08675, 2016.

310
Markus Reiher, Nathan Wiebe, Krysta M. Svore, Dave Wecker, and Matthias Troyer
Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers
arXiv:1605.03590, 2016.

311
Aram W. Harrow and Ashley Montanaro
Sequential measurements, disturbance, and property testing
arXiv:1607.03236, 2016.

312
Martin Roetteler
Quantum algorithms for abelian difference sets and applications to dihedral hidden subgroups
arXiv:1608.02005, 2016.

313
Fernando G.S.L. Brandao and Krysta Svore
Quantum speed-ups for semidefinite programming
arXiv:1609.05537, 2016.

314
Z-C Yang, A. Rahmani, A. Shabani, H. Neven, and C. Chamon
Optimizing variational quantum algorithms using Pontryagins's minimum principle
arXiv:1607.06473, 2016.

315
Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, and Alain Tapp
Quantum cryptanalysis of hash and claw-free functions
In Proceedings of the 3rd Latin American symposium on Theoretical Informatics (LATIN'98), pg. 163-169,
1998.

316
Daniel J. Bernstein
Cost analysis of hash collisions: Will quantum computers make SHARCS obsolete?
In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Special-purpose Hardware for Attacking Cryptographic Systems
(SHARCS'09), pg. 105-116, 2009.
[available here]

317
 Chris Cade, Ashley Montanaro, and Aleksandrs Belovs
Time and space efficient quantum algorithms for detecting cycles and testing bipartiteness
arXiv:1610.00581, 2016.

318
A. Belovs and B. Reichardt
Span programs and quantum algorithms for st-connectivity and claw detection
In European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA'12) , pg. 193-204, 2012.
arXiv:1203.2603

319
Titouan Carette, Mathieu Laurière, and Frédéric Magniez
Extended learning graphs for triangle finding
arXiv:1609.07786, 2016.

320
F. Le Gall and N. Shogo
Quantum algorithm for triangle finding in sparse graphs
In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC'15), pg. 590-
600, 2015.

321
Or Sattath and Itai Arad
A constructive quantum Lovász local lemma for commuting projectors
Quantum Information and Computation, 15(11/12)987-996pg, 2015.
arXiv:1310.7766

322
Martin Schwarz, Toby S. Cubitt, and Frank Verstraete
An information-theoretic proof of the constructive commutative quantum Lovász local lemma
arXiv:1311.6474

323
C. Shoen, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf
Sequential generation of entangled multi-qubit states
Physical Review Letters, 95:110503, 2005.
arXiv:quant-ph/0501096

324
C. Shoen, K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and E. Solano
Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity QED
Physical Review A, 75:032311, 2007.
arXiv:quant-ph/0612101

325
Yimin Ge, András Molnár, and J. Ignacio Cirac
Rapid adiabatic preparation of injective PEPS and Gibbs states
Physical Review Letters, 116:080503, 2016.
arXiv:1508.00570
326
Martin Schwarz, Kristan Temme, and Frank Verstraete
Preparing projected entangled pair states on a quantum computer
Physical Review Letters, 108:110502, 2012.
arXiv:1104.1410

327
Martin Schwarz, Toby S. Cubitt, Kristan Temme, Frank Verstraete, and David Perez-Garcia
Preparing topological PEPS on a quantum computer
Physical Review A, 88:032321, 2013.
arXiv:1211.4050

328
M. Schwarz, O. Buerschaper, and J. Eisert
Approximating local observables on projected entangled pair states
arXiv:1606.06301, 2016.

329
Jean-François Biasse and Fang Song
Efficient quantum algorithms for computing class groups and solving the principal ideal problem in
arbitrary degree number fields
Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA '16), pg. 893-902,
2016.

330
Peter Høyer and Mojtaba Komeili
Efficient quantum walk on the grid with multiple marked elements
Proceedings of the 34th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2017), 42, 2016.
arXiv:1612.08958

331
Peter Wittek
Quantum Machine Learning: what quantum computing means to data mining
Academic Press, 2014.

332
Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione
An introduction to quantum machine learning
Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172, 2014.
arXiv:1409.3097

333
J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd
Quantum machine learning
arXiv:1611.09347

334
Esma Aïeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs
Machine learning in a quantum world
 In Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 19th Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies
of Intelligence pg. 431-442, Springer, 2006.

335
Vedran Dunjko, Jacob Taylor, and Hans Briegel
Quantum-enhanced machine learning
Phys. Rev. Lett 117:130501, 2016.

336
Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore
Quantum algorithms for nearest-neighbor methods for supervised and unsupervised learning
Quantum Information and Computation 15(3/4): 0318-0358, 2015.
arXiv:1401.2142

337
Seokwon Yoo, Jeongho Bang, Changhyoup Lee, and Junhyoug Lee
A quantum speedup in machine learning: finding a N-bit Boolean function for a classification
New Journal of Physics 6(10):103014, 2014.
arXiv:1303.6055

338
Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Frencesco Petruccione
Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer
Physical Review A 94:022342, 2016.
arXiv:1601.07823

339
Zhikuan Zhao, Jack K. Fitzsimons, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons
Quantum assisted Gaussian process regression
arXiv:1512.03929

340
Esma Aïeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs
Quantum speed-up for unsupervised learning
Machine Learning, 90(2):261-287, 2013.

341
Nathan Wiebe, Ashish Kapoor, and Krysta Svore
Quantum perceptron models
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016), pg. 3999–4007, 2016.
arXiv:1602.04799

342
G. Paparo, V. Dunjko, A. Makmal, M. Martin-Delgado, and H. Briegel
Quantum speedup for active learning agents
Physical Review X4(3):031002, 2014.
arXiv:1401.4997

343
 Daoyi Dong, Chunlin Chen, Hanxiong Li, and Tzyh-Jong Tarn
Quantum reinforcement learning
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics- Part B (Cybernetics)38(5):1207, 2008.

344
Daniel Crawford, Anna Levit, Navid Ghadermarzy, Jaspreet S. Oberoi, and Pooya Ronagh
Reinforcement learning using quantum Boltzmann machines
arXiv:1612.05695, 2016.

345
Steven H. Adachi and Maxwell P. Henderson
Application of Quantum Annealing to Training of Deep Neural Networks
arXiv:1510.06356, 2015.

346
M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-Gómez, R. Biswas, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz
Quantum-assisted learning of graphical models with arbitrary pairwise connectivity
arXiv:1609.02542, 2016.

347
M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-Gómez, R. Biswas, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz
Quantum-assisted learning of graphical models with arbitrary pairwise connectivity
arXiv:1609.02542, 2016.

348
M. H. Amin, E. Andriyash, J. Rolfe, B. Kulchytskyy, and R. Melko
Quantum Boltzmann machine
arXiv:1601.02036, 2016.

349
Peter Wittek and Christian Gogolin
Quantum enhanced inference in Markov logic networks
Scientific Reports7:45672, 2017.
arXiv:1611.08104, 2016.

350
N. H. Bshouty and J. C. Jackson
Learning DNF over the uniform distribution using a quantum example oracle
SIAM Journal on Computing28(3):1136-1153, 1999.

351
Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald de Wolf
A survey of quantum learning theory
arXiv:1701.06806, 2017.

352
Rocco A. Servedio and Steven J. Gortler
Equivalences and separations between quantum and classical learnability
SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(5):1067-1092, 2017.
353
Srinivasan Arunachalam and Ronald de Wolf
Optimal quantum sample complexity of learning algorithms
arXiv:1607.00932, 2016.

354
Alex Monràs, Gael Sentís, and Peter Wittek
Inductive quantum learning: why you are doing it almost right
arXiv:1605.07541, 2016.

355
A. Bisio, G. Chiribella, G. M. D'Ariano, S. Facchini, and P. Perinotti
Optimal quantum learning of a unitary transformation
Physical Review A 81:032324, 2010.
arXiv:0903.0543.

356
M. Sasaki, A. Carlini, and R. Jozsa
Quantum template matching
Physical Review A 64:022317, 2001.
arXiv:quant-ph/0102020.

357
Masahide Sasaki and Alberto Carlini
Quantum learning and universal quantum matching machine
Physical Review A 66:022303, 2002.
arXiv:quant-ph/0202173.

358
Esma Aïeur, Gilles Brassard, and Sébastien Gambs
Quantum clustering algorithms
In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pg. 1-8, 2007.

359
Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash
Quantum gradient descent for linear systems and least squares
arXiv:1704.04992, 2017.

360
Dan Boneh and Mark Zhandry
Quantum-secure message authentication codes
In Proceedings of Eurocrypt, pg. 592-608, 2013.

361
A. M. Childs, W. van Dam, S-H Hung, and I. E. Shparlinski
Optimal quantum algorithm for polynomial interpolation
In Proceedings of the 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming
(ICALP), pg. 16:1-16:13, 2016.
arXiv:1509.09271
362
Volker Strassen
Einige Resultate über Berechnungskomplexität
In Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 78(1):1-8, 1976/1977.

363
Stacey Jeffery
Frameworks for Quantum Algorithms
PhD thesis, U. Waterloo, 2014.

364
Seiichiro Tani
An improved claw finding algorithm using quantum walk
In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS), pg. 536-547, 2007.
arXiv:0708.2584

365
K. Iwama and A. Kawachi
A new quantum claw-finding algorithm for three functions
New Generation Computing, 21(4):319-327, 2003.

366
D. J. Bernstein, N. Heninger, P. Lou, and L. Valenta
Post-quantum RSA
IACR e-print 2017/351, 2017.

367
Francois Fillion-Gourdeau, Steve MacLean, and Raymond Laflamme
Quantum algorithm for the dsolution of the Dirac equation
arXiv:1611.05484, 2016.

368
Ali Hamed Moosavian and Stephen Jordan
Faster quantum algorithm to simulate Fermionic quantum field theory
arXiv:1711.04006, 2017.

369
Pedro C.S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander
Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation
arXiv:1711.05394, 2017.

370
Jeffrey Yepez
Highly covariant quantum lattice gas model of the Dirac equation
arXiv:1106.0739, 2011.

371
 Jeffrey Yepez
Quantum lattice gas model of Dirac particles in 1+1 dimensions
arXiv:1307.3595, 2013.

372
Bruce M. Boghosian and Washington Taylor
Simulating quantum mechanics on a quantum computer
Physica D 120:30-42, 1998.
[arXiv:quant-ph/9701019]

373
Yimin Ge, Jordi Tura, and J. Ignacio Cirac
Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation on a quantum computer
arXiv:1712.03193, 2017.

374
Renato Portugal
Element distinctness revisited
arXiv:1711.11336, 2017.

375
Kanav Setia and James D. Whitfield
Bravyi-Kitaev superfast simulation of fermions on a quantum computer
arXiv:1712.00446, 2017.

376
Richard Cleve and Chunhao Wang
Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution
arXiv:1612.09512, 2016.

377
M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert
Dissipative quantum Church-Turing theorem
Physical Review Letters 107(12):120501, 2011.
[arXiv:1105.3986]

378
A. M. Childs and T. Li
Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics
arXiv:1611.05543, 2016.

379
R. Di Candia, J. S. Pedernales, A. del Campo, E. Solano, and J. Casanova
Quantum simulation of dissipative processes without reservoir engineering
Scientific Reports 5:9981, 2015.

380
 R. Babbush, D. Berry, M. Kieferová, G. H. Low, Y. Sanders, A. Sherer, and N. Wiebe
Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of Fermionic Hamiltonians
arXiv:1711.10460, 2017.

381
D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hasting, and M. Troyer
Fast quantum algorithm for spectral properties
arXiv:1711.11025, 2017.

382
Guang Hao Low and Isaac Chuang
Hamiltonian simulation bt qubitization
arXiv:1610.06546, 2016.

383
F.G.S.L. Brandão, A. Kalev, T. Li, C. Y.-Y. Lin, K. M. Svore, and X. Wu
Exponential quantum speed-ups for semidefinite programming with applications to quantum learning
arXiv:1710.02581, 2017.

384
M. Ekerå and J. Håstad
Quantum Algorithms for Computing Short Discrete Logarithms and Factoring RSA Integers
Proceedings of PQCrypto 2017, pg. 347-363. (LNCS Volume 10346), 2017.

385
M. Ekerå
On post-processing in the quantum algorithm for computing short discrete logarithms
IACR ePrint Archive Report 2017/1122, 2017.

386
D. J. Bernstein, J.-F. Biasse, and M. Mosca
A low-resource quantum factoring algorithm
Proceedings of PQCrypto 2017, pg. 330-346 (LNCS Volume 10346), 2017.