← Atlas

Algorithms · Quantum query algorithm

Matrix product verification by quantum walk

Given three n×n matrices A, B and C over a field, decide whether AB = C, rather than computing the product and comparing it entry by entry.

Attested & literatureUpdated

View frozen graph

A small worked example, computed in your browser. It is not a result from this record's papers.

A discrete-time quantum walk on a 4-cycle

One coin qubit, two position qubits (4 positions on a cycle), 3 steps starting at position 0.

q0q1q2Step 1 of 3 · Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Step 2 of 3 · Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Step 3 of 3 · Quantum walk step (4-cycle)Quantum walk step (4-cycle)

Step 1 of 3 · Quantum walk step (4-cycle)

Probability of each outcome after this step

  • 01150%
  • 11050%
  1. Flips the coin with a Hadamard, then shifts the position by +1 if the coin is |1⟩ or -1 mod 4 if the coin is |0⟩; with the coin in superposition, both shifts happen at once, entangling coin and position.

    Probability leaves the outcome it was on and appears on 2 entirely different ones — not one outcome is populated both before and after. This is the step that entangles the qubits: from here on no single qubit has a state of its own, only the register as a whole does.

  2. The same coin flip and shift, applied again.

    Probability leaves all 2 outcomes it was on and appears on 4 entirely different ones — not one outcome is populated both before and after.

  3. The same coin flip and shift, a third time.

    Probability leaves all 4 outcomes it was on and appears on 2 entirely different ones — not one outcome is populated both before and after. The entanglement comes apart here: each qubit has a state of its own again.

Readout The position always reads 3, for either value of the coin: constructive interference on this small cycle concentrates the walk onto a single position after exactly 3 steps.

Open in Studio
  • Record typeLiterature reference
  • Speedup class (secondary source)Polynomial
  • Primary source on the speedupNot checked against the primary source yet
  • Reported costWorst-case time n^(5/3) to verify a product of two n×n matrices over any field with bounded error, and expected time n^(5/3) / min(w, √n)^(1/3), where w is the number of wrong entries; the Zoo gives O(n^(7/4)) for the earlier quantum algorithm it credits to Ambainis et al., O(n^2) for the best known randomized classical verification, and O(n^(2.373)) for the best known classical matrix multiplication.
  • Papers1
Record type
Literature reference
Speedup class (secondary source)
Polynomial
Primary source on the speedup
Not checked against the primary source yet
Reported cost
Worst-case time n^(5/3) to verify a product of two n×n matrices over any field with bounded error, and expected time n^(5/3) / min(w, √n)^(1/3), where w is the number of wrong entries; the Zoo gives O(n^(7/4)) for the earlier quantum algorithm it credits to Ambainis et al., O(n^2) for the best known randomized classical verification, and O(n^(2.373)) for the best known classical matrix multiplication.
Speedup class
Polynomial (not yet checked against the record's own primary paper)
Complexity basis
abstract of arXiv:quant-ph/0409035: "We present a quantum algorithm that verifies a product of two n*n matrices over any field with bounded error in worst-case time n^{5/3} and expected time n^{5/3} / min(w,sqrt(n))^{1/3}, where w is the number of wrong entries. This improves the previous best algorithm that runs in time n^{7/4}." The comparison figures are from the Quantum Algorithm Zoo entry "Verifying Matrix Products" (LaTeX rendered into plain text): "Classically, the best known (randomized) algorithm achieves this in time O(n^2), whereas the best known classical algorithm for matrix multiplication runs in time O(n^{2.373})", "Ambainis et al. discovered a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n^{7/4})", and "Buhrman and Špalek improved upon this, obtaining a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n^{5/3})". The Zoo spells the second author Špalek; the author list recorded for the primary reference gives Robert Spalek, which is the spelling carried in the source field.
Circuit
Not supplied

References

  • Quantum Verification of Matrix Products

    Harry Buhrman, Robert Spalek · 2004

    Primary source and the origin of every figure in the cost claim: bounded-error verification of an n×n matrix product over any field in worst-case time n^(5/3), the expected time n^(5/3) / min(w, √n)^(1/3) in terms of the number w of wrong entries, and the improvement on the previous n^(7/4) algorithm. The same abstract announces a quantum matrix multiplication algorithm for the case where the result has few nonzero entries; consult the paper for what that algorithm costs, since the abstract states no bound for it.

Attested & literature
  • Peer-reviewed paper
Method
Curation only. The problem statement was recorded from the literature; the speedup class is not yet checked against the record's own primary paper; the primary reference's title, authors and submission year were read from its arXiv abs page; the complexity claim was taken from a clause of that paper's abstract (abstract of arXiv:quant-ph/0409035: "We present a quantum algorithm that verifies a product of two n*n matrices over any field with bounded error in worst-case time n^{5/3} and expected time n^{5/3} / min(w,sqrt(n))^{1/3}, where w is the number of wrong entries. This improves the previous best algorithm that runs in time n^{7/4}." The comparison figures are from the Quantum Algorithm Zoo entry "Verifying Matrix Products" (LaTeX rendered into plain text): "Classically, the best known (randomized) algorithm achieves this in time O(n^2), whereas the best known classical algorithm for matrix multiplication runs in time O(n^{2.373})", "Ambainis et al. discovered a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n^{7/4})", and "Buhrman and Špalek improved upon this, obtaining a quantum algorithm for this problem with runtime O(n^{5/3})". The Zoo spells the second author Špalek; the author list recorded for the primary reference gives Robert Spalek, which is the spelling carried in the source field.). No circuit was constructed, simulated or run.
Result
Pass · the record's problem, speedup class and primary reference agree with the two sources named above.
Caveat
This is a literature record: no circuit was constructed, compiled, simulated, or run, and no matrix instance was verified. The abstract states its times as bare n^(5/3) and n^(5/3) / min(w, √n)^(1/3), with no O(·) notation, constant factor, gate or qubit count, and no statement of how the entries of A, B and C are made available, so nothing here bounds the cost of a concrete n. The expected-time refinement is governed by w, the number of wrong entries in the claimed product, which is a property of the instance and is not known in advance; the worst-case figure is the one that holds without it. The classical baselines are the fastest algorithms currently known, as the Zoo says, not proven lower bounds, so the polynomial separation is conditional on that state of the art. The quantum-walk results the algorithm is built on, and the earlier n^(7/4) algorithm it improves, are in papers outside this record, and the second result in the same abstract, a quantum matrix multiplication algorithm for results with few nonzero entries, is described only as efficient, with no bound quoted anywhere in the sources read here.
Quantum Verification of Matrix Products ↗
Kind
curated reference
Reviewed by
Leona Quantum curation pass
License
Citation metadata only; source publication terms apply
matrix verificationquantum walklinear algebraquery complexitybounded error

Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.