Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Connectivity is a Poor Indicator of Fast Quantum Search
arXiv
Authors: David A. Meyer, Thomas G. Wong
Year
2014
Paper ID
47402
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
133
Citations
N/A
Abstract
A randomly walking quantum particle evolving by Schrödinger's equation searches on d-dimensional cubic lattices in O\(sqrt{N}\) time when d ge 5, and with progressively slower runtime as d decreases. This suggests that graph connectivity (including vertex, edge, algebraic, and normalized algebraic connectivities) is an indicator of fast quantum search, a belief supported by fast quantum search on complete graphs, strongly regular graphs, and hypercubes, all of which are highly connected. In this paper, we show this intuition to be false by giving two examples of graphs for which the opposite holds true: one with low connectivity but fast search, and one with high connectivity but slow search. The second example is a novel two-stage quantum walk algorithm in which the walking rate must be adjusted to yield high search probability.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2014 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- A randomly walking quantum particle evolving by Schrödinger's equation searches on d-dimensional cubic lattices in O(sqrtN) time when d ge 5, and with progressively slower...
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.