Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Quantum Simulation
Observational Equivalence Using Schedulers for Quantum Processes
arXiv
Authors: Kazuya Yasuda, Takahiro Kubota, Yoshihiko Kakutani
Year
2014
Paper ID
45642
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
101
Citations
N/A
Abstract
In the study of quantum process algebras, researchers have introduced different notions of equivalence between quantum processes like bisimulation or barbed congruence. However, there are intuitively equivalent quantum processes that these notions do not regard as equivalent. In this paper, we introduce a notion of equivalence named observational equivalence into qCCS. Since quantum processes have both probabilistic and nondeterministic transitions, we introduce schedulers that solve nondeterministic choices and obtain probability distribution of quantum processes. By definition, the restrictions of schedulers change observational equivalence. We propose some definitions of schedulers, and investigate the relation between the restrictions of schedulers and observational equivalence.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2014 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- In the study of quantum process algebras, researchers have introduced different notions of equivalence between quantum processes like bisimulation or barbed congruence.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.