Home/Magazine Archive/February 2010 (Vol. 53, No. 2)/Recent Progress in Quantum Algorithms/Full Text

Review Article
# Recent Progress in Quantum Algorithms

It is impossible to imagine today's technological world without algorithms: sorting, searching, calculating, and simulating are being used everywhere to make our everyday lives better. But what are the benefits of the more philosophical endeavor of studying the notion of an algorithm through the perspective of the physical laws of the universe? This simple idea, that we desire an understanding of the algorithm based upon physics seems, upon first reflection, to be nothing more than mere plumbing in the basement of computer science. That is, until one realizes that the pipes of the universe do not seem to behave like the standard components out of which we build a computer, but instead obey the counterintuitive laws of quantum theory. And, even more astoundingly, when one puts these quantum parts together, one gets a notion of the algorithm—the quantum algorithm—whose computational power appears to be fundamentally more efficient at carrying out certain tasks than algorithms written for today's, nonquantum, computers. Could this possibly be true: that there is a more fundamental notion of algorithmic efficiency for computers built from quantum components? And, if this is true, what exactly is the power of these quantum algorithms?

The shot that rang round the computational world announcing
the arrival of the quantum algorithm was the 1994 discovery by
Peter Shor that quantum computers could efficiently factor
natural numbers and compute discrete
logarithms.^{24} The problem of finding
efficient algorithms for factoring has been burning the brains of
mathematicians at least as far back as Gauss who commented upon
the problem that "the dignity of science seems to demand that
every aid to the solution of such an elegant and celebrated
problem be zealously cultivated." Even more important than the
fact that such a simple and central problem has eluded an
efficient algorithmic solution is that the lack of such an
efficient algorithm has been used as a justification for the
security of public key cryptosystems, like RSA
encryption.^{23} Shor's algorithm, then,
didn't just solve a problem of pure academic interest, but
instead ended up showing how quantum computers could break the
vast majority of cryptographic protocols in widespread use today.
If we want the content of our publicly key encrypted messages to
remain secret not only now, but also in the future, then Shor's
algorithm redefines the scope of our confidence in computer
security: we communicate securely, today, given that we cannot
build a large scale quantum computer tomorrow.

Given the encryption breaking powers promised by quantum
computers, it was natural that, in the decade following Shor's
discovery, research has focused largely on whether a quantum
computer could be built. While there currently appear to be no
fundamental obstacles toward building a large scale quantum
computer (and even more importantly, a result known as the
"threshold theorem"^{1,
16–18, 25} shows
that quantum computers can be made resilient against small
amounts of noise, thereby confirming that these are not analog
machines), the engineering challenges posed to build an RSA
breaking quantum computer are severe and the largest quantum
computers built to date have less than 10 quantum bits
(qubits).^{13, 19} But
regardless of the progress in building a quantum computer, if we
are to seriously consider our understanding of computation as
being based upon experimental evidence, we will have to
investigate the power of quantum algorithms. Christos
Papadimitriou said in a recent
interview^{26} that the theory of
computational complexity is such a difficult field because it is
nearly impossible to prove what everyone knows from experience.
How, then, can we even begin to gain an understanding of the
power of quantum computers if we don't have one from which to
gain such an experience? Further, and perhaps even more
challenging, quantum algorithms seem to be exploiting the very
effects that make quantum theory so uniquely
counter-intuitive.^{6} Designing
algorithms for a quantum computer is like building a car without
having a road or gas to take it for a test drive.

In spite of these difficulties, a group of intrepid
multidisciplinary researchers have been tackling the question of
the power of quantum algorithms in the decades since Shor's
discoveries. Here we review recent progress on the upper bounding
side of this problem: what new quantum algorithms have been
discovered that outperform classical algorithms and what can we
learn from these discoveries? Indeed, while Shor's factoring
algorithm is a tough act to follow, significant progress in
quantum algorithms has been achieved. We concentrate on reviewing
the more recent progress on this problem, skipping the discussion
of early (but still important) quantum algorithms such as
Grover's algorithm^{12} for searching (a
quantum algorithm that can search an unstructured space
quadratically faster than the best classical algorithm), but
explaining some older algorithms in order to set context. For a
good reference for learning about such early, now "classic"
algorithms (like Grover's algorithm and Shor's algorithm) we
refer the reader to the textbook by Nielsen and
Chuang.^{21} Our discussion is largely
ahistoric and motivated by attempting to give the reader
intuition as to what motivated these new quantum algorithms.
Astonishingly, we will see that progress in quantum algorithms
has brought into the algorithmic fold basic ideas that have long
been foundational in physics: interference, scattering, and group
representation theory. Today's quantum algorithm designers
plunder ideas from physics, mathematics, and chemistry, weld them
with the tried and true methods of classical computer science, in
order to build a new generation of quantum contraptions which can
outperform their classical counterparts.

Quantum theory has acquired a reputation as an impenetrable theory accessible only after acquiring a significant theoretical physics background. One of the lessons of quantum computing is that this is not necessarily true: quantum computing can be learned without mastering vast amounts of physics, but instead by learning a few simple differences between quantum and classical information. Before discussing quantum algorithms we first give a brief overview of why this is true and point out the distinguishing features that separate quantum information from classical information.

To describe a deterministic *n*-bit system it is
sufficient to write down its configuration, which is simply a
binary string of length *n.* If, however, we have
*n*-bits that can change according to probabilistic rules
(we allow randomness into how we manipulate these bits), we will
instead have to specify the probability distribution of the
*n*-bits. This means to *specify* the system we require
2^{n} positive real numbers describing the
probability of the system being in a given configuration. These
2^{n} numbers must sum to unity since they are,
after all, probabilities. When we observe a classical system, we
will always find it to exist in one particular configuration
(i.e. one particular binary string) with the probability given by
the 2^{n} numbers in our probability
distribution.

Now let's turn this approach to quantum systems, and consider
a system made up of *n* qubits. Again, *n* qubits will
have a configuration which is just a length *n* binary
string. When you observe *n* qubits you will only see an
*n* bit configuration (thus when you hear someone say that a
qubit is both zero and one at the same time you can rely on your
common sense tell them that this is absurd). But now, instead of
describing our system by 2^{n} probabilities, we
describe a quantum system by 2^{n}
*amplitudes.* Amplitudes, unlike probabilities (which were
positive real numbers and which summed to unity), are complex
numbers which, when you take their absolute value-squared and add
them up, sum to unity. Given the 2^{n} amplitudes
describing a quantum system, if you observe the system, you will
see a particular configuration with a probability given by the
modulus squared of the amplitude for that configuration. In other
words, quantum systems are described by a set of
2^{n} complex numbers that are a bit like square
roots of probabilities (see Figure 1).

So far we have just said that there is this different
description for quantum systems, you describe them by amplitudes
and not by probabilities. But does this really have a
consequence? After all the amplitudes aren't used so far, except
to calculate probabilities. In order to see that yes, indeed, it
does have a profound consequence, we must next describe how to
update our description of a system as it changes in time. One can
think about this as analyzing an *algorithm* where
information in our computing device changes with time according
to a set of specific recipe of changes.

For a classical probabilistic computing device we can describe
how it changes in time by describing the conditional probability
that the system changed into a new configuration given that it
was in an old configuration. Such a set of conditional
probabilities means that we can describe a probabilistic
computing action by a stochastic matrix (a matrix whose entries
are positive and whose columns sum to unity). A classical
probabilistic algorithm can then be viewed as just a set of
stochastic matrices describing how probabilities propagate
through the computing device. If the classical probabilistic
algorithm starts with *n* bits and ends with *m* bits,
then the stochastic matrix describing the algorithm will be a
2^{m} by 2^{n} matrix.

What is the analogous procedure for a quantum system? Well
instead of specifying conditional probabilities of a new
configuration given an old configuration, in a quantum system you
need to specify the conditional amplitude of a new configuration
given an old configuration. In the quantum world, the matrix of
conditional amplitudes has two major differences from the
classical probabilistic setting. The first is that quantum
systems evolve reversibly and thus the matrix is
2^{n} by 2^{n} (corresponding to
the amplitude of every configuration to change into any other
configuration). The second is that, in order to preserve the sum
of the squares of those amplitudes, which should be 1 throughout,
this matrix is a unitary matrix, meaning the entries of the
matrix are complex numbers, and that the rows (and columns) of
this matrix are orthonormal. Thus a quantum algorithm for a
quantum system is given by a unitary matrix of conditional
amplitudes.

What consequence does this change from probabilities to amplitudes and from stochastic matrices to unitary matrices have for the notion of an algorithm? This is, of course, the essential question at hand when considering quantum algorithms. In this survey we single out three major differences—quantum interference, the deep relationship between symmetries and quantum mechanics, and quantum entanglement—and show how they are related to recent progress in quantum algorithms.

The first of our claimed differences between quantum computers and classical computers was that the former led to effects of quantum interference. What is interference and how can it lead to new efficient algorithms?

To illustrate the ideas of interference, consider a random walk on a line. The standard, classical drunkard's walk on a line refers to situation where the walker is allowed to step either forward or backward with equal probability every unit time step. When starting at position 0 at time zero, then after one time step there is an equal probability to be at locations +1 and −1. After the next time step, there is a one-fourth probability of being at positions −2 and 2 and one half probability of being at position 0. Notice here that the probability of reaching zero was the sum of two probabilities: the probability that the drunkard got to 0 via 1 and the probability that it got to 0 via −1. Random walks on structures more complicated than a line are a well-known tool in classical algorithms.

Suppose that we want to construct a quantum version of this drunkard's walk. To specify a quantum walk, we need, instead of a probability for taking a step forward or backward, an amplitude for doing this. However we also need to make sure that the unitary nature of quantum theory is respected. For example, you might think that the quantum analogy of a classical walk is to take a step forward and a step backward with amplitude one over the square root of two (since squaring this gives a probability of one half). If we start at 0, then after one step this prescription works: we have equal amplitude of one over square root of two of being at either 1 or −1. If we measure the walker after this first step, the probability of being at 1 or −1 is both one half. But if we run this for another time step, we see that we have an amplitude of 1/2 to be at −2 or 2 and an amplitude 1 to be at 0. Unfortunately if we square these numbers and add them up, we get a number greater than unity, indicating that the evolution we have described is not unitary.

The solution to this problem is to let the drunkard flip a quantum coin at each time step, after which he steps in the direction indicated by the quantum coin. What is a quantum coin? A quantum coin is simply a qubit whose two configurations we can call "forward" and "backward" indicating the direction we are supposed to move after flipping the quantum coin. How do we flip such a coin? We apply a unitary transform. This unitary transform must specify four amplitudes. One choice of such a unitary transform that seems to mimic the drunkard's walk is to assign all conditional amplitudes a value of one over the square root of two, with the exception of the amplitude to change from the configuration "forward" to the configuration "backward," which, due to unitarity, we assign the amplitude negative one over square root of two. In other words the unitary transform we apply to flip the coin is specified by the transition matrix

If we follow this prescription for a quantum random walk with
the drunkard initially positioned at zero, one quickly sees that
something strange happens. Consider, for instance, the
probability distribution formed by the quantum walk had we
measured the walker's position after three time steps (see
Figure 2). Then the probability of getting to +1
for the drunkard is 1/8. For a classical walk the similar number
would be 3/8. What is going on here? Well if you trace back how
he could have gotten to +1 in three steps, you'll see that there
are three paths it could have used to get to this position. In
the classical world each of these is traversed with equal
probability, adding a contribution of 1/8 for each step. But in
the quantum world, two of these paths contribute equal but
oppositely to the *amplitude* to get to this position. In
other words these two paths interfere with each other. Because
amplitudes, unlike probabilities, don't have to be positive
numbers, they can add up in ways that cancel out. This is the
effect known as quantum interference. It is the same interference
idea which you see when two water waves collide with each other.
But note an important difference here: amplitudes squared are
probabilities. In water waves, the heights interfere, not
anything related to the probabilities of the waves. This is the
peculiar effect of quantum interference.

Quantum random walks were actually first described by
physicists in 1993,^{2} but only with the
rise of interest in quantum computers was it asked whether these
walks could be used as a computational tool. An alternative,
continuous time version of these algorithms (tacking more closely
to ideas in physics) has also been developed by Farhi and
Gutmann.^{9} Given these quantum random
walks, a natural question is what does this have to do with
algorithms? Well, the first observation is that quantum random
walks behave in strange ways. For instance a well-known property
of classical random walks on a line is that the expected standard
deviation of a random walk as a function of the number of steps
taken, *T*, scales like the square root of *T.*
However, for a quantum random walk the standard deviation can
actually spread linearly with *T.* Remarkably, this
difference has been well known to physicists for a long time: it
turns out that the quantum random walk defined above is closely
related to the Dirac equation for a one-dimensional electron (the
Dirac equation is a way to get quantum mechanics to play nicely
with the special theory of relativity, and is a basic equation
used in modern quantum field theory). This discovery that quantum
algorithms seem to explore space quadratically faster than
classical random walks has recently been shown to lead to quantum
algorithms that polynomially outperform their classical
cousins.

One example of an algorithm based upon quantum random walks is
the algorithm for element distinctness due to
Ambainis.^{3} The element distinctness
problem is, given a function *f* from {1, 2, ...,
*N*} to {1, 2, ..., *N*} determine whether there
exists two indices *i* ≠ *j* such that *f (i)*
= *f* (*j*). Classically this requires
Ω(*N*) queries to the function *f.* Ambainis
showed how a quantum random walk algorithm for this problem could
be made to work using *O*(*N*^{2/3}) queries:
an improvement which has not been achieved using any other
quantum methods to date. Other algorithms that admit speedups of
a similar nature by using quantum random walks are spatial search
(searching a spatially *d*-dimensional
space),^{4} triangle
finding,^{20} and verifying matrix
products.^{7} Quantum random walks
algorithms, then, are a powerful tool for deriving new quantum
algorithms.

These examples all achieved polynomial speedups over the best
possible classical algorithms. Given that quantum random walks
can be used to polynomially outperform classical computers at
some tasks, a natural question is whether quantum computers can
be used to exponentially outperform classical computers. The
answer to this question was first given by Childs et
al.,^{8} who showed that a quantum random
walk could traverse a graph exponentially faster than any
possible classical algorithm walking on this graph. In
Figure 3 we show the graph in question: the crux
of the idea is that a quantum algorithm, by constructively or
destructively interfering, can traverse this graph, while a
classical algorithm will always get stuck in the middle of the
graph. Constructive interference refers to the condition where
quantum evolution causes amplitudes to increase in absolute
magnitude (and hence in probability) while destructive
interference refers to where the evolution causes amplitudes to
decrease in absolute magnitude (and hence decrease in
probability). In spite of this success, the above problem,
traversing this graph, does not appear to have a good algorithmic
use. Thus a subject of great research interest today is whether
there are quantum random walk algorithms that offer exponential
speedups over classical algorithms for interesting algorithmic
problems.

Quantum interference, the ability of multiple computational
paths to add or detract amplitudes and thus lower and raise
probabilities, is an effect well known to physicists. Given this,
it is interesting to ask whether other techniques from physicists
toolbox might also be of use in algorithms. A great example of
this approach was the recent discovery by Farhi et
al.^{10} of a quantum algorithm that
outperforms all possible classical algorithms for the evaluation
of NAND tree circuits. This algorithm was derived, amazingly, by
considering the scattering of wave packets off certain binary
trees. As a quintessential physics experiment involves shooting
one quantum system at another and observing the resulting
scattered 'outputs,' physicists have developed a host of tools
for analyzing such scattering experiments. It was this approach
that led the above authors to the following important new quantum
algorithm.

To illustrate the NAND tree problem consider the following two
player game. The players are presented with a complete binary
tree of depth *k.* On the leaves of the tree are labels that
declare whether player *A* or player *B* wins by
getting to this node. At the beginning of a match, a marker is
placed at the root of the tree. Players take alternating turns
moving this marker down a level in the tree, choosing one of the
two possible paths, with the goal, of course, of ending up at a
leaf labeled by the player's name. A natural question to ask is
if it is always possible for player *A*, with its first
move, to win the game. Evaluating whether this is the case can be
deduced inductively in the following way. Suppose player *A*
makes the last move. Then player *A* will be able to win if
the marker is on a node with at least one of its children labeled
"*A* wins" hence we should label such internal nodes with
"*A* wins" as well. This line of reasoning holds in general
for all internal nodes on which *A* makes a move: as soon as
one of its children has the label "*A* wins," then the node
inherits the same conclusion. On the other hand, if none of the
children has this label, then we can conclude that "*B*
wins." Player *B* will, of course, be reasoning in a similar
manner. Thus we can see that player *A* will win, starting
from a node of height two, only if both of the children of the
node lead to positions where *A* wins. We can then proceed
inductively using this logic to evaluate whether player *A*
can always win the game with a move originating from the root of
the tree. If we label the leaves where player *A* wins by 1
and where player *B* wins by 0, then we can compute the
value of the root node (indicating whether player *A* can
always win) by representing the interior layers of the tree by
alternating layers of AND and OR gates. Further it is easy to see
that one can transform this from alternating layers of AND and OR
gates to uniform layers of NAND (negated AND) gates, with a
possible flipping of the binary values assigned to the
leaves.

We have just shown that the problem of evaluating whether the first player has a series of moves that guarantees victory is equivalent to evaluating the value of a NAND tree circuit given a labeling the leaves of the tree. Further, if the player can evaluate any interior value of the NAND tree, then one can then use this to actually win the game. If such a procedure is available one can simply use the algorithm to evaluate the two trees and if one of them is always a win, take that move. Thus the problem of evaluating the value of the NAND tree is of central importance for winning this game. The NAND tree is an example of the more general concept of a game tree which is useful for study of many games such as Chess and Go. In these later games, more than two moves are available, but a similar logic for evaluating whether there is a winning strategy applies. This problem, of which the NAND tree circuit is the smallest example, is a central object in the study of combinatorial games.

One can now ask: how costly is it to evaluate the NAND tree:
how many nodes does one need to query in order to compute the
value of the NAND tree? One could evaluate every leaf and compute
the root, but certainly this is wasteful: if you ever encounter a
subtree which evaluates to 0, you know that the parent of this
subtree must evaluate to 1. A probabilistic recursive algorithm
is then easy to think up: evaluate a subtree by first evaluating
randomly either its left or right subtree. If this (left or
right) subtree is 0, then the original subtree must have value 1.
If not, evaluate the other subtree. This method, known as
alpha–beta pruning, has a long history in artificial
intelligence research. For the NAND tree, one can show that by
evaluating about Ω(*N*^{0.753}) of the
*N* leaves one can calculate the value of the NAND tree with
high probability. It is also known that this value for the number
of leaves needed to be queried is optimal.

For a long period of time it was uncertain whether quantum
computers could perform better than this. Using standard lower
bounding methods, the best lower bound which could be proved was
a *O*(*N*^{1/2}), yet no quantum algorithm was
able to achieve such a speedup over the best classical algorithm.
Enter onto the scene the physicists Farhi, Goldstone, and
Gutmann. These authors considered a continuous quantum random
walk of a strange form. They considered a quantum random walk on
the graph formed by a binary tree (of size related to the NAND
tree being evaluated) attached to a long runway (see
Figure 4). They then showed how, if one
constructed an initial quantum system whose initial state was
that of a quantum system moving to the right towards the binary
tree, one could then obtain the value of the NAND tree by seeing
whether such a quantum system scattered back off the binary tree,
or passed through along the other side of the runway. The time
required to see this scattering or lack of scattering was shown
to be proportional to *O*(*N*^{1/2}). In other
words, the NAND tree could be evaluated by using
*O*(*N*^{1/2}) time by scattering a wave packet
off of a binary tree representing the NAND tree problem. A few
simple modifications can bring this in line with the standard
computer scientists definition of a query algorithm for the NAND
tree problem. Presto, out of a scattering experiment, one can
derive a quantum algorithm for the NAND tree problem which gives
a *O*(*N*^{1/2}) algorithm outperforming a
classical computer science algorithm. Building upon this work, a
variety of different trees with different branching ratios and
degrees of being balanced have been explored showing quantum
speedups. Indeed one remarkable aspect of much of this work is
that while in many cases the classical versions of these problems
do not have matching upper and lower bounds, in the quantum case
matching upper and lower bounds can now be achieved.

If interference is a quantum effect that leads to polynomial speedups, what about the quantum algorithms that appear to offer exponential speedups, like in Shor's algorithm for factoring or the quantum random walk algorithm of Childs et al. described here? Here it seems that just using interference by itself is not sufficient for gaining such extraordinary power. Instead, in the vast majority of cases where we have exponential speedups for quantum algorithms, a different candidate emerges for giving quantum computers power: the ability to efficiently find hidden symmetries. Here we review recent progress in algorithms concerning hidden symmetries. In many respects these algorithms date back to the earliest quantum algorithms, a connection we first briefly review, before turning to more modern ways in which this has influenced finding new quantum algorithms.

We say an object has *symmetry* if "we can do something
to it without changing it." The things we can do are described by
the elements of a group and the object itself is a function that
is defined on the same group. That this does not have to be as
abstract as it seems is illustrated in Figure 5
for the group of three-dimensional rotations and the icosahedral
symmetry of a soccer ball.

Given a group *G* the symmetry of a function *f*
defined on *G* can range from the trivial (when only the
identity of *G* leaves *f* unchanged) to the maximum
possible symmetry where *f* remains unchanged under all
possible group operations. The most interesting cases happen when
*f* is invariant under only a proper *subgroup H* of
*G* and the task of finding this *H*, given *f*,
is known as the *hidden subgroup problem.* For many
different types of groups we know how to solve this problem
efficiently on a quantum computer, while no classical algorithm
can perform the same feat. We claim that this is because quantum
computers can more efficiently exploit problems with hidden
symmetries.

To illustrate how quantum computers are better suited to deal
with symmetries, let's talk about the simplest symmetry one can
talk about: the symmetry of flipping a bit. Consider the
operation *X* of negating a bit and the identity operation
*I.* If we perform *X* twice, we obtain the operation
*I* of doing nothing at all, which shows that *I* and
*X* together form a group. Next, consider representing how
*I* and *X* operate on a classical probabilistic bit.
Such a binary system is described by a two-dimensional vector of
probabilities, corresponding to the probability
*p*_{0} of being in 0 and *p*_{1} of
being in 1. The operations *I* and *X* can then be
represented on this system as the two-by-two matrices

In group theoretic parlance, we say that these two matrices
form a *representation* of the group, which effectively
means that the multiplication among these matrices mimics the
operation among the elements of the group that is being
represented.

But now notice how the matrices for *I* and *X* act
on the vector space R^{2}. Naturally, the identity matrix
*I* leaves all vectors unchanged, but the *X* matrix
acts in a more interesting way. If *X* acts on the symmetric
vector [1, 1], then, like *I*, it preserves this vector. If,
on the other hand, *X* operates upon the vector [1,
−1], then it multiplies this vector by −1. This new
vector [−1, 1] still sits in the one-dimensional subspace
spanned by the original [1, −1], but the direction of the
vector has been reversed. In other words, the act of flipping a
bit can naturally be represented down into its action upon two
one-dimensional subspaces: on the first of these the group always
acts trivially, while on the other it always acts by multiplying
by the scalar −1. Now we can see why classical
probabilistic information is at odds with this symmetry: while we
can create a symmetric probability distribution [1/2,1/2] wherein
the bit flip *X* preserves this distribution, we cannot
create the other probability distribution that transforms
according to the multiplication by −1: doing so would
require that we have negative probabilities. But wait, this is
exactly what the amplitudes of quantum computers allow you to do:
to prepare and analyze quantum information in all the relevant
subspaces associated with group operations such as flipping a
bit. Unlike classical computers, quantum computers can analyze
symmetries by realizing the unitary transforms which directly
show the effects of these symmetries. This, in a nutshell, is why
quantum algorithms are better adapted to solve problems that
involve symmetries.

The idea that symmetry is the excelsior of exponential quantum
speedups now has considerable evidence in its favor and is one of
the major motivators for current research in quantum algorithms.
Shor's algorithm for factoring works by converting the problem of
finding divisors to that of finding periods of a function defined
over the integers, which in turn is the problem of determining
the translational symmetries of this function. In particular
Shor's algorithm works by finding the period of the function
*f*(*x*) = *r ^{x}* mod

How then, can a quantum algorithm find the period *p* of
a function *f*? The answer is: by exploiting the just
described friendly relationship between quantum mechanics and
group theory. One starts with a system of two quantum registers,
call them left and right. These are prepared into a state where
with equal amplitude the left register contains a value *x*
and the right register carries the corresponding function value
*f*(*x*). The hidden symmetry of this state is captured
by the fact that it remains unchanged if we would and *p*
(or a multiple of *p*) to the left register; adding a
non-multiple of *p* will, on the other hand, change the
state. To extract this hidden symmetry, let us view the
amplitudes of the state as the values of a function from *n*
bit strings to the complex numbers. We would like to use a
quantum version of the Fourier transform to extract the symmetry
hidden in this function. Why the Fourier transform? The answer to
this is that the Fourier transform is intimately related to the
symmetry of addition modulo *N.* In particular if we examine
the process of addition where we have performed a Fourier
transform before the addition and an inverse Fourier transform
after the addition, we will find that it is now transformed from
an addition into multiplication by a phase (a complex number
*z* such that |*z*| = 1). Addition can be represented
on a quantum computer as a permutation matrix: a matrix with only
a single one per column and row of the matrix. If we examine how
such a matrix looks in the basis change given by the Fourier
transform, then we see that this matrix only has entries on the
diagonal of the matrix. Thus the Fourier transform is exactly the
unitary transform which one can use to "diagonalize the addition
matrix" with respect to the symmetry of addition, which in turn
is exactly the form of the symmetry needed for period
finding.

The output of the quantum Fourier transformation will reveal
to us which symmetries the state has, and by repeating this
Fourier sampling a few times we will be able to learn the exact
subgroup that the state hides, thus giving us the period *p*
(and hence allowing us to factor). Crucially the quantum Fourier
transform can be implemented on a number of qubits logarithmic in
the size of the addition group, log *N*, and in a time
polynomial in log *N* as well. If one were to attempt to
mimic Shor's algorithm on a classical computer, one would need to
perform a Fourier transform on *N* classical pieces of data,
which would require *N* log *N* time (using the fast
Fourier transform). In contrast, because Shor's quantum algorithm
acts on quantum amplitudes, instead of on classical configuration
data, it leads to an efficient quantum algorithm for
factoring.

This symmetry analysis results from the basics of the theory of group representation theory: symmetries are described by groups, and the elements of these groups can be represented by unitary matrices. This is something that classical probabilistic computers cannot exploit: the only way to represent a group on a classical computer is to represent it as by deterministic permutation. But while a group can be represented by unitary matrices, no such representation is possible using stochastic matrices. This, at its heart, appears to be one of the key reasons that quantum computers offer exponential benefits for some problems over classical computers.

Given that Shor's algorithm exploits symmetry in such a
successful way, it is natural to search for other problems that
involve hidden symmetries. Following Shor's discovery it was
quickly realized that almost all prior quantum algorithms could
be cast in a unifying form as solving the hidden subgroup problem
for one group or the other. For Shor's algorithm the relevant
group is the group of addition modulo *N.* For the discrete
logarithm problem the relevant group is the direct product of the
groups of addition modulo *N.* Indeed it was soon discovered
that for all finite Abelian groups (Abelian groups are those
whose elements all commute with each other) quantum computers
could efficiently solve the hidden subgroup problem. A natural
follow-up question is: what about the non-Abelian hidden subgroup
problem? And, even more importantly, would such an algorithm be
useful for any natural problems, as the Abelian hidden subgroup
problem is useful for factoring?

One of the remarkable facts about the problem of factoring is its intermediate computational complexity. Indeed, if one examines the decision version of the factoring problem, one finds that this is a problem which is in the complexity class NP and in the complexity class Co-NP. Because of this fact it is thought to be highly unlikely that it is NP-complete, since if it were, then the polynomial hierarchy would collapse in a way thought unlikely by complexity theorists. On the other hand, there is no known classical algorithm for factoring. Thus factoring appears to be of Goldilock's complexity: not so hard as to revolutionize our notion of tractability by being NP-complete, but not so easy as to admit efficient classical solution. There are, surprisingly, only a few problems which appear to fit into this category. Among them, however, are the problems of graph isomorphism and certain shortest-vector in a lattice problems. Might quantum computers help at solving these problems efficiently?

Soon after Shor's algorithm was phrased as a hidden subgroup
problem, it was realized that if you could efficiently solve the
hidden subgroup problem over the symmetric group (the group of
permutations of *n* objects), then you would have an
efficient quantum algorithm that solves the graph isomorphism
problem. Further, Regev^{22} showed how
the hidden subgroup problem over the dihedral group (the group of
symmetries of a regular polygon where one can not only rotate but
also flip the object) relates to finding short vectors in a high
dimensional lattice. Hence a hypothetical efficient quantum
algorithm for this dihedral case could be used to solve such
shortest vector problems. This in turn would break the public key
cryptosystems that are based upon the hardness of these lattice
problems, which are among the very few cryptosystems not broken
by Shor's algorithm. As a result of these observations about the
non-Abelian hidden subgroup problem, designing quantum algorithms
for such groups has become an important part of the research in
quantum computation. While a certain amount of progress has been
achieved (by now we know of many non-Abelian groups over which
the hidden subgroup problem can be solved efficiently), this
problem remains one of the outstanding problems in the theory of
quantum algorithms.

At the same time, going back to the Abelian groups, there has
been quite some success in finding new applications of the
quantum algorithm for the Abelian hidden subgroup problem,
besides factoring and discrete logarithms.
Hallgren^{14} showed that there exists a
quantum algorithm for solving Pell's equation (that is, finding
integer solutions *x, y* to the cubic equation
*x*^{2}−*dy*^{2} = 1, see
Table 1), while
Kedlaya^{15} has described a quantum
procedure that efficiently counts the number points of curves
defined over finite fields. Furthermore, other efficient quantum
algorithm has been found for, among other problems, determining
the structure of black box groups, estimating Gauss sums, finding
hidden shifts, and estimating known invariants.

A final area in which quantum algorithms have made progress
goes back to the very roots of quantum computing and indeed of
classical computing itself. From their earliest days, computers
have been put to use in simulating physics. Among the
difficulties that were soon encountered in such simulations was
that quantum systems appeared to be harder to simulate than their
classical counterparts. But, of course, somehow nature, which
obeys quantum theory, is already carrying out "the simulation"
involved in quantum physics. So, if nature is carrying out the
simulation, then should we be able to design a computer that also
can perform this simulation? This was in fact the seed of the
idea that led to the original notion of quantum computing by
Feynman.^{11}

To put this in perspective, consider the problem of simulating
classical physics. The miracle of reproducing classical physics
on a classical computer is that you can use many 'particles' with
small state spaces (bits) to mimic a few particles that have very
large state spaces. For this to be possible it is required that
the number of bit configurations, 2^{(number of bits)},
is at least as big as the number of possible states of the
physical system (which is the size of the particle's state space
exponentiated with the number of particles). As a result, we can
simulate the solar system on a laptop.

Quantum computing does the same thing for quantum mechanical
systems; now 2^{(number of qubits)} is the dimension of
the state space and it allows us to simulate other quantum
physical systems that consists of few particles with
exponentially large state spaces. Here however, it appears
essential that we rely on quantum computing components in order
to simulate the truly quantum mechanical components of a physical
system. A crucial question therefore is: which physical systems
are interesting to simulate in such a manner?

While the complete answer to this question is not known, a
deeper look at quantum algorithms for simulating quantum physics
is now being undertaken in several places. As an example, a group
of physical chemists have recently compared how useful quantum
computers would be for computing the energy level structure of
molecular systems.^{5} This is a
classical problem of physical chemistry, and our inability to
perform these calculations robustly for large molecules is a
bottleneck in a variety of chemical and biological applications.
Could quantum computers help for solving this problem and
outperforming the best classical algorithms? One of the exciting
findings in studying this problem was that a small quantum
computer, consisting of only a few hundred qubits, could already
outperform the best classical algorithms for this problem. This
small number makes it likely that among the first applications of
a quantum computer will not be factoring numbers, but instead
will be in simulating quantum physics. Indeed, we believe that a
quantum computer will be able to efficiently simulate my possible
physical system and that it therefore has the potential to have a
huge impact on everything from drug discovery to the rapid
development of new materials.

The discovery that quantum computers could efficiently factor is, even today, difficult to really appreciate. There are many ways to get out of the conundrum posed by this discovery, but all of these will require a fundamental rewriting of our understanding of either physics or computer science. One possibility is that quantum computers cannot be built because quantum theory does not really hold as a universal theory. Although disappointing for quantum computer scientists, such a conclusion would be a major discovery about one of the best tested physical theories—quantum theory. Perhaps there is a classical algorithm for efficiently factoring integers. This would be a major computer science discovery and would blow apart our modern public key cryptography. Or perhaps, just perhaps, quantum computers really are the true model of computing in our universe, and the rules of what is efficiently computable have changed. These are the dreams of quantum computer scientists looking for quantum algorithms on the quantum machines they have yet to be quantum programmed.

1. Aharonov, D., Ben-Or, M. Fault-tolerant
quantum computation with constant error rate. In *Proceedings
of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of
Computing* (1997). ACM, 176–188.

2. Aharonov, Y., Davidovich, L., Zagury, N.
Quantum random walks. *Phys. Rev. A 48*, 167 (1993).

3. Ambainis, A. Quantum walk algorithm for
element distinctness. *SIAM J. Comput. 37* (2007), 210.

4. Ambainis, A., Kempe, J., Rivosh, A. Coins
make quantum walks faster. In *Proceedings of the 16th Annual
ACM SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms* (2005), 1099.

5. Aspuru-Guzik, A., Dutoi, A., Love, P.J.,
head-Gordon, M. Simulated quantum computation of molecular
energies. *Science 309*, 5741 (2005).

6. Bell, J.S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen
paradox. *Physics 1*, (1964), 195.

7. Buhrman, H. Špalek, R. Quantum
verification of matrix products. In *Proceedings of the 17th
Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms* (2006),
880.

8. Childs, A.M., Cleve, R., Deotto, E.,
Farhi, E., Gutmann, S., Spielman, D.A. Exponential algorithmic
speedup by quantum walk. In *Proceedings of the 35th ACM
Symposium on Theory of Computing* (2003), 59–68.

9. Farhi, E., Gutmann, S. Quantum computation
and decision trees. *Phys. Rev. A 58* (1998), 915.

10. Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. A quantum algorithm for the Hamiltonian NAND tree. Eprint arXiv:quant-ph/0702144, 2007.

11. Feynman, R. Simulating physics with
computers. *Intl. J. Theor. Phys. 21* (1982),
467–488.

12. Grover, L. A fast quantum mechanical
algorithm for database search. In *Proceedings of the 28th
Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation* (New York,
1996). ACM, 212–219.

13. Häffner, H., Hänsel, W., Roos,
C.F., Benhelm, J., al kar, D.C., Chwalla, M., Körber, T.,
Rapol, U.D., Riebe, M., Schmidt, P.O., Becher, C., Gühne,
O., Dür, W., Blatt, R. Scalable multiparticle entanglement
of trapped ions. *Nature 438* (2005), 643.

14. Hallgren, S. Polynomial-time quantum
algorithms for pell's equation and the principal ideal problem.
In *Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory
of Computation* (New York, 2002). ACM, 653–658.

15. Kedlaya, K.S. Quantum computation of
zeta functions of curves. *Comput. Complex. 15*, 1–19
(2006).

16. Kitaev, A. Quantum error correction with
imperfect gates. In *Quantum Communication, Computing and
Measurement* (New York, 1997). Plenum, 181–188.

17. Knill, E., Laflamme, R., Zurek, W.H.
Resilent quantum computation. *Science 279* (1998),
342–345.

18. Knill, E., Laflamme, R., Zurek, W.H.
Resilient quantum computation: error models and thresholds.
*Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 454* (1998),
365–384.

19. Leibfried, D., Knill, E., Seidelin, S.,
Britton, J., Blakestad, R.B., Chiaverini, J., Hume, D.B., Itano,
W.M., Jost, J.D., Langer, C., Ozeri, R., Reichle, R., Wineland,
D.J. Creation of a six-atom 'Schrödinger cat' state.
*Nature 438* (2005), 639.

20. Magniez, F., Santha, M., Szegedy, M.
Quantum algorithms for the triangle problem. In *Proceedings of
the 16th Annual ACM SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*
(2005), 1109.

21. Nielsen, M.A. Chuang, I.L. *Quantum
Computation and Quantum Information.* Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2000.

22. Regev, O. Quantum computation and
lattice problems. In *43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer
Science* (IEEE Computer Society, 2002), 520–529.

23. Rivest, R.L., Shamir, A., Adleman, L. A
method of obtaining digital signatures and public-key
cryptosystems. *Commun. ACM 21* (1978), 120–126.

24. Shor, P.W. Algorithms for quantum
computation: Discrete log and factoring. In *Proceedings of the
35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science.*
S. Goldwasser, ed. (Los Alamitos, CA, 1994). IEEE Computer
Society, 124–134.

25. Shor, P.W. Fault tolerant quantum
computation. In *Proceedings of the 37th Symposium on the
Foundations of Computer Science* (Los Alamitos, CA, 1996),
IEEE, 56–65.

26. Woehr, J. Online interview "A
Conversation with Christos Papadimitriou". *Dr. Dobb's J.*
July Dave Bacon is an assistant research professor in the
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of
Physics, at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Figure 1. Classical versus quantum information.

Figure 2. Classical (top) and quantum (bottom) random walks.

Figure 3. An example of a graph arising in the quantum
random walk problem considered by Childs et
al.^{}

Figure 4. The NAND tree algorithm of Farhi, Goldstone,
and Gutmann.^{}

Table 1. Some examples of integer solutions (*x,
y*) to Pell's equation
*x*^{2}−*dy*^{2} = 1 for
different values *d.*

**©2010
ACM 0001-0782/10/0200 $10.00**

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2010 ACM, Inc.

No entries found

Read CACM in a free mobile app!

Access the latest issue, plus archived issues and more

- ACM CACM apps available for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch, and Android platforms
- ACM Digital Library apps available for iOS, Android, and Windows devices
- Download an app and sign in to it with your ACM Web Account

## Comment on this article

Signed comments submitted to this site are moderated and will appear if they are relevant to the topic and not abusive. Your comment will appear with your username if published. View our policy on comments## Log in to Submit a Signed Comment

## Sign In »

## Sign In

Signed comments submitted to this site are moderated and will appear if they are relevant to the topic and not abusive. Your comment will appear with your username if published. View our policy on comments## Create a Web Account

## An email verification has been sent to youremail@email.com

ACM veriŞes that you are the owner of the email address you've provided by sending you a veriŞcation message. The email message will contain a link that you must click to validate this account.## NEXT STEP: CHECK YOUR EMAIL

You must click the link within the message in order to complete the process of creating your account. You may click on the link embedded in the message, or copy the link and paste it into your browser.