×

Model-checking linear-time properties of quantum systems. (English) Zbl 1354.68090


MSC:

68Q12 Quantum algorithms and complexity in the theory of computing
68Q45 Formal languages and automata
68Q60 Specification and verification (program logics, model checking, etc.)

Software:

PRISM

References:

[1] B. Alpern and F. Schneider. 1985. Defining liveness. Information Processing Letters 21, 181–185. · Zbl 0575.68030 · doi:10.1016/0020-0190(85)90056-0
[2] C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. 2008. Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. · Zbl 1179.68076
[3] 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.
[4] 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. · Zbl 1151.81305 · doi:10.1142/S0219749908003530
[5] 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. · Zbl 1306.81030
[6] G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann. 1936. The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 37, 823–843. · Zbl 0015.14603 · doi:10.2307/1968621
[7] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. 2002. The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford. · Zbl 1053.81001
[8] T. Brun. 2002. A simple model of qantum trajectories. American Journal of Physics 70, 719–737. · doi:10.1119/1.1475328
[9] 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. · Zbl 0955.06003 · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1201-9_2
[10] J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller. 2012. Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation. Nature Physics 8, 264–266. · doi:10.1038/nphys2275
[11] T. Davidson. 2011. Formal Verification Techniques Using Quantum Process Calculus, PhD thesis, University of Warwick.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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. · doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1227
[15] Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, Z. F. Ji, and M. S. Ying. 2007. Probabilistic bisimulations for quantum processes. Information and Computation 205, 1608–1639. · Zbl 1130.68079 · doi:10.1016/j.ic.2007.08.001
[16] 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. · Zbl 1284.68425
[17] Y. Feng, R. Y. Duan, and M. S. Ying. 2012. Bisimulations for quantum processes. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 34, art. 17. · Zbl 1130.68079 · doi:10.1145/2400676.2400680
[18] 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. · Zbl 1369.68207
[19] S. J. Gay and R. Nagarajan. 2006. Types and typechecking for communicating quantum processes. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16, 375–406. · Zbl 1122.68059 · doi:10.1017/S0960129506005263
[20] S. J. Gay, R. Nagarajan, and N. Papanikolaou. 2005. Probabilistic model-checking of quantum protocols arXiv:quant-ph/0504007.
[21] 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.
[22] 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. · Zbl 1196.68135
[23] 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. · Zbl 1133.68043
[24] D. Gottesman. 1997. Stablizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology.
[25] R. B. Griffiths. 1996. Consistent histories and quantum reasoning. Physical Review A 54, 2759–2774. · doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.54.2759
[26] 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.
[27] B. Kraus. 2010. Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure states. Physical Review Letters 104, art. no. 020504. · Zbl 1255.81048 · doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.020504
[28] K. Kraus. 1983. States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory. Lecture Notes in Physics 190, Springer. · Zbl 0545.46049
[29] O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. 2001. Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design 19, 291–314. · Zbl 0995.68061 · doi:10.1023/A:1011254632723
[30] 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.
[31] 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. · doi:10.1007/s10009-004-0140-2
[32] M. Lalire. 2006. Relations among quantum processes: Bisimilarity and congruence. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16, 407–428. · Zbl 1122.68060 · doi:10.1017/S096012950600524X
[33] L. Lamport. 1977. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 3, 125–143. · Zbl 0349.68006 · doi:10.1109/TSE.1977.229904
[34] 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).
[35] S. Lloyd. 1996. Universal quantum simulators. Science 273, 1073–1078. · Zbl 1226.81059 · doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073
[36] Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. 1995. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems: Safety, Springer. · Zbl 0753.68003 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4222-2
[37] P. Mateus and A. Sernadas. 2006. Weakly complete axiomatisation of exogenous quantum propositional logic. Information and Computation 204, 771–794. · Zbl 1116.03021 · doi:10.1016/j.ic.2006.02.001
[38] R. Nagarajan and S. J. Gay. 2002. Formal verification of quantum protocols. arXiv: quant-ph/0203086.
[39] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press. · Zbl 1049.81015
[40] N. K. Papanikolaou. 2008. Model Checking Quantum Protocols, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick.
[41] 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.
[42] 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.
[43] R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel. 2003. Measurement-based quantum computation with cluster states. Physical Review A 68, art. No. 022312. · doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022312
[44] M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. 1994. Reasoning about infinite computations. Information and Computation 115, 1–37. · Zbl 0827.03009 · doi:10.1006/inco.1994.1092
[45] G. M. Wang and M. S. Ying. 2008. Perfect many-to-one teleportation with stabilizer states. Physical Review A 77, art. No. 032324. · doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032324
[46] G. M. Wang and M. S. Ying. 2008. Deterministic distributed dense coding with stabilizer states. Physical Review A 77, art. No. 032306. · doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032306
[47] 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. · doi:10.1016/B978-044452870-4/50037-6
[48] M. S. Ying and Y. Feng. 2009. An algebraic language for distributed quantum computing. IEEE Transactions on Computers 58, 728–743. · Zbl 1367.81039 · doi:10.1109/TC.2009.13
[49] 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. · Zbl 1351.68187 · doi:10.1145/1507244.1507249
[50] 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. · Zbl 1196.68123
[51] M. S. Ying, N. K. Yu, Y. Feng, and R. Y. Duan. 2013. Verification of quantum programs. Science of Computer Programming 78, 679–1700. · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2013.03.016
[52] 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. · Zbl 1364.68145
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.