Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPromise problems solved by quantum and classical finite automata
307
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The concept of promise problems was introduced and started to be systematically explored by Even, Selman, Yacobi, Goldreich, and other scholars. It has been argued that promise problems should be seen as partial decision problems and as such that they are more fundamental than decision problems and formal languages that used to be considered as the basic ones for complexity theory. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the promise problems accepted by classical, quantum and also semi-quantum finite automata. More specifically, we first introduce two acceptance modes of promise problems, recognizability and solvability, and explore their basic properties. Afterwards, we show several results concerning descriptional complexity on promise problems. In particular, we prove: (1) there is a promise problem that can be recognized exactly by measure-once one-way quantum finite automata (MO-1QFA), but no deterministic finite automata (DFA) can recognize it; (2) there is a promise problem that can be solved with error probability $epsilonleq 1/3$ by one-way finite automaton with quantum and classical states (1QCFA), but no one-way probability finite automaton (PFA) can solve it with error probability $epsilonleq 1/3$; and especially, (3) there are promise problems $A(p)$ with prime $p$ that can be solved {em with any error probability} by MO-1QFA with only two quantum basis states, but they can not be solved exactly by any MO-1QFA with two quantum basis states; in contrast, the minimal PFA solving $A(p)$ with any error probability (usually smaller than $1/2$) has $p$ states. Finally, we mention a number of problems related to promise for further study.
rate research
Read More
Some of the most interesting and important results concerning quantum finite automata are those showing that they can recognize certain languages with (much) less resources than corresponding classical finite automata cite{Amb98,Amb09,AmYa11,Ber05,Fre09,Mer00,Mer01,Mer02,Yak10,ZhgQiu112,Zhg12}. This paper shows three results of such a type that are stronger in some sense than other ones because (a) they deal with models of quantum automata with very little quantumness (so-called semi-quantum one- and two-way automata with one qubit memory only); (b) differences, even comparing with probabilistic classical automata, are bigger than expected; (c) a trade-off between the number of classical and quantum basis states needed is demonstrated in one case and (d) languages (or the promise problem) used to show main results are very simple and often explored ones in automata theory or in communication complexity, with seemingly little structure that could be utilized.
Equality and disjointness are two of the most studied problems in communication complexity. They have been studied for both classical and also quantum communication and for various models and modes of communication. Buhrman et al. [Buh98] proved that the exact quantum communication complexity for a promise version of the equality problem is ${bf O}(log {n})$ while the classical deterministic communication complexity is $n+1$ for two-way communication, which was the first impressively large (exponential) gap between quantum and classical (deterministic and probabilistic) communication complexity. If an error is tolerated, both quantum and probabilistic communication complexities for equality are ${bf O}(log {n})$. However, even if an error is tolerated, the gaps between quantum (probabilistic) and deterministic complexity are not larger than quadratic for the disjointness problem. It is therefore interesting to ask whether there are some promis
The potential of the exact quantum information processing is an interesting, important and intriguing issue. For examples, it has been believed that quantum tools can provide significant, that is larger than polynomial, advantages in the case of exact quantum computation only, or mainly, for problems with very special structures. We will show that this is not the case. In this paper the potential of quantum finite automata producing outcomes not only with a (high) probability, but with certainty (so called exactly) is explored in the context of their uses for solving promise problems and with respect to the size of automata. It is shown that for solving particular classes ${A^n}_{n=1}^{infty}$ of promise problems, even those without some very special structure, that succinctness of the exact quantum finite automata under consideration, with respect to the number of (basis) states, can be very small (and constant) though it grows proportional to $n$ in the case deterministic finite automata (DFAs) of the same power are used. This is here demonstrated also for the case that the component languages of the promise problems solvable by DFAs are non-regular. The method used can be applied in finding more exact quantum finite automata or quantum algorithms for other promise problems.
In this paper, we introduce the model of quantum Mealy machines and study the equivalence checking and minimisation problems of them. Two efficient algorithms are developed for checking equivalence of two states in the same machine and for checking equivalence of two machines. As an application, they are used in equivalence checking of quantum circuits. Moreover, the minimisation problem is proved to be in $textbf{PSPACE}$.
We study the computational complexity of various problems related to synchronization of weakly acyclic automata, a subclass of widely studied aperiodic automata. We provide upper and lower bounds on the length of a shortest word synchronizing a weakly acyclic automaton or, more generally, a subset of its states, and show that the problem of approximating this length is hard. We investigate the complexity of finding a synchronizing set of states of maximum size. We also show inapproximability of the problem of computing the rank of a subset of states in a binary weakly acyclic automaton and prove that several problems related to recognizing a synchronizing subset of states in such automata are NP-complete.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
