Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hidden subgroup problem (HSP) is a cornerstone problem in quantum computing, which captures many problems of interest and provides a standard framework algorithm for their study based on Fourier sampling, one class of techniques known to provide quantum advantage, and which succeeds for some groups but not others. The quantum hardness of the HSP problem for the dihedral group is a critical question for post-quantum cryptosystems based on learning with errors and also appears in subexponential algorithms for constructing isogenies between elliptic curves over a finite field. In this article, we give an updated overview of the dihedral hidden subgroup problem as approached by the “standard” quantum algorithm for HSP on finite groups, detailing the obstructions for strong Fourier sampling to succeed and summarizing other known approaches and results. In our treatment, we “contrast and compare” as much as possible the cyclic and dihedral cases, with a view to determining bounds for the success probability of a quantum algorithm that uses m m coset samples to solve the HSP on these groups. In the last sections, we prove a number of no-go results for the dihedral coset problem (DCP), motivated by a connection between DCP and cloning of quantum states. The proofs of these no-go results are then adapted to give nontrivial upper bounds on the success probability of a quantum algorithm that uses m m coset samples to solve DCP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".