Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Quantum algorithm for approximating the expected value of a random-exist quantified oracle

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A quantum algorithm estimates random-exist oracle probabilities with a quadratic speedup over classical search.

desk verdict New and plausible quantum algorithm for random-exist quantified oracles, but the headline quadratic speedup rests on an unproved and underspecified classical lower bound that fails under a natural promise family. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00567 v1 pith:6NCPLOBS submitted 2024-11-30 quant-ph cs.DS

Caleb Rotello This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.DS MSC 68Q1281P68
keywords random-existquantifiedoraclequantumamplitudeestimationobliviousamplificationstochasticbooleansatisfiabilityquerycomplexityMonteCarlointegrationHeisenberglimitgamesagainstNature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The problem is a game against Nature: Nature samples a bitstring $x$ from a known distribution, then a player searches for $y$ such that an oracle $f(x,y)$ is true, and the wanted quantity is $\mu$, the probability that a valid reaction exists. The paper gives a classical baseline---Monte Carlo sampling over $x$ with brute-force search over $y$---and a quantum algorithm that runs fixed-point amplitude amplification on $y$ for every $x$ at once, then applies quantum amplitude estimation to estimate $\mu$. Theorem 1 bounds the estimate's error by $\epsilon_t + \delta^2\mu - \delta^2\epsilon_t + \pi/M + \pi^2/M^2$ with probability at least $8/\pi^2$, using $(L_t+1)(2M-1)$ oracle calls. When the fraction $\lambda$ of completing $y$-strings is $O(1/2^c)$, the quantum query complexity is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{2^c}/\varepsilon)$ versus a classical $\tilde{O}(2^c/\varepsilon^2)$, a quadratic speedup. Because exact computation of $\mu$ is $\#P$-hard (shown by reduction from graph reliability), the approximation question is the natural one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sample-solved wavefunction $|S_L\rangle = \sum_{\xi\in\Xi}\sqrt{p(\xi)}\,|\xi\rangle(\sqrt{1-P_{L,\xi}}\,|\bar\Phi^*_\xi\rangle + \sqrt{P_{L,\xi}}\,|\Phi^*_\xi\rangle)$, produced by applying an $L$-step oblivious amplitude amplification operator $S_L$ to the initial state. Each $\xi$ labels its own two-dimensional subspace, and the Grover iterate is restricted to the $y$ register so the distribution over $x$ is untouched; with the chosen phase schedule, a search for scenario $\xi$ has converged exactly when $\lambda_\xi \ge \lambda_t$. The quantity $\epsilon_t$ records the probability mass of scenarios below that threshold. Quantum amplitude estimation of the weighted success probability $a=\sum_\xi p(\xi)P_{L,\xi}$ then yields the desired estimate, with the gap between $a$ and $\mu$ controlled by $\epsilon_t$ and the convergence floor $\delta^2$.

What would settle it

Exhibit a classical algorithm that, without prior knowledge of the distribution of $\lambda$, estimates $\mu$ to additive error $\varepsilon$ with bounded failure probability using strictly fewer expected oracle calls than the conjectured bound---for instance, an adaptive rule that sometimes rejects a scenario before enumerating all $2^c$ strings. Any such algorithm falsifies Conjecture 1 and removes the quantum speedup claimed in Eq. (44).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coherent combination of oblivious amplitude amplification and quantum amplitude estimation estimates the expectation value of a random-exist quantified oracle. The algorithm builds a state in which each scenario $\xi$ carries probability $p(\xi)$ and its $y$-register has been evolved so that its overlap with the set $\Phi^*_\xi$ of completing strings is $P_{L,\xi}$; quantum amplitude estimation then estimates $a = \sum_\xi p(\xi)P_{L,\xi}$, which the paper shows lies between $(\mu-\epsilon_t)(1-\delta^2)$ and $\mu$. Therefore the output $\tilde{a}$ is within $\epsilon_t+\delta^2\mu-\delta^2\epsilon_t+\pi/M+\pi^2/M^2$ of $\mu$ with probability at least $8/\pi^2$. In the regime $\lambda=O(1/2^c)$ this yields $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{2^c}/\varepsilon)$ oracle calls against the classical $\tilde{O}(2^c/\varepsilon^2)$, the quadratic speedup; outside that regime the advantage is parameter-dependent and is not claimed in general.

Load-bearing premise

The speedup comparison rests on Conjecture 1: when nothing is known about the distribution of the success fraction $\lambda$, no classical algorithm can estimate $\mu$ to error $\varepsilon$ using fewer than roughly $(\mu E_{\lambda>0}[1/\lambda]+(1-\mu)2^c)/\varepsilon^2$ oracle queries; if a smarter classical strategy exists, the quantum advantage shrinks or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When $\lambda=O(1/2^c)$, the oracle-query complexity is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{2^c}/\varepsilon)$, a quadratic improvement over the classical baseline $\tilde{O}(2^c/\varepsilon^2)$.
  • The algorithm runs all $2^b$ scenario searches simultaneously in one wavefunction, so its query cost tracks the difficulty of the relevant searches rather than the number of scenarios.
  • The error bound is one-sided (the estimator tends to underestimate $\mu$), so tuning $\delta$, $M$, and $\lambda_t$ gives a tunable approximation guarantee with success probability at least $8/\pi^2$.
  • Repeating the estimation routine boosts the success probability to any fixed constant at a constant multiplicative query overhead.
  • Because computing $\mu$ exactly is $\#P$-hard, approximation algorithms of this kind target the meaningful regime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: Replacing canonical phase-estimation QAE with one of the iterative amplitude-estimation variants cited in the paper would cut the ancilla count and constant overhead, making the asymptotic speedup easier to demonstrate on small instances without changing the conclusion.
  • Editorial: The query count ignores the cost of preparing the distribution $P$ over $x$, which is efficient only for special families of distributions; an end-to-end speedup claim should include that circuit depth.
  • Editorial: If the distribution of $\lambda$ is partly known, classical early-stopping searches could beat the conjectured baseline in practice, so the cleanest test of the quantum advantage is the fully unknown-distribution case the paper assumes.
  • Editorial: The same sample-solved wavefunction could feed other estimation subroutines, for instance estimating higher moments of the per-scenario success probability, extending the technique beyond just $\mu$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper considers the problem of estimating μ = P(∃y f(x,y)=1) where x is drawn from a known distribution over {0,1}^b and f is a Boolean oracle. The authors propose a quantum algorithm that combines fixed-point oblivious amplitude amplification (Yoder-Low-Chuang) with quantum amplitude estimation (Brassard et al.), and they also specify a classical Monte Carlo algorithm that brute-force searches for a witness in each sampled scenario. The paper derives an error bound for the quantum estimate (Theorem 1), sketches a block-diagonal argument for the amplification subroutine (Theorem 2), proves that computing μ is #P-hard by reduction from graph reliability (Theorem 3), and compares the quantum query complexity to a conjectured classical lower bound. Under the assumption λ = O(1/2^c) and assuming the classical lower bound (Conjecture 1), the authors claim a quadratic quantum speedup.

Significance. If the speedup claim were rigorously established, the paper would be a useful example of how quantum amplitude amplification and estimation can be coherently combined for stochastic optimization problems. The algorithmic composition is reasonable, the derivation of the quantum error bound is plausible, and the authors are transparent that the speedup is conditional on the distribution of λ and on Conjecture 1. The #P-hardness proof is straightforward and correct. However, the central speedup claim is load-bearing on a classical lower bound that is not proven and is not specified with enough rigor to be evaluated; as stated, Conjecture 1 admits natural counterexamples. The paper also contains an apparent inconsistency in query counting and a poorly typeset key equation. These issues must be addressed before the main claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Conjecture 1; Sec. V, Eq. (44)] The conjectured classical lower bound is load-bearing for the speedup claim but is neither proven nor formally specified. The phrase "if the cumulative distribution function of λ is unknown" does not define the information model, and the bound is stated per-distribution rather than as a worst-case bound. This matters because there is a natural promise family for which the conjecture appears false: if every satisfiable ξ has exactly one witness (λ_ξ ∈ {0,1/2^c}) and μ = O(ε), then the classical algorithm that samples (ξ, φ) uniformly and returns 2^c times the empirical success rate uses O(2^c/ε) oracle queries to achieve error ε with constant probability, which is a factor 1/ε below the conjectured bound. If this family is intended to be excluded, the conjecture needs an explicit definition of what structural knowledge is forbidden; otherwise Eq. (44) does not establish a speedup against the optimal classical algorithm.
  2. [Sec. III A, Eq. (8)] Equation (8), which defines the per-scenario success probability P_{L,ξ} of the oblivious amplitude amplification routine, is not correctly typeset and, as written, appears to give values outside [0,1] for boundary cases (e.g., λ_ξ = 0 and L>1). Since Theorem 1 relies on the convergence property 1-δ^2 ≤ P_{L,ξ} ≤ 1 for λ_ξ ≥ λ_t, the authors must write the correct Yoder-Low-Chuang formula and confirm that it satisfies the bounds used in the error analysis.
  3. [Sec. III B, Sec. III A, Theorem 1] The oracle query count is internally inconsistent. Section III A states that S_L has query complexity L-1 (with L = 2l+1), so the operator A = U_f S_L V contains L oracle calls, not L+1. Nevertheless, Section III B and Theorem 1 report a total of (L_t+1)(2M-1) calls. This off-by-one discrepancy affects the exact constant in the complexity and should be reconciled, even though it does not change the asymptotic speedup.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: "loosing" should be "losing" (Introduction), "Hiesenberg" should be "Heisenberg" (Introduction), and "uesful" should be "useful" (Sec. III B).
  2. [Sec. V, near Eq. (44)] The expression for M should be written with parentheses to avoid ambiguity: M = 2π/(√(2ε+1)−1), not "M = 2π/(√2ε + 1 − 1)" as currently typeset.
  3. [Sec. II, Conjecture 1] The reference to Dagum et al. [12] for asymptotic optimality of Monte Carlo estimation should be qualified: that result applies to a class of Monte Carlo estimators, not to the compound search-and-estimation problem considered here.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (5) and Sec. III, notation] The symbol N is used both for the number of sampled scenarios and for the inverse-squared error in the conjectured bound; this double use is confusing and should be cleaned up.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption is incomplete: it refers to a "green region" but does not define it in the text; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum derivation is self-contained, and the speedup caveat stems from an unproved classical conjecture rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The quantum algorithm's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2 verifies that the oblivious amplitude amplification construction acts on each scenario subspace exactly as in Yoder et al. [9], and Theorem 1 combines that with the standard QAE error bound of Brassard et al. [3]. The parameters δ, λ_t, and M are chosen analytically, not fitted to data and then renamed as predictions; the error bound follows from Eqs. (14)-(23) by direct inequalities. The only self-citation, reference [16], appears as related context and is not load-bearing. The main caveat is that the claimed quadratic speedup in Sec. V is evaluated against Conjecture 1, which asserts that no classical algorithm can beat the cost of the paper's own Monte-Carlo-plus-brute-force algorithm when the CDF of λ is unknown. That conjecture is unproved and somewhat underspecified, and the skeptic's promise-family example shows it may not hold in all regimes. However, this is an unproved assumption or correctness risk, not circularity: the quantum bound does not reduce to the conjecture, and the conjecture does not reduce to the quantum result. The paper explicitly labels the classical optimality claim as a conjecture, so the speedup claim is honestly conditional rather than disguised as a theorem. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithm rests on two external quantum primitives (fixed-point search, QAE), one external classical optimality result, plus explicitly stated domain assumptions (unknown CDF with brute-force optimality, and λ=O(1/2^c) for the speedup). No new physical entities are introduced. The user-chosen parameters λ_t and δ control the error/complexity tradeoff and are not fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • λ_t = user-chosen, e.g., 1/2^c
    Threshold satisfying fraction that sets the amplitude amplification depth L_t = ⌈log(2/δ)/√λ_t⌉ and determines the bias term ε_t. It is not fitted to data; the user trades off query depth against estimation bias.
  • δ = user-chosen, e.g., ε/2 in Sec V
    Convergence parameter for the fixed-point search; appears in the success-probability floor 1-δ² and in the error bound δ²μ. Chosen to meet the target accuracy, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Fixed-point quantum search (Yoder et al.) achieves success probability at least 1-δ² after L ≥ log(2/δ)/√λ iterations.
    External theorem from [9]; forms the core of the amplitude amplification subroutine (Eqs. 8-10).
  • standard math Quantum amplitude estimation (Brassard et al.) estimates an amplitude a with error O(1/M) and success probability at least 8/π².
    External result from [3]; used in Eq. 17 and Theorem 1.
  • standard math Monte Carlo integration is asymptotically optimal with error O(1/√N) (Dagum et al.).
    External result from [12]; justifies the classical query count in Conjecture 1.
  • domain assumption Conjecture 1: no classical algorithm can beat brute-force search per sampled scenario when the CDF of λ is unknown.
    Stated as Conjecture 1 in Sec II; the claimed quantum speedup in Sec V is measured against this unproved lower bound.
  • domain assumption The fraction λ of completing bitstrings satisfies λ = O(1/2^c) in the quadratic-speedup regime.
    Assumed in Sec V to set ε_t=0 and L_t ~ √(2^c); the paper explicitly notes the advantage depends on problem parameters.
  • domain assumption The probability distribution over x can be efficiently loaded into the quantum state V.
    Acknowledged in Sec III A; for general distributions P requires exponential circuit depth, which is not counted in the oracle-query comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum algorithm for approximating the expected value of a random-exist quantified oracle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NCPLOBS

@misc{pith2026241200567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum algorithm for approximating the expected value of a random-exist quantified oracle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NCPLOBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00567}
}
abstract

Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation have shown quadratic speedups to unstructured search and estimation tasks. We show that a coherent combination of these quantum algorithms also provides a quadratic speedup to calculating the expectation value of a random-exist quantified oracle. In this problem, Nature makes a decision randomly, i.e. chooses a bitstring according to some probability distribution, and a player has a chance to react by finding a complementary bitstring such that an black-box oracle evaluates to $1$ (or True). Our task is to approximate the probability that the player has a valid reaction to Nature's initial decision. We compare the quantum algorithm to the average-case performance of Monte-Carlo integration over brute-force search, which is, under reasonable assumptions, the best performing classical algorithm. We find the performance separation depends on some problem parameters, and show a regime where the canonical quadratic speedup exists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00567 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. to see the dynamics of PL,ξ. If a scenario ξ is satisfiable, PL,ξ is considered con￾verged for that scenario once it is bound by 1 − δ 2 ≤ PL,ξ ≤ 1; this criteria is met when the number of oracle queries L (and, consequently, depth of the SL routine) satisfies the inequality L ≥ log(2/δ) p λξ . (10) Again, refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The circuit diagram for the algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The circuit diagram for QAE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth An- nual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC ’96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1996) p. 212–219

    1996

  2. [2]

    L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997)

    1997

  3. [3]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    I. B. Djordjevic, Chapter 12 - quantum machine learning, in Quantum Communication, Quantum Networks, and Quantum Sensing , edited by I. B. Djordjevic (Academic Press, 2023) pp. 491–561

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Y. Lu, A. Sigov, L. Ratkin, L. A. Ivanov, and M. Zuo, Quantum computing and industrial information integra- tion: A review, Journal of Industrial Information Inte- gration 35, 100511 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Wittek, 4 - quantum computing, in Quantum Machine Learning, edited by P

    P. Wittek, 4 - quantum computing, in Quantum Machine Learning, edited by P. Wittek (Academic Press, Boston,

    work page

  7. [7]

    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazi- rani, Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing, SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1510–1523 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Brassard, Searching a quantum phone book, Science 275, 627 (1997), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.275.5300.627

    G. Brassard, Searching a quantum phone book, Science 275, 627 (1997), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.275.5300.627

    work page doi:10.1126/science.275.5300.627 1997

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    T. J. Yoder, G. H. Low, and I. L. Chuang, Fixed-point quantum search with an optimal number of queries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210501 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quan- tum 2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Montanaro, Quantum speedup of monte carlo meth- ods, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 471, 20150301 (2015)

    A. Montanaro, Quantum speedup of monte carlo meth- ods, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 471, 20150301 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Dagum, R

    P. Dagum, R. Karp, M. Luby, and S. Ross, An optimal algorithm for monte carlo estimation, SIAM Journal on Computing 29, 1484 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539797315306

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    Gacon, C

    J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Quantum-enhanced simulation-based optimization, in 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) p. 47–55

    2020

  6. [14]

    Woerner and D

    S. Woerner and D. J. Egger, Quantum risk analysis, npj Quantum Information 5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0130- 6 (2019)

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Stamatopoulos, D

    N. Stamatopoulos, D. J. Egger, Y. Sun, C. Zoufal, R. Iten, N. Shen, and S. Woerner, Option pricing using quantum computers, Quantum 4, 291 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Rotello, P

    C. Rotello, P. Graf, M. Reynolds, E. B. Jones, C. J. Win- kleblack, and W. Jones, Calculating the expected value function of a two-stage stochastic optimization program with a quantum algorithm (2024), arXiv:2402.15029 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and X. Waintal, Opening the black box inside grover’s algorithm, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041029 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    M. L. Littman, S. M. Majercik, and T. Pitassi, Stochastic boolean satisfiability, Journal of Automated Reasoning 27, 251 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    C. H. Papadimitriou, Games against nature, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 31, 288 (1985)

    1985

  12. [20]

    Lee, Y.-S

    N.-Z. Lee, Y.-S. Wang, and J.-H. R. Jiang, Solv- ing stochastic boolean satisfiability under random-exist quantification, in Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI’17 (AAAI Press, 2017) p. 688–694

    2017

  13. [21]

    Shapiro, D

    A. Shapiro, D. Dentcheva, and A. Ruszczynski, Lectures on stochastic programming: modeling and theory (SIAM, 2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Laporte, F

    G. Laporte, F. Louveaux, and H. Mercure, The vehicle routing problem with stochastic travel times, Transporta- tion Science 26, 161 (1992)

    1992

  15. [23]

    M. A. H. Dempster, M. L. Fisher, L. Jansen, B. J. Lageweg, J. K. Lenstra, and A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, Analytical evaluation of hierarchical planning systems, Operations Research 29, 707 (1981)

    1981

  16. [24]

    Klein Haneveld and M

    W. Klein Haneveld and M. van der Vlerk, Optimiz- ing electricity distribution using two-stage integer re- course models, University of Groningen, Research Insti- tute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management), Research Report 54 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Rall and B

    P. Rall and B. Fuller, Amplitude estimation from quan- tum signal processing, Quantum 7, 937 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Grinko, J

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Itera- tive quantum amplitude estimation, npj Quantum Infor- mation 7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00379-1 (2021). 9

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Popoviciu, Sur les ´ equations alg´ ebriques ayant toutes leurs racines r´ eelles, Mathematica (Cluj)9 (1935)

    T. Popoviciu, Sur les ´ equations alg´ ebriques ayant toutes leurs racines r´ eelles, Mathematica (Cluj)9 (1935)

    1935

  20. [28]

    T. J. Rivlin, Chebyshev Polynomials: From Approxima- tion Theory to Algebra and Number Theory, 2nd ed. (Wi- ley, New York, 1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    Grover and T

    L. Grover and T. Rudolph, Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distribu- tions (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0208112 [quant-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Plesch and C

    M. Plesch and C. Brukner, Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions, Physical Review A 83, 10.1103/physreva.83.032302 (2011)

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Dasgupta and B

    K. Dasgupta and B. Paine, Loading probability distri- butions in a quantum circuit (2022), arXiv:2208.13372 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zoufal, A

    C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, and S. Woerner, Quantum gen- erative adversarial networks for learning and load- ing random distributions, npj Quantum Information 5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0223-2 (2019)

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Yoshida, A

    S. Yoshida, A. Soeda, and M. Murao, Reversing un- known qubit-unitary operation, deterministically and exactly, Physical Review Letters 131, 10.1103/phys- revlett.131.120602 (2023)

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Dyer and L

    M. Dyer and L. Stougie, Computational complexity of stochastic programming problems, Mathematical Pro- gramming 106, 423 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    L. G. Valiant, The complexity of enumeration and relia- bility problems, SIAM J. Comput. 8, 410 (1979)

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.