Abstract
Quantum computers are designed to outperform standard computers by running quantum algorithms. Areas in which quantum algorithms can be applied include cryptography, search and optimisation, simulation of quantum systems and solving large systems of linear equations. Here we briefly survey some known quantum algorithms, with an emphasis on a broad overview of their applications rather than their technical details. We include a discussion of recent developments and nearterm applications of quantum algorithms.
Introduction
A quantum computer is a machine designed to use quantum mechanics to do things which cannot be done by any machine based only on the laws of classical physics. Eventual applications of quantum computing range from breaking cryptographic systems to the design of new medicines. These applications are based on quantum algorithms—algorithms that run on a quantum computer and achieve a speedup, or other efficiency improvement, over any possible classical algorithm. Although largescale generalpurpose quantum computers do not yet exist, the theory of quantum algorithms has been an active area of study for over 20 years. Here we aim to give a broad overview of quantum algorithmics, focusing on algorithms with clear applications and rigorous performance bounds, and including recent progress in the field.
Contrary to a rather widespread popular belief that quantum computers have few applications, the field of quantum algorithms has developed into an area of study large enough that a brief survey such as this cannot hope to be remotely comprehensive. Indeed, at the time of writing the ‘Quantum Algorithm Zoo’ website cites 262 papers on quantum algorithms.^{1} There are now a number of excellent surveys about quantum algorithms,^{2,3,4,5} and we defer to these for details of the algorithms we cover here, and many more. In particular, we omit all discussion of how the quantum algorithms mentioned work. We will also not cover the important topics of how to actually build a quantum computer^{6} (in theory or in practice) and quantum errorcorrection,^{7} nor quantum communication complexity^{8} or quantum Shannon theory.^{9}
Measuring quantum speedup
What does it mean to say that a quantum computer solves a problem more quickly than a classical computer? As is typical in computational complexity theory, we will generally consider asymptotic scaling of complexity measures such as runtime or space usage with problem size, rather than individual problems of a fixed size. In both the classical and quantum settings, we measure runtime by the number of elementary operations used by an algorithm. In the case of quantum computation, this can be measured using the quantum circuit model, where a quantum circuit is a sequence of elementary quantum operations called quantum gates, each applied to a small number of qubits (quantum bits). To compare the performance of algorithms, we use computer science style notation O(f(n)), which should be interpreted as ‘asymptotically upperbounded by f(n)’.
We sometimes use basic ideas from computational complexity theory,^{10} and in particular the notion of complexity classes, which are groupings of problems by difficulty. See Table 1 for informal descriptions of some important complexity classes. If a problem is said to be complete for a complexity class, then this means that it is one of the ‘hardest’ problems within that class: it is contained within that class, and every other problem within that class reduces to it.
Search and optimisation
One of the most basic problems in computer science is unstructured search. This problem can be formalised as follows:
It is easy to see that, with no prior information about f, any classical algorithm, which solves the unstructured search problem with certainty must evaluate f N=2^{n} times in the worst case. Even if we seek a randomised algorithm which succeeds, say, with probability 1/2 in the worst case, then the number of evaluations required is of order N. However, remarkably, there is a quantum algorithm due to Grover,^{18} which solves this problem using $O(\sqrt{N})$ evaluations of f in the worst case (Grover’s original algorithm solved the special case where the solution is unique; the extension to multiple solutions came slightly later.^{19}). The algorithm is bounded error; that is, it fails with probability ϵ, for arbitrarily small (but fixed) ϵ>0. Although f may have some kind of internal structure, Grover’s algorithm does not use this at all; we say that f is used as an oracle or black box in the algorithm.
Grover’s algorithm can immediately be applied to any problem in the complexity class NP. This class encapsulates decision problems whose solutions can be checked efficiently, in the following sense: there exists an efficient classical checking algorithm A such that, for any instance of the problem where the answer should be ‘yes’, there is a certificate that can be input to A such that A accepts the certificate. In other words, a certificate is a proof that the answer is ‘yes’, which can be checked by A. On the other hand, for any instance where the answer should be ‘no’, there should be no certificate that can make A accept it. The class NP encompasses many important problems involving optimisation and constraint satisfaction.
Given a problem in NP that has a certificate of length m, by applying Grover’s algorithm to A and searching over all possible certificates, we obtain an algorithm which uses time O(2^{m/2}poly(m)), rather than the O(2^{m}poly(m)) used by classical exhaustive search over all certificates. This (nearly) quadratic speedup is less marked than the superpolynomial speedup achieved by Shor’s algorithm, but can still be rather substantial. Indeed, if the quantum computer runs at approximately the same clock speed as the classical computer, then this implies that problem instances of approximately twice the size can be solved in a comparable amount of time.
As a prototypical example of this, consider the fundamental NPcomplete circuit satisfiability problem (Circuit SAT), which is illustrated in Figure 1. An instance of this problem is a description of an electronic circuit comprising AND, OR and NOT gates which takes n bits as input and produces 1 bit of output. The task is to determine whether there exists an input to the circuit such that the output is 1. Algorithms for Circuit SAT can be used to solve a plethora of problems related to electronic circuits; examples include design automation, circuit equivalence and model checking.^{20} The best classical algorithms known for Circuit SAT run in worstcase time of order 2^{n} for n input variables, i.e., not significantly faster than exhaustive search.^{21} By applying Grover’s algorithm to the function f(x) which evaluates the circuit on input x∈{0, 1}^{n}, we immediately obtain a runtime of O(2^{n/2}poly(n)), where the poly(n) comes from the time taken to evaluate the circuit on a given input.
Amplitude amplification
Grover’s algorithm speeds up the naive classical algorithm for unstructured search. Quantum algorithms can also accelerate more complicated classical algorithms.
One way to solve the heuristic search problem classically is simply to repeatedly run A and check the output each time using f, which would result in an average of O(1/ϵ) evaluations of f. However, a quantum algorithm due to Brassard, Høyer, Mosca and Tapp^{22} can find w such that f(w)=1 with only $O\mathrm{(1/}\sqrt{\mathit{\epsilon}})$ uses of f, and failure probability arbitrarily close to 0, thus achieving a quadratic speedup. This algorithm is known as amplitude amplification, by analogy with classical probability amplification.
The unstructured search problem discussed above fits into this framework, by simply taking A to be the algorithm, which outputs a uniformly random nbit string. Further, if there are k inputs w∈{0, 1}^{n} such that f(w)=1, then $$\mathrm{Pr}[\mathcal{A}\phantom{\rule{.5em}{0ex}}\mathrm{outputs}\phantom{\rule{.5em}{0ex}}w\phantom{\rule{.5em}{0ex}}\mathrm{such}\phantom{\rule{.5em}{0ex}}\mathrm{that}\phantom{\rule{.5em}{0ex}}f(w)=1]=\frac{k}{N},$$ so we can find a w such that f(w)=1 with $O(\sqrt{N/k})$ queries to f. However, we could imagine A being a more complicated algorithm or heuristic targeted at a particular problem we would like to solve. For example, one of the most efficient classical algorithms known for the fundamental NPcomplete constraint satisfaction problem 3SAT is randomised and runs in time O((4/3)^{n}poly(n)).^{23} Amplitude amplification can be applied to this algorithm to obtain a quantum algorithm with runtime O((4/3)^{n/2}poly(n)), illustrating that quantum computers can speedup nontrivial classical algorithms for NPcomplete problems.
An interesting future direction for quantum algorithms is finding accurate approximate solutions to optimisation problems. Recent work of Farhi, Goldstone and Gutmann^{24} gave the first quantum algorithm for a combinatorial task (simultaneously satisfying many linear equations of a certain form) which outperformed the best efficient classical algorithm known in terms of accuracy; in this case, measured by the fraction of equations satisfied. This inspired a more efficient classical algorithm for the same problem,^{25} leaving the question open of whether quantum algorithms for optimisation problems can substantially outperform the accuracy of their classical counterparts.
Applications of Grover’s algorithm and amplitude amplification
Grover’s algorithm and amplitude amplification are powerful subroutines, which can be used as part of more complicated quantum algorithms, allowing quantum speedups to be obtained for many other problems. We list just a few of these speedups here.
Finding the minimum of an unsorted list of N integers (equivalently, finding the minimum of an arbitrary and initially unknown function f:{0,1}^{n}→ℤ). A quantum algorithm due to Dürr and Høyer^{26} solves this problem with $O(\sqrt{N})$ evaluations of f, giving a quadratic speedup over classical algorithms. Their algorithm is based on applying Grover’s algorithm to a function g:{0, 1}^{n}→{0, 1} defined by g(x)=1, if and only if f(x)<T for some threshold T. This threshold is initially random, and then updated as inputs x are found such that f(x) is below the threshold.
Determining graph connectivity. To determine whether a graph on N vertices is connected requires time of order N^{2} classically in the worst case. Dürr, Heiligman, Høyer and Mhalla^{27} give a quantum algorithm which solves this problem in time O(N^{3/2}), up to logarithmic factors, as well as efficient algorithms for some other graphtheoretic problems (strong connectivity, minimum spanning tree, shortest paths).
Pattern matching, a fundamental problem in text processing and bioinformatics. Here the task is to find a given pattern P of length M within a text T of length N, where the pattern and the text are strings over some alphabet. Ramesh and Vinay have given a quantum algorithm^{28} which solves this problem in time $O(\sqrt{N}+\sqrt{M})$, up to logarithmic factors, as compared with the best possible classical complexity O(N+M). These are both worstcase time bounds, but one could also consider an averagecase setting where the text and pattern are both picked at random. Here the quantum speedup is more pronounced: there is a quantum algorithm which combines amplitude amplification with ideas from the dihedral hidden subgroup problem and runs in time $O(\sqrt{N/M}{2}^{O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}M})})$ up to logarithmic factors, as compared with the best possible classical runtime $O(N/M+\sqrt{N})$.^{29} This is a superpolynomial speedup when M is large.
Adiabatic optimisation
An alternative approach to quantum combinatorial optimisation is provided by the quantum adiabatic algorithm.^{30} The adiabatic algorithm can be applied to any constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) where we are given a sequence of constraints applied to some input bits, and are asked to output an assignment to the input bits, which maximises the number of satisfied constraints. Many such problems are NPcomplete and of significant practical interest. The basic idea behind the algorithm is physically motivated, and based around a correspondence between CSPs and physical systems. We start with a quantum state that is the uniform superposition over all possible solutions to the CSP. This is the ground (lowest energy) state of a Hamiltonian that can be prepared easily. This Hamiltonian is then gradually modified to give a new Hamiltonian whose ground state encodes the solution maximising the number of satisfied constraints. The quantum adiabatic theorem guarantees that if this process is carried out slowly enough, the system will remain in its groundstate throughout; in particular, the final state gives an optimal solution to the CSP. The key phrase here is ‘slowly enough’; for some instances of CSPs on n bits, the time required for this evolution might be exponential in n.
Unlike the algorithms described in the rest of this survey, the adiabatic algorithm lacks general, rigorous worstcase upper bounds on its runtime. Although numerical experiments can be carried out to evaluate its performance on small instances,^{31} this rapidly becomes infeasible for larger problems. One can construct problem instances on which the standard adiabatic algorithm provably takes exponential time;^{32,33} however, changing the algorithm can evade some of these arguments.^{34,35}
The adiabatic algorithm can be implemented on a universal quantum computer. However, it also lends itself to direct implementation on a physical system whose Hamiltonian can be varied smoothly between the desired initial and final Hamiltonians. The most prominent exponent of this approach is the company DWave Systems, which has built large machines designed to implement this algorithm,^{36} with the most recent such machine (‘DWave 2X’) announced as having up to 1,152 qubits. For certain instances of CSPs, these machines have been demonstrated to outperform classical solvers running on a standard computer,^{37,38} although the speedup (or otherwise) seems to have a rather subtle dependence on the problem instance, classical solver compared, and measure of comparison.^{38,39}
As well as the theoretical challenges to the adiabatic algorithm mentioned above, there are also some significant practical challenges faced by the DWave system. In particular, these machines do not remain in their ground state throughout, but are in a thermal state above absolute zero. Because of this, the algorithm actually performed has some similarities to classical simulated annealing, and is hence known as ‘quantum annealing’. It is unclear at present whether a quantum speedup predicted for the adiabatic algorithm would persist in this setting.
Quantum simulation
In the early days of classical computing, one of the main applications of computer technology was the simulation of physical systems (such applications arguably go back at least as far as the Antikythera mechanism from the 2nd century BC.). Similarly, the most important early application of quantum computers is likely to be the simulation of quantum systems.^{40,41,42} Applications of quantum simulation include quantum chemistry, superconductivity, metamaterials and highenergy physics. Indeed, one might expect that quantum simulation would help us understand any system where quantum mechanics has a role.
The word ‘simulation’ can be used to describe a number of problems, but in quantum computation is often used to mean the problem of calculating the dynamical properties of a system. This can be stated more specifically as: given a Hamiltonian H describing a physical system, and a description of an initial state $\mathit{\psi}\u3009$ of that system, output some property of the state ${\mathit{\psi}}_{t}\u3009={e}^{iHt}\mathit{\psi}\u3009$ corresponding to evolving the system according to that Hamiltonian for time t. As all quantum systems obey the Schrödinger equation, this is a fundamentally important task; however, the exponential complexity of completely describing general quantum states suggests that it should be impossible to achieve efficiently classically, and indeed no efficient general classical algorithm for quantum simulation is known. This problem originally motivated Feynman to ask whether a quantum computer could efficiently simulate quantum mechanics.^{43}
A generalpurpose quantum computer can indeed efficiently simulate quantum mechanics in this sense for many physically realistic cases, such as systems with locality restrictions on their interactions.^{44} Given a description of a quantum state $\mathit{\psi}\u3009$, a description of H, and a time t, the quantum simulation algorithm produces an approximation to the state ${\mathit{\psi}}_{t}\u3009$. Measurements can then be performed on this state to determine quantities of interest about it. The algorithm runs in time polynomial in the size of the system being simulated (the number of qubits) and the desired evolution time, giving an exponential speedup over the best general classical algorithms known. However, there is still room for improvement and quantum simulation remains a topic of active research. Examples include work on increasing the accuracy of quantum simulation while retaining a fast runtime;^{45} optimising the algorithm for particular applications such as quantum chemistry;^{46} and exploring applications to new areas such as quantum field theory.^{47}
The above, very general, approach is sometimes termed digital quantum simulation: we assume we have a largescale, generalpurpose quantum computer and run the quantum simulation algorithm on it. By contrast, in analogue quantum simulation we mimic one physical system directly using another. That is, if we would like to simulate a system with some Hamiltonian H, then we build another system that can be described by a Hamiltonian approximating H. We have gained something by doing this if the second system is easier to build, to run or to extract information from than the first. For certain systems analogue quantum simulation may be significantly easier to implement than digital quantum simulation, at the expense of being less flexible. It is therefore expected that analogue simulators outperforming their classical counterparts will be implemented first.^{40}
Quantum walks
In classical computer science the concept of the random walk or Markov chain is a powerful algorithmic tool, and is often applied to search and sampling problems. Quantum walks provide a similarly powerful and general framework for designing fast quantum algorithms. Just as a random walk algorithm is based on the simulated motion of a particle moving randomly within some underlying graph structure, a quantum walk is based on the simulated coherent quantum evolution of a particle moving on a graph.
Quantum walk algorithms generally take advantage of one of two ways in which quantum walks outperform random walks: faster hitting (the time taken to find a target vertex from a source vertex), and faster mixing (the time taken to spread out over all vertices after starting from one source vertex). For some graphs, hitting time of quantum walks can be exponentially less than their classical counterparts.^{48,49} The separation between quantum and classical mixing time can be quadratic, but no more than this^{50} (approximately). Nevertheless, fast mixing has proven to be a very useful tool for obtaining general speedups over classical algorithms.
Figure 2 illustrates special cases of three families of graphs for which quantum walks display faster hitting than random walks: the hypercube, the ‘glued trees’ graph, and the ‘glued trees’ graph with a random cycle added in the middle. This third example is of particular interest because quantum walks can be shown to outperform any classical algorithm for navigating the graph, even one not based on a random walk. A continuoustime quantum walk that starts at the entrance (on the lefthand side) and runs for time O(log N) finds the exit (on the righthand side) with probability at least 1/poly(log N). However, any classical algorithm requires time of order N^{1/6} to find the exit.^{51} Intuitively, the classical algorithm can progress quickly at first, but then gets ‘stuck’ in the random part in the middle of the graph. The coherence and symmetry of the quantum walk make it essentially blind to this randomness, and it efficiently progresses from the left to the right.
A possibly surprising application of quantum walks is fast evaluation of boolean formulae. A boolean formula on N binary inputs x_{1},…, x_{N} is a tree whose internal vertices represent AND (∧), OR (∨) or NOT (¬) gates applied to their child vertices, and whose N leaves are labelled with the bits x_{1},…, x_{N}. Two such formulae are illustrated in Figure 3. There is a quantum algorithm which allows any such formula to be evaluated in slightly more than O(N^{1/2}) operations,^{52} while it is known that for a wide class of boolean formulae, any randomised classical algorithm requires time of order N^{0.753…} in the worst case.^{53} The quantum algorithm is based around the use and analysis of a quantum walk on the tree graph corresponding to the formula’s structure. A particularly interesting special case of the formula evaluation problem which displays a quantum speedup is evaluating AND–OR trees, which corresponds to deciding the winner of certain twoplayer games.
Quantum walks can also be used to obtain a very general speedup over classical algorithms based on Markov chains. A discretetime Markov chain is a stochastic linear map defined in terms of its transition matrix P, where P_{xy} is the probability of transitioning from state x to state y. Many classical search algorithms can be expressed as simulating a Markov chain for a certain number of steps, and checking whether a transition is made to a ‘marked’ element for which we are searching. A key parameter that determines the efficiency of this classical algorithm is the spectral gap δ of the Markov chain (i.e., the difference between the largest and secondlargest eigenvalues of P).
There are analogous algorithms based on quantum walks, which improve the dependence on δ quadratically, from 1/δ to $\mathrm{1/}\sqrt{\delta}$.^{54,55,56} This framework has been used to obtain quantum speedups for a variety of problems,^{4} ranging from determining whether a list of integers are all distinct^{54} to finding triangles in graphs.^{57}
Fewqubit applications and experimental implementations
Although progress in experimental quantum computation has been rapid, there is still some way to go before we have a largescale, generalpurpose quantum computer, with current implementations consisting of only a few qubits. Any quantum computation operating on at most 20–30 qubits in the standard quantum circuit model can be readily simulated on a modern classical computer. Therefore, existing implementations of quantum algorithms should usually be seen as proofs of principle rather than demonstrating genuine speedups over the classical state of the art. In Table 3 we highlight some experimental implementations of algorithms discussed here, focusing on the largest problem sizes considered thus far (although note that one has to be careful when using ‘problem size’ as a proxy for ‘difficulty in solving on a quantum computer’.^{66}).
An important algorithm omitted from this table is quantum simulation. This topic has been studied since the early days of quantum computation (with perhaps the first implementation dating from 1999^{67}, and quantum simulations have now been implemented, in some form, on essentially every technological platform for quantum computing. One salient example is the use of a 6qubit ion trap system^{68} to implement general digital quantum simulation; we defer to survey papers^{40,42,69,70} for many further references. It is arguable that quantum simulations, in the sense of measuring the properties of a controllable quantum system, have already been performed that are beyond the reach of current classical simulation techniques.^{71}
One application of digital quantum simulation which is currently the object of intensive study is quantum chemistry.^{46,72,73} Classical techniques for molecular simulation are currently limited to molecules with 50–70 spin orbitals.^{72} As each spin orbital corresponds to a qubit in the quantum simulation algorithm, a quantum computer with as few as 100 logical qubits could perform calculations beyond the reach of classical computation. The challenge in this context is optimising the simulation time; although polynomial in the number of orbitals, this initially seemed prohibitively long,^{73} but was rapidly improved via detailed analysis.^{72}
The demonstration of quantum algorithms which outperform classical computation in the more immediate future is naturally of considerable interest. The Boson Sampling problem was designed specifically to address this.^{74} Boson Sampling is the problem of sampling from the probability distribution obtained by feeding n photons through a linearoptical network on m modes, where m ≫ n. This task is conjectured to be hard for a classical computer to solve.^{74} However, Boson Sampling can be performed easily using linear optics, and indeed several smallscale experimental demonstrations with a few photons have already been carried out.^{75} Although Boson Sampling was not originally designed with practical applications in mind, subsequent work has explored connections to molecular vibrations and vibronic spectra.^{76,77}
One way in which quantum algorithms can be profitably applied for even very smallscale systems is ‘quantum algorithmic thinking’: applying ideas from the design of quantum algorithms to physical problems. An example of this from the field of quantum metrology is the development of highprecision quantum measurement schemes based on quantum phase estimation algorithms.^{78}
Zeroqubit applications
We finally mention some ways in which quantum computing is useful now, without the need for an actual largescale quantum computer. These can be summarised as the application of ideas from the theory of quantum computation to other scientific and mathematical fields.
First, the field of Hamiltonian complexity aims to characterise the complexity of computing quantities of interest about quantummechanical systems. A prototypical example, and a fundamental task in quantum chemistry and condensedmatter physics, is the problem of approximately calculating the groundstate energy of a physical system described by a local Hamiltonian. It is now known that this problem—along with many others—is Quantum Merlin–Arthur (QMA)complete.^{79,80} Problems in the class QMA are those which can be efficiently solved by a quantum computer given access to a quantum ‘certificate’. We imagine that the certificate is produced by an allpowerful (yet untrustworthy) wizard Merlin, and given to a polynomialtime human Arthur to check; hence Quantum Merlin–Arthur. Classically, if a problem is proven NPcomplete, then this is considered as good evidence that there is no efficient algorithm to solve it. Similarly, QMAcomplete problems are considered unlikely to have efficient quantum (or classical) algorithms. One can even go further than this, and attempt to characterise for which families of physical systems calculating groundstate energies is hard, and for which the problem is easy.^{29,81} Although this programme is not yet complete, it has already provided some formal justification for empirical observations in condensedmatter physics about relative hardness of these problems.
Second, using the model of quantum information as a mathematical tool can provide insight into other problems of a purely classical nature. For example, a strong lower bound on the classical communication complexity of the inner product function can be obtained based on quantum informationtheoretic principles.^{82} Ideas from quantum computing have also been used to prove new limitations on classical data structures, codes and formulae.^{83}
Outlook
We have described a rather large number of quantum algorithms, solving a rather large number of problems. However, one might still ask why more algorithms are not known—and in particular, more exponential speedups?
One reason is that strong lower bounds have been proven on the power of quantum computation in the query complexity model, where one considers only the number of queries to the input as the measure of complexity. For example, the complexity achieved by Grover’s algorithm cannot be improved by even one query while maintaining the same success probability.^{84} More generally, in order to achieve an exponential speedup over classical computation in the query complexity model there has to be a promise on the input, i.e., some possible inputs must be disallowed.^{85} This is one reason behind the success of quantum algorithms in cryptography: the existence of hidden problem structure that quantum computers can exploit in ways that classical computers cannot. Finding such hidden structure in other problems of practical interest remains an important open problem.
In addition, a cynical reader might point out that known quantum algorithms are mostly based on a rather small number of quantum primitives (such as the quantum Fourier transform and quantum walks). An observation attributed to van Dam (see http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1291) provides some justification for this. It is known that any quantum circuit can be approximated using only Toffoli and Hadamard quantum gates.^{86} The first of these is a purely classical gate, and the second is equivalent to the Fourier transform over the group ${\mathbb{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$. Thus any quantum algorithm whatsoever can be expressed as the use of quantum Fourier transforms interspersed with classical processing! However, the intuition behind the quantum algorithms described above is much more varied than this observation would suggest. The inspiration for other quantum algorithms, not discussed here, includes topological quantum field theory;^{87} connections between quantum circuits and spin models;^{88} the Elitzur–Vaidman quantum bomb tester;^{89} and directly solving the semidefinite programming problem characterising quantum query complexity.^{90,91}
As well as the development of new quantum algorithms, an important direction for future research seems to be the application of known quantum algorithms (and algorithmic primitives) to new problem areas. This is likely to require significant input from, and communication with, practitioners in other fields.
References
 1.
Jordan, S. The quantum algorithm zoo. Available at http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/.
 2.
Childs, A. & van Dam, W. Quantum algorithms for algebraic problems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1–52 (2010).
 3.
Mosca, M. in Computational Complexity 2303–2333 (Springer, 2012).
 4.
Santha, M. Quantum walk based search algorithms. in Theory Appl. Model. Comput. 4978, 31–46 (2008).
 5.
Bacon, D. & van Dam, W. Recent progress in quantum algorithms. Commun. ACM 53, 84–93 (2010).
 6.
Ladd, T. et al. Quantum computing. Nature 464, 45–53 (2010).
 7.
Fowler, A., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. & Cleland, A. Surface codes: Towards practical largescale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012).
 8.
Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Massar, S. & de Wolf, R. Nonlocality and communication complexity. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 665–698 (2010).
 9.
Wilde, M. Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
 10.
Papadimitriou, C. Computational Complexity (AddisonWesley, 1994).
 11.
Shor, P. W. Polynomialtime algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484–1509 (1997).
 12.
Buhler, J. Jr., H. W. L. & Pomerance, C. Factoring integers with the number field sieve in The Development Of The Number Field Sieve Vol. 1554, 50–94 (Springer, 1993).
 13.
Rivest, R., Shamir, A. & Adleman, L. A method for obtaining digital signatures and publickey cryptosystems. Commun. ACM 21, 120–126 (1978).
 14.
Kleinjung, T. et al. in Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO 2010 Vol. 1554, 333–350 (2010).
 15.
Boneh, D. & Lipton, R. in Advances in Cryptology—CRYPT0’ 95, 424–437 (1995).
 16.
Brassard, G. & Høyer, P. in Proceedings of the Fifth Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems 12–23 (Ramat Gan, Israel, 1997).
 17.
Regev, O. Quantum computation and lattice problems. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 738–760 (2004).
 18.
Grover, L. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325–328 (1997).
 19.
Boyer, M., Brassard, G., Høyer, P. & Tapp, A. Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortschr. Phys. 46, 493–505 (1998).
 20.
Prasad, M., Biere, A. & Gupta, A. A survey of recent advances in SATbased formal verification. Int. J. Softw. Tool. Technol. Transf. 7, 156–173 (2005).
 21.
Williams, R. Improving exhaustive search implies superpolynomial lower bounds. SIAM J. Comput. 42, 1218–1244 (2013).
 22.
Brassard, G., Høyer, P., Mosca, M. & Tapp, A. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. in Quantum Computation and Information Vol. 305 of AMS Contemporary Mathematics Series (eds Lomonaco, S. J. & Brandt, H. E.), 53–74 (2002).
 23.
Schöning, U. in Proceedings of 40th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 410–414 (Washington DC, USA, 1999).
 24.
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem. Preprint at arXiv:1412.6062 (2014).
 25.
Barak, B. et al. Beating the random assignment on constraint satisfaction problems of bounded degree. Preprint at arXiv:1505.03424 (2015).
 26.
Dürr, C. & Høyer, P. A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum. Preprint at quantph/9607014 (1996).
 27.
Dürr, C., Heiligman, M., Høyer, P. & Mhalla, M. in Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’04), 481–493 (Turku, Finland, 2004).
 28.
Ramesh, H. & Vinay, V. String matching in Õ(√n+√m) quantum time. J. Discrete Algorithms 1, 103–110 (2003).
 29.
Montanaro, A. Quantum pattern matching fast on average. Algorithmica 1–24 (2015).
 30.
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Sipser, M. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. Tech. Rep., MITCTP2936, MIT (2000).
 31.
Farhi, E. et al. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NPcomplete problem. Science 292, 472–475 (2001).
 32.
van Dam, W., Mosca, M. & Vazirani, U. in Proceedings of 42nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 279–287 (IEEE, 2001).
 33.
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Nagaj, D. How to make the quantum adiabatic algorithm fail. Int. J. Quantum Inform. 6, 503 (2008).
 34.
Farhi, E. et al. Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths. Quantum Inf. Comput. 11, 0181–0214 (2011).
 35.
Choi, V. Different adiabatic quantum optimization algorithms for the NPcomplete exact cover and 3SAT problems. Quantum Inf. Comput. 11, 0638–0648 (2011).
 36.
Johnson, M. et al. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature 473, 194–198 (2011).
 37.
McGeoch, C. & Wang, C. in Proceedings of ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF’13), 1–23 (Ischia, Italy, 2013).
 38.
King, J., Yarkoni, S., Nevisi, M., Hilton, J. & McGeoch, C. Benchmarking a quantum annealing processor with the timetotarget metric. Preprint at arXiv:1508.05087 (2015).
 39.
Rønnow, T. et al. Defining and detecting quantum speedup. Science 345, 420–424 (2014).
 40.
Bulata, I. & Nori, F. Quantum simulators. Science 326, 108–111 (2009).
 41.
Brown, K., Munro, W. & Kendon, V. Using quantum computers for quantum simulation. Entropy 12, 2268–2307 (2010).
 42.
Georgescu, I., Ashhab, S. & Nori, F. Quantum simulation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014).
 43.
Feynman, R. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467–488 (1982).
 44.
Lloyd, S. Universal quantum simulators. Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996).
 45.
Berry, D., Childs, A. & Kothari, R. Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters. Preprint at arXiv:1501.01715 (2015).
 46.
Hastings, M., Wecker, D., Bauer, B. & Troyer, M. Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry. Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 1–21 (2015).
 47.
Jordan, S., Lee, K. & Preskill, J. Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories. Science 336, 1130–1133 (2012).
 48.
Childs, A., Farhi, E. & Gutmann, S. An example of the difference between quantum and classical random walks. Quantum Inform. Process. 1, 35–43 (2002).
 49.
Kempe, J. Quantum random walks hit exponentially faster. Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 133, 215–235 (2005).
 50.
Aharonov, D., Ambainis, A., Kempe, J. & Vazirani, U. Quantum walks on graphs. in Proceedings of 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 50–59 (Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 2001).
 51.
Childs, A. et al. Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk. in Proceedings of 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 59–68 (San Diego, CA, USA, 2003).
 52.
Ambainis, A., Childs, A., Reichardt, B., Špalek, R. & Zhang, S. Any ANDOR formula of size n can be evaluated in time n^{1/2+o(1)} on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 2513–2530 (2010).
 53.
Santha, M. On the Monte Carlo boolean decision tree complexity of readonce formulae. Random. Struct. Algorithms 6, 75–87 (1995).
 54.
Ambainis, A., Schulman, L. J., TaShma, A., Vazirani, U. & Wigderson, A. The quantum communication complexity of sampling. SIAM J. Comput. 32, 1570–1585 (2003).
 55.
Szegedy, M. in Proceedings of 45th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 32–41 (Rome, Italy, 2004).
 56.
Magniez, F., Nayak, A., Roland, J. & Santha, M. Search via quantum walk. SIAM J. Comput. 40, 142–164 (2011).
 57.
Le Gall, F. in Proceedings of 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 216–225 (Philadelphia, USA, 2014).
 58.
Harrow, A., Hassidim, A. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 150502 (2009).
 59.
Ambainis, A. in Proceedings of 29th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, 636–647 (Paris, France, 2012).
 60.
Clader, B., Jacobs, B. & Sprouse, C. Preconditioned quantum linear system algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 250504 (2013).
 61.
Leyton, S. & Osborne, T. A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations. Preprint at arXiv:0812.4423 (2008).
 62.
Berry, D. Highorder quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 47, 105301 (2014).
 63.
Wiebe, N., Braun, D. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm for data fitting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050505 (2012).
 64.
Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning. Preprint at arXiv:1307.0411 (2013) .
 65.
Aaronson, S. Quantum machine learning algorithms: Read the fine print. Nat. Phys. 11, 291–293 (2015).
 66.
Smolin, J., Smith, G. & Vargo, A. Oversimplifying quantum factoring. Nature 499, 163–165 (2013).
 67.
Somaroo, S., Tseng, C., Havel, T., Laflamme, R. & Cory, D. Quantum simulations on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5381 (1999).
 68.
Lanyon, B. et al. Universal digital quantum simulations with trapped ions. Science 334, 57–61 (2011).
 69.
Blatt, R. & Roos, C. Quantum simulations with trapped ions. Nat. Phys. 8, 277–284 (2012).
 70.
AspuruGuzik, A. & Walther, P. Photonic quantum simulators. Nat. Phys. 8, 285–291 (2012).
 71.
Trotzky, S. et al. Probing the relaxation towards equilibrium in an isolated strongly correlated onedimensional Bose gas. Nat. Phys. 8, 325–330 (2012).
 72.
Poulin, D. et al. The Trotter step size required for accurate quantum simulation of quantum chemistry. Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 361–384 (2014).
 73.
Wecker, D., Bauer, B., Clark, B., Hastings, M. & Troyer, M. Gate count estimates for performing quantum chemistry on small quantum computers. Phys. Rev. A 90, 022305 (2014).
 74.
Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. The computational complexity of linear optics. Theory Comput. 9, 143–252 (2013).
 75.
Ralph, T. Quantum computation: Boson sampling on a chip. Nat. Photon. 7, 514–515 (2013).
 76.
Huh, J., Guerreschi, G., Peropadre, B., McClean, J. & AspuruGuzik, A. Boson sampling for molecular vibronic spectra. Nat. Photon. 9, 615–620 (2015).
 77.
MartínLopéz, E. et al. Simulating molecular vibrations with photons (2015). in preparation.
 78.
Higgins, B., Berry, D., Bartlett, S., Wiseman, H. & Pryde, G. Entanglementfree Heisenberglimited phase estimation. Nature 450, 396–396 (2007).
 79.
Kitaev, A. Y., Shen, A. H. & Vyalyi, M. N. Classical and Quantum Computation Vol. 47. (AMS, 2002).
 80.
Bookatz, A. QMAcomplete problems. Quantum Inform. Comput. 14, 361–383 (2014).
 81.
Schuch, N. & Verstraete, F. Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental limitations of Density Functional Theory. Nat. Phys. 5, 732–735 (2009).
 82.
Cleve, R., van Dam, W., Nielsen, M. & Tapp, A. in Procedings of the 1st NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications, 61–74 (Palm Springs, CA, USA, 1998).
 83.
Drucker, A. & de Wolf, R. Quantum proofs for classical theorems. Theory Comput. Grad. Surv. 2, 1–54 (2011).
 84.
Zalka, C. Grover’s quantum searching algorithm is optimal. Phys. Rev. A 60, 2746–2751 (1999).
 85.
Beals, R., Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Mosca, M. & de Wolf, R. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. J. ACM 48, 778–797 (2001).
 86.
Shi, Y. Both Toffoli and controlledNOT need little help to do universal quantum computing. Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 84–92 (2003).
 87.
Freedman, M., Larsen, M. & Wang, Z. A modular functor which is universal for quantum computation. Commun. Math. Phys. 227, 605–622 (2002).
 88.
De las Cuevas, G., Dür, W., van den Nest, M. & MartinDelgado, M. Quantum algorithms for classical lattice models. New J. Phys. 13, 093021 (2011).
 89.
Lin, C. & Lin, H. in Proceedings of 30th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 537566 (Portland, OR, USA, 2015).
 90.
Reichardt, B. in Proceedings of 50th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 544–551 (Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009).
 91.
Belovs, A. Quantum algorithms for learning symmetric juntas via adversary bound. in Proceedings of 29th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 22–31 (Vancouver, Canada, 2014).
 92.
Proos, J. & Zalka, C. Shor’s discrete logarithm quantum algorithm for elliptic curves. Quantum Inform. Comput. 3, 317–344 (2003).
 93.
Hallgren, S. Polynomialtime quantum algorithms for Pell’s equation and the principal ideal problem. J. ACM 54, 4:1–4:19 (2007).
 94.
Kuperberg, G. A subexponentialtime quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 170–188 (2005).
 95.
Regev, O. A subexponential time algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem with polynomial space. Preprint at quantph/0406151 (2004).
 96.
MartínLópez, E. et al. Experimental realisation of Shor’s quantum factoring algorithm using qubit recycling. Nat. Photon. 6, 773–776 (2012).
 97.
Vandersypen, L. et al. Implementation of a threequantumbit search algorithm. Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 646–648 (2000).
 98.
Cai, X.D. et al. Experimental quantum computing to solve systems of linear equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 230501 (2013).
 99.
Barz, S. et al. Solving systems of linear equations on a quantum computer. Sci. Rep. 4, 115 (2014).
 100.
Pan, J. et al. Experimental realization of quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. A 89, 022313 (2014).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the UK EPSRC under Early Career Fellowship EP/L021005/1.
Author information
Affiliations
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
 Ashley Montanaro
Authors
Search for Ashley Montanaro in:
Competing interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Ashley Montanaro.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Further reading

Dynamic generation of multiqubit entanglement in the ultrastrongcoupling regime
Scientific Reports (2019)

Quantum Algorithm Design: Techniques and Applications
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity (2019)

Continuous dynamical decoupling and decoherencefree subspaces for qubits with tunable interaction
Quantum Information Processing (2019)

A generalized circuit for the Hamiltonian dynamics through the truncated series
Quantum Information Processing (2018)

Quantum information density scaling and qubit operation time constraints of CMOS siliconbased quantum computer architectures
npj Quantum Information (2017)