How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Relative approximate counting query complexity
Statement
For an integer , , a predicate with marked addresses, and rational , in the repeated controlled- access mode the dyadic relative-counting procedure uses expected controlled- calls when , and exactly one controlled membership-reflection call per such controlled Grover call. Each controlled additionally uses its declared controlled , controlled , controlled , and control phase. For , this implementation uses controlled- calls: the rough loop reaches its cutoff, and the final estimator still uses . State preparation, gates, and certified classical rounding are separate.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The relative-counting algorithm with , an integer , , rational , and repeated controlled- access.
The loop uses dyadic rough scales and a final size (Relative approximate counting with unknown marked count).
For , the continuation probability at rough scale is ; for , the zero label is certain (Exact zero-label probability for counting).
One controlled Grover call includes the controlled good reflection as a separate supplied access (Amplitude estimation and counting input/output contract).
The declared query model counts each controlled call separately from gates and bit operations (Quantum query complexity).
In repeated controlled-unitary access, Count at any phase-register size uses exactly controlled- calls (Phase-estimation query and gate costs).
For every real , some dyadic scale exceeds : choose a natural by the Archimedean property, prove by induction using the recursion for natural powers, and take (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Exponentiation of natural numbers, , and its agreement with the integer power in , The principle of mathematical induction).
At , the prepared state is a Grover eigenvector with phase (Grover eigenphases encode the good probability).
An exact-grid phase is returned at its exact QPE label with probability one (Exact phase recovery on the QPE grid).
Count at scale runs QPE on the counting Grover iterate with phase labels, including the one-qubit circuit when (Quantum counting by uniform-state amplitude estimation).
Proof
If , [F7] gives phase ; at the first rough scale , [F9] and [F8] give label , so the loop stops at . For , , and [F2] gives . Once , this is at most .
Suppose and put . Choose a natural by [F6]. Induction using the natural-power recursion gives , so a dyadic scale exceeds ; scanning the rough scales in order reaches a first . Its preceding scale is smaller than , hence . By [F5], a rough Count at scale costs controlled- calls. The rough query costs below sum to less than . If the loop reaches , each later zero outcome has conditional probability at most by step 1.1; reaching the th later scale costs at most and has probability at most . Hence the expected tail is bounded by . If the cutoff occurs before , it only removes terms from these upper bounds. Thus the expected rough cost is . If is the actual stopping scale, its final rough Count costs calls since , so is at most twice the expected rough query cost and is also .
The final dyadic is less than twice its threshold, so . By [F5], the final Count uses calls; for , the bound on in step 2.1 therefore gives expected final controlled- calls, while the rough term is absorbed because . If , step 1.1 gives , so the rough cost is one call and the final size is , matching . If , the cutoff scale lies in , the geometric rough-call sum is , and the final schedule uses calls by [F5]. Thus the stated zero-case cost retains the factor.
Each repeated controlled- call contains exactly one controlled factor by [F3]; [F4] keeps that query count separate from controlled and other gates. Thus the stated membership-reflection and resource counts follow.
Depends on
- Relative approximate counting with unknown marked count
- Exact zero-label probability for counting
- Amplitude estimation and counting input/output contract
- Quantum query complexity
- Phase-estimation query and gate costs
- Exponentiation of natural numbers, $m^{n}$, and its agreement with the integer power in $\mathbb{R}$
- The principle of mathematical induction
- Every complete ordered field is Archimedean
- Grover eigenphases encode the good probability
- Exact phase recovery on the QPE grid
- Quantum counting by uniform-state amplitude estimation
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
64 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Brassard, Høyer, Mosca, and Tapp, Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation, complete article, §§4–5, Theorems 11–18 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Andrew M. Childs, Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms, complete lecture notes, §§19.1–19.3 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes, complete 239-page notes, §7.3 (standard reference, not scraped)