Deutsch-Jozsa on non-balanced oraclesHow is the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm faster than classical for practical implementation?Balanced vs unbalanced superposition distinguisherWhy doesn't Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm show that P ≠ BQP?How to understand Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm from an adiabatic perspective?Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm: why is $f$ constant?What can be a mini research project based on Grover's algorithm or the Deutsch Jozsa algorithm?Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm as a generalization of Bernstein-VaziraniWhy is the second register needed to define bit flip quantum oracles in a way that distinguishes between complementary oracles?Implementing the one-bit Deutsch Oracle algorithm using phase
Why do banks “park” their money at the European Central Bank?
Why do gliders have bungee cords in the control systems and what do they do? Are they on all control surfaces? What about ultralights?
Heyacrazy: Careening
Non-visual Computers - thoughts?
Why in most German places is the church the tallest building?
How many US airports have 4 or more parallel runways?
Is it possible to perform a regression where you have an unknown / unknowable feature variable?
Was there ever a treaty between 2 entities with significantly different translations to the detriment of one party?
Handwriting Music
Was it ever possible to target a zone?
Round towards zero
Anatomically Correct Whomping Willow
Why is there so little discussion / research on the philosophy of precision?
A discontinuity in an integral
Is there any practical application for performing a double Fourier transform? ...or an inverse Fourier transform on a time-domain input?
Why did Khan ask Admiral James T. Kirk about Project Genesis?
“T” in subscript in formulas
How much authority do teachers get from *In Loco Parentis*?
Did anyone try to find the little box that held Professor Moriarty and his wife after the Enterprise D crashed?
Is a player able to change alignment midway through an adventure?
I don't have the theoretical background in my PhD topic. I can't justify getting the degree
Is gzip atomic?
How do I request a longer than normal leave of absence period for my wedding?
Does travel insurance for short flight delays exist?
Deutsch-Jozsa on non-balanced oracles
How is the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm faster than classical for practical implementation?Balanced vs unbalanced superposition distinguisherWhy doesn't Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm show that P ≠ BQP?How to understand Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm from an adiabatic perspective?Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm: why is $f$ constant?What can be a mini research project based on Grover's algorithm or the Deutsch Jozsa algorithm?Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm as a generalization of Bernstein-VaziraniWhy is the second register needed to define bit flip quantum oracles in a way that distinguishes between complementary oracles?Implementing the one-bit Deutsch Oracle algorithm using phase
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.
Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.
Any help would be appreciated.
Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.
deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.
Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.
Any help would be appreciated.
Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.
deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.
Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.
Any help would be appreciated.
Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.
deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles
$endgroup$
I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.
Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.
Any help would be appreciated.
Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.
deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles
deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles
edited Aug 15 at 22:07
haskellcurrying
asked Aug 12 at 1:14
haskellcurryinghaskellcurrying
193 bronze badges
193 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.
So, my guess for how things would work is:
- run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)
- run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.
To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).
So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.
Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "694"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f6992%2fdeutsch-jozsa-on-non-balanced-oracles%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.
So, my guess for how things would work is:
- run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)
- run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.
To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).
So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.
Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.
So, my guess for how things would work is:
- run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)
- run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.
To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).
So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.
Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.
So, my guess for how things would work is:
- run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)
- run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.
To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).
So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.
Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.
$endgroup$
This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.
So, my guess for how things would work is:
- run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)
- run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.
To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).
So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.
Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.
edited Aug 16 at 7:58
answered Aug 12 at 8:12
DaftWullieDaftWullie
20k1 gold badge8 silver badges49 bronze badges
20k1 gold badge8 silver badges49 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 12 at 21:41
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
@haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Aug 13 at 14:33
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 13 at 19:57
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
$endgroup$
– Niel de Beaudrap
Aug 15 at 10:40
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
$begingroup$
I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
$endgroup$
– haskellcurrying
Aug 15 at 21:46
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f6992%2fdeutsch-jozsa-on-non-balanced-oracles%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown