On the hitting times of quantum versus random walks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hitting time of a classical random walk (Markov chain) is the time required to detect the presence of -- or equivalently, to find -- a marked state. The hitting time of a quantum walk is subtler to define; in particular, it is unknown whether the detection and finding problems have the same time complexity. In this paper we define new Monte Carlo type classical and quantum hitting times, and we prove several relationships among these and the already existing Las Vegas type definitions. In particular, we show that for some marked state the two types of hitting time are of the same order in both the classical and the quantum case.Further, we prove that for any reversible ergodic Markov chain P, the quantum hitting time of the quantum analogue of P has the same order as the square root of the classical hitting time of P. We also investigate the (im)possibility of achieving a gap greater than quadratic using an alternative quantum walk. In doing so, we define a notion of reversibility for a broad class of quantum walks and show how to derive from any such quantum walk a classical analogue. For the special case of quantum walks built on reflections, we show that the hitting time of the classical analogue is exactly the square of the quantum walk.Finally, we present new quantum algorithms for the detection and finding problems. The complexities of both algorithms are related to the new, potentially smaller, quantum hitting times. The detection algorithm is based on phase estimation and is particularly simple. The finding algorithm combines a similar phase estimation based procedure with ideas of Tulsi from his recent theorem [19] for the 2D grid. Extending his result, we show that for any state-transitive Markov chain with unique marked state, the quantum hitting time is of the same order for both the detection and finding problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".