Mingsheng Ying
Yuan Feng
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
We define a formal framework for reasoning about linear-time properties of quantum systems in which quantum automata are employed in the modeling of systems and certain (closed) subspaces of state Hilbert spaces are used as the atomic propositions about the behavior of systems. We provide an algorithm for verifying invariants of quantum automata. Then, an automata-based model-checking technique is generalized for the verification of safety properties recognizable by reversible automata and ω--properties recognizable by reversible Büchi automata.
- B. Alpern and F. Schneider. 1985. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters 21, 181--185.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Baltazar, R. Chadha, P. Mateus, and A. Sernadas. 2007. Towards model-checking quantum security protocols. In: P. Dini et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Quantum, Nano, and Micro Technologies (ICQNM’07). IEEE Press, 14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Baltazar, R. Chadha, and P. Mateus. 2008. Quantum computation tree logic - model checking and complete calculus. International Journal of Quantum Information 6, 219--236.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. 1984. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing. 175--179.Google Scholar
- G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann. 1936. The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 37, 823--843.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. 2002. The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- T. Brun. 2002. A simple model of qantum trajectories. American Journal of Physics 70, 719--737.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Bruns and J. Harding. 2000. Algebraic aspects of orthomodular lattices. In: B. Coecke, D. Moore and A. Wilce (eds.), Current Research in Operational Quantum Logic: Algebras, Categories, Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 37--65.Google Scholar
- J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller. 2012. Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation. Nature Physics 8, 264--266.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Davidson. 2011. Formal Verification Techniques Using Quantum Process Calculus, PhD thesis, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
- T. Davidson, S. J. Gay, H. Mlnarik, R. Nagarajan, and N. Papanikolaou. 2012. Model checking for communicating quantum processes. International Journal of Unconventional Computing 8, 73--98.Google Scholar
- T. Davidson, S. J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, and I. V. Puthoor. 2012. Analysis of a quantum error correcting code using quantum process calculus. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL’11), Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 95, 67--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn. 2003. Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London A 361, 1655--1674.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, Z. F. Ji, and M. S. Ying. 2007. Probabilistic bisimulations for quantum processes. Information and Computation 205, 1608--1639. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, and M. S. Ying. 2011. Bisimulations for quantum processes. In: Proceedings of the 38th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’11). 523--534. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, and M. S. Ying. 2012. Bisimulations for quantum processes. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 34, art. 17. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Gay and R. Nagarajan. 2005. Communicating quantum processes. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’05). 145--157. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Gay and R. Nagarajan. 2006. Types and typechecking for communicating quantum processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16, 375--406. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, and N. Papanikolaou. 2005. Probabilistic model-checking of quantum protocols arXiv:quant-ph/0504007.Google Scholar
- S. J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, and N. Panaikolaou. 2008. QMC: A model checker for quantum systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Verification (CAV’08), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5123, Springer. 543--547. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, and N. Panaikolaou. 2010. Specification and verification of quantum protocols. In: I. Mackie and S. Gay (eds.), Semantic Techniques in Quantum Computation, Cambridge University Press, 414--472.Google Scholar
- J. Heath, M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, D. Parker, and O. Tymchyshyn. 2006. Probabilistic model checking of complex biological pathways. In: C. Priami (ed.) Proceedings of CMSB, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4210, Springer. 32--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Gottesman. 1997. Stablizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- R. B. Griffiths. 1996. Consistent histories and quantum reasoning. Physical Review A 54, 2759--2774.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Jorrand and M. Lalire. 2004. Toward a quantum process algebra. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF’04). 111--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Kraus. 2010. Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure states. Physical Review Letters 104, art. no. 020504.Google Scholar
- K. Kraus. 1983. States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics 190, Springer.Google Scholar
- O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. 2001. Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 291--314. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kondacs and J. Watrous. 1997. On the power of quantum finite state automata. In: Proceedings of the 38th Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science (FOCS’97). 66--75. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and P. Parker. 2004. Probabilistic symbolic model-checking with PRISM: A hybrid approach. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 6, 128--142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Lalire. 2006. Relations among quantum processes: Bisimilarity and congruence. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16, 407--428. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lamport. 1977. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3, 125--143. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. J. Li, N. K. Yu, and M. S. Ying. Termination of nondeterministic quantum programs. Short presentation of LICSÕ12 (For full paper, see arXiv: 1201.0891).Google Scholar
- S. Lloyd. 1996. Universal quantum simulators. Science 273, 1073--1078.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. 1995. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Safety, Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Mateus and A. Sernadas. 2006. Weakly complete axiomatisation of exogenous quantum propositional logic. Information and Computation 204, 771--794. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Nagarajan and S. J. Gay. 2002. Formal verification of quantum protocols. arXiv: quant-ph/0203086.Google Scholar
- M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. K. Papanikolaou. 2008. Model Checking Quantum Protocols, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
- J.-E. Pin. 1987. On the languages recognised by finite reversible automata. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’87). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 267, Springer, 237--249. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J.-E. Pin. 2001. On reversible automata. In: Proceedings of the First Latin American Theoretical Informatics Symposium (LATIN’92), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 583, Springer. 401--416. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel. 2003. Measurement-based quantum computation with cluster states. Physical Review A 68, art. No. 022312.Google Scholar
- M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. 1994. Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation 115, 1--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. M. Wang and M. S. Ying. 2008. Perfect many-to-one teleportation with stabilizer states. Physical Review A 77, art. No. 032324.Google Scholar
- G. M. Wang and M. S. Ying. 2008. Deterministic distributed dense coding with stabilizer states. Physical Review A 77, art. No. 032306.Google Scholar
- M. S. Ying. 2007. Quantum logic and automata theory. In: D. Gabbay, D. Lehmann, and K. Engesser (eds.), Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 619--754.Google Scholar
- M. S. Ying and Y. Feng. 2009. An algebraic language for distributed quantum computing. IEEE Transactions on Computers 58, 728--743. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. S. Ying, Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, and Z. F. Ji. 2009. An algebra of quantum processes. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10, art. No. 19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. S. Ying, R. Y. Duan, Y. Feng, and Z. F. Ji. 2010. Predicate transformer semantics of quantum programs. In: I. Mackie and S. Gay (eds.), Semantic Techniques in Quantum Computation, Cambridge University Press, 311--360.Google Scholar
- M. S. Ying, N. K. Yu, Y. Feng, and R. Y. Duan. 2013. Verification of quantum programs. Science of Computer Programming 78, 679--1700.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. K. Yu and M. S. Ying. 2012. Reachability and termination analysis of concurrent quantum programs. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2012). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7454, Springer. 69--83. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Model-Checking Linear-Time Properties of Quantum Systems
Recommendations
Presburger liveness verification of discrete timed automata
Using an automata-theoretic approach, we investigate the decidability of liveness properties (called Presburger liveness properties) for timed automata when Presburger formulas on configurations are allowed. While the general problem of checking a ...
Liveness Checking as Safety Checking for Infinite State Spaces
In previous work we have developed a syntactic reduction of repeated reachability to reachability for finite state systems. This may lead to simpler and more uniform proofs for model checking of liveness properties, help to find shortest counterexamples,...
Branching-time model-checking of probabilistic pushdown automata
In this paper we study the model-checking problem for probabilistic pushdown automata (pPDA) and branching-time probabilistic logics PCTL and PCTL^@?. We show that model-checking pPDA against general PCTL formulae is undecidable, but we yield positive ...
Comments