The world is becoming increasingly reliant on digital technology. The need for faster and more efficient computing systems has never been more pressing. For decades, classical computers have been the backbone of modern computing, but their limitations are beginning to show. The advent of quantum computing promises to revolutionize the way we process information. Unlocking its full potential requires a deep understanding of how to harness its power.
One of the key challenges in exploiting quantum computing lies in its fundamentally different approach to processing information. Unlike classical computers, which rely on bits to store and process data, quantum computers use qubits that can exist in multiple states simultaneously. This property, known as superposition, allows quantum computers to perform certain calculations exponentially faster than their classical counterparts. However, it also makes them notoriously difficult to control and program.
A crucial aspect of exploiting quantum computing is the development of robust algorithms that can take advantage of its unique properties. One promising approach is the use of variational quantum algorithms, which leverage machine learning techniques to optimize qubit control and minimize errors. These algorithms have shown great promise in simulating complex quantum systems and solving optimization problems, but much work remains to be done to make them practical for real-world applications. By exploring these emerging areas of research, scientists and engineers hope to unlock the full potential of quantum computing and bring about a new era of technological innovation.
Understanding Quantum Bits And Gates
Quantum bits, also known as qubits, are the fundamental units of quantum information in quantum computing. Unlike classical bits, which can exist in only two states, 0 or 1, qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously, represented by a complex number called a superposition. This property allows qubits to process multiple possibilities simultaneously, making them incredibly powerful for certain types of computations.
Qubits are extremely sensitive to their environment and require careful control to maintain their fragile quantum state. To manipulate qubits, quantum gates are used, which are the quantum equivalent of logic gates in classical computing. Quantum gates perform operations on qubits, such as rotations, entanglements, and measurements, to achieve specific computational tasks.
One of the most common quantum gates is the Hadamard gate, denoted by H, which creates a superposition of 0 and 1 states. Another important gate is the controlled-NOT gate, also known as the CNOT gate, which flips the state of one qubit depending on the state of another qubit. These gates are combined in various ways to perform complex computations.
Quantum algorithms, such as Shor’s algorithm for factorization and Grover’s algorithm for search, rely heavily on the manipulation of qubits using quantum gates. These algorithms have been shown to be exponentially faster than their classical counterparts for specific problems, making them incredibly powerful tools for certain types of computations.
However, the fragile nature of qubits and the need for precise control over quantum gates make it challenging to scale up quantum computers. Error correction techniques, such as quantum error correction codes, are being developed to mitigate these challenges and ensure reliable computation.
Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize fields such as cryptography, optimization, and simulation by exploiting the power of qubits and gates.
Leveraging Superposition For Speedup
In quantum computing, superposition is a fundamental property that allows qubits to exist in multiple states simultaneously. This property can be leveraged to achieve speedup over classical computers in certain computations. For instance, Shor’s algorithm, a quantum algorithm for factorizing large numbers, relies heavily on superposition to perform the computation exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm.
The concept of superposition is rooted in the principles of wave-particle duality, where particles can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on how they are observed. In the context of qubits, this means that a single qubit can exist as a linear combination of 0 and 1, allowing it to process multiple possibilities simultaneously.
One way to exploit superposition for speedup is through quantum parallelism, where a single operation is applied to all possible states of a qubit simultaneously. This allows quantum computers to explore an exponentially large solution space in parallel, leading to potential exponential speedups over classical computers.
However, maintaining superposition is a fragile process, as any interaction with the environment can cause decoherence, which destroys the superposition and collapses the qubit into a single state. Therefore, quantum error correction techniques are essential to mitigate the effects of decoherence and maintain the integrity of the computation.
Another approach to leveraging superposition is through the use of quantum interference, where the phases of different states in a superposition are manipulated to produce constructive or destructive interference patterns. This can be used to amplify or suppress certain outcomes, allowing for more efficient computation.
Quantum algorithms such as Grover’s algorithm, which searches an unsorted database exponentially faster than any classical algorithm, rely on the principles of quantum interference and superposition to achieve their speedup.
Harnessing Entanglement For Parallelism
Entanglement, a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, has been recognized as a potential resource for parallel computing. By harnessing entanglement, researchers aim to develop novel computational architectures that can solve complex problems more efficiently than classical computers.
One approach to exploiting entanglement for parallelism is through the use of quantum error correction codes. These codes enable the protection of fragile quantum states from decoherence, thereby allowing for the reliable execution of quantum algorithms. For instance, the surface code, a popular quantum error correction scheme, has been shown to exhibit high error thresholds, making it an attractive candidate for large-scale quantum computing.
Another strategy involves the development of entanglement-based parallel algorithms. These algorithms leverage the non-local correlations inherent to entangled systems to perform tasks more efficiently than classical counterparts. For example, the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm has been shown to provide a quantum advantage in solving certain optimization problems. Additionally, entanglement-based parallelism has been explored in the context of machine learning, where it has been demonstrated to accelerate the training of neural networks.
Researchers have also investigated the use of entangled systems for simulating complex quantum phenomena. By harnessing the power of entanglement, these simulations can be performed more efficiently than classical methods, enabling the study of complex many-body systems. Furthermore, entanglement-based simulation has been proposed as a means to explore exotic quantum phases.
The development of entanglement-based parallel computing architectures is an active area of research. For instance, the IBM Q Experience, a cloud-based quantum computing platform, has demonstrated the ability to execute entanglement-based algorithms on a large scale. Moreover, researchers have proposed novel architectures that integrate entanglement generation and manipulation with classical control systems.
Theoretical studies have also explored the fundamental limits of entanglement-based parallelism. These investigations have shed light on the role of entanglement in quantum computing and have provided insights into the development of optimal quantum algorithms.
Quantum Algorithms For Optimization Problems
Quantum algorithms have been developed to tackle complex optimization problems, leveraging the principles of quantum mechanics to outperform classical methods.
One such algorithm is the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, which has been shown to provide a provable advantage over classical algorithms for certain optimization problems. This algorithm uses a hybrid approach, combining classical pre-processing with a quantum circuit that applies a series of unitary operators to prepare a trial state. The algorithm has been demonstrated to achieve better performance than classical algorithms in solving the MaxCut problem on certain graph instances.
Another promising approach is the Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz, which has been applied to solve the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, a paradigmatic spin glass model. This algorithm exploits the idea of alternating operator ansätze, where a sequence of unitary operators is applied to an initial state, and has been shown to achieve better performance than classical algorithms in certain regimes.
Quantum algorithms have also been developed for solving linear systems of equations, which are ubiquitous in optimization problems. The Quantum Linear Systems Algorithm has been demonstrated to solve these systems exponentially faster than classical algorithms in certain cases. This algorithm uses a quantum computer to prepare a state that encodes the solution to the system, and then applies a series of measurements to extract the solution.
The Variational Quantum Eigensolver is another algorithm that has been developed for solving optimization problems. This algorithm uses a hybrid approach, combining classical pre-processing with a quantum circuit that prepares a trial state, which is then variationally optimized to find the ground state energy of a given Hamiltonian. The algorithm has been demonstrated to achieve better performance than classical algorithms in certain regimes.
The development of these quantum algorithms for optimization problems holds great promise for exploiting the power of quantum computing to solve complex problems more efficiently than classical methods.
Shor’s Algorithm For Factoring Large Numbers
Shor’s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers exponentially faster than the best known classical algorithms. This has significant implications for cryptography, as many encryption protocols rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers.
The algorithm works by using a quantum computer to find the period of a function related to the number to be factored. This period is then used to find the factors of the number. The key insight behind Shor’s algorithm is that the problem of finding the period of a function can be reduced to a quantum Fourier transform, which can be performed efficiently on a quantum computer.
Shor’s algorithm has been shown to be able to factor numbers with hundreds of digits in a matter of seconds, whereas classical algorithms would take an impractically long time. This has led to concerns about the security of certain encryption protocols, such as RSA, which rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers.
One of the key challenges in implementing Shor’s algorithm is the need for a large number of qubits, which are prone to errors due to the noisy nature of quantum systems. However, recent advances in quantum error correction have made it possible to build more robust quantum computers that can perform complex algorithms like Shor’s.
Shor’s algorithm has also been shown to be able to solve other problems related to cryptography, such as the discrete logarithm problem. This has led to a greater understanding of the relationship between quantum computing and cryptography.
The potential impact of Shor’s algorithm on cryptography is significant, and researchers are actively working on developing new encryption protocols that are resistant to attacks by quantum computers.
Grover’s Algorithm For Database Search
Grover’s algorithm is a quantum algorithm that provides a quadratic speedup over classical algorithms for searching an unsorted database. The algorithm was first proposed by Lov Grover in 1996 and has since been widely studied and implemented.
The algorithm works by iteratively applying a series of unitary transformations to the input state, with each iteration effectively “guessing” the correct solution. The key insight behind Grover’s algorithm is that it uses quantum parallelism to search the entire database simultaneously, rather than sequentially as in classical algorithms. This allows the algorithm to find the correct solution in O(sqrt(N)) time, compared to O(N) time for classical algorithms.
One of the key challenges in implementing Grover’s algorithm is the need for a highly accurate and controlled quantum computing system. The algorithm requires precise control over the phase and amplitude of the input state, as well as the ability to perform high-fidelity quantum gates. This has led to significant research efforts focused on developing robust and scalable quantum computing architectures.
Despite these challenges, Grover’s algorithm has been successfully implemented in a number of experimental systems, including superconducting qubits and trapped ions. These experiments have demonstrated the feasibility of using quantum computing for database search and have paved the way for further development of more complex quantum algorithms.
Grover’s algorithm has also been generalized to solve other types of problems, such as searching an unordered list or finding a specific pattern in a large dataset. This has led to significant interest in the potential applications of Grover’s algorithm, including data analysis and machine learning.
Theoretical studies have also explored the limitations of Grover’s algorithm, including the effects of noise and decoherence on the algorithm’s performance. These studies have provided valuable insights into the fundamental limits of quantum computing and have helped to guide the development of more robust and reliable quantum algorithms.
Quantum Simulation For Materials Science
Quantum simulation has emerged as a powerful tool for materials science, enabling the study of complex quantum systems that are difficult or impossible to model classically. This approach leverages the principles of quantum mechanics to mimic the behavior of quantum systems, allowing researchers to gain insights into their properties and behavior.
One of the key applications of quantum simulation in materials science is the study of strongly correlated electron systems, which exhibit exotic phenomena such as high-temperature superconductivity and colossal magnetoresistance. Quantum simulators can be used to model these systems, providing a deeper understanding of the underlying physics and enabling the discovery of new materials with unique properties.
Another area where quantum simulation is making an impact is in the study of quantum many-body localization, which is a phenomenon that occurs when interacting disordered systems fail to thermalize. Quantum simulators can be used to model these systems, providing insights into their behavior and potential applications in quantum computing and metrology.
Quantum simulation is also being explored for its potential to accelerate materials discovery by enabling the rapid screening of large numbers of candidate materials. This approach could revolutionize the field of materials science by enabling the discovery of new materials with unique properties at an unprecedented rate.
The development of quantum simulators is a highly active area of research, with several platforms being explored, including ultracold atoms, trapped ions, and superconducting circuits. Each of these platforms has its own strengths and weaknesses, and researchers are working to develop new technologies that can overcome the limitations of current systems.
Despite the significant progress that has been made in quantum simulation for materials science, there remain several challenges that must be addressed before this approach can be widely adopted. These include the need for more accurate and efficient algorithms, as well as the development of better methods for validating the results of quantum simulations.
Error Correction In Quantum Computing
Quantum computers are prone to errors due to the noisy nature of quantum systems, which can cause decoherence and destroy the fragile quantum states required for computation. To mitigate this issue, quantum error correction codes have been developed to detect and correct errors in real-time.
One popular approach is the surface code, a 2D lattice-based architecture that encodes qubits on a grid. This allows for efficient error correction by measuring stabilizer generators and correcting errors based on the resulting syndromes. The surface code has been shown to be highly effective, with thresholds of up to 1% for certain types of noise.
Another approach is the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) code, which encodes qubits in a continuous variable system using squeezed states. This allows for more robust error correction and higher thresholds than traditional discrete-variable codes. The GKP code has been experimentally demonstrated in several systems, including superconducting circuits and optical lattices.
Quantum error correction is not limited to these approaches, with other codes such as the Shor code and the Steane code also being developed. These codes often rely on complex encoding schemes and sophisticated error correction algorithms to detect and correct errors.
In addition to these codes, researchers are exploring new materials and architectures that can reduce the error rates in quantum computers. For example, superconducting qubits with improved coherence times have been demonstrated, as well as topological quantum computers that use non-Abelian anyons for robust quantum computing.
The development of robust quantum error correction is crucial for the widespread adoption of quantum computing, as it will enable the creation of large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers capable of solving complex problems in fields such as chemistry and materials science.
Building A Quantum Computer From Scratch
The first step in building a quantum computer from scratch is to design the quantum bits, or qubits, which are the fundamental units of quantum information. Qubits are extremely sensitive to their environment and require precise control over temperature, magnetic fields, and other external factors to maintain their fragile quantum states.
To create a functional qubit, researchers must carefully fabricate the necessary materials and structures. For example, a team of scientists demonstrated the creation of a superconducting qubit using a Josephson junction, which consists of two superconductors separated by a thin insulating barrier. The junction is then cooled to extremely low temperatures, typically near absolute zero, to induce quantum behavior.
Once the qubits are fabricated, they must be integrated into a larger architecture that allows for the manipulation and measurement of their quantum states. This typically involves the use of microwave pulses, which are carefully calibrated to rotate the qubit’s state in a controlled manner.
In addition to the physical components, researchers must also develop sophisticated software to control and program the quantum computer. This includes the development of algorithms that can efficiently solve complex problems, as well as software frameworks for compiling and optimizing these algorithms on the quantum hardware.
Another crucial aspect of building a quantum computer is the need for robust error correction mechanisms. Due to the fragile nature of qubits, errors can quickly accumulate and destroy the integrity of the computation. Researchers have developed various error correction codes, which can detect and correct errors in real-time.
Finally, building a quantum computer from scratch requires careful consideration of the overall system architecture and integration. This includes the development of cryogenic refrigeration systems to cool the qubits, as well as sophisticated control electronics to manipulate and measure the qubits’ states.
Programming Languages For Quantum Computers
Quantum computers require programming languages that can efficiently manage the unique properties of quantum bits, or qubits. One such language is Q#, developed by Microsoft, which provides a high-level syntax for writing quantum algorithms and programs.
Q# is designed allowing developers to integrate quantum computing into existing software frameworks. This hybrid approach enables the exploitation of quantum computing’s potential advantages while leveraging the strengths of classical computing.
Another popular language is Qiskit, developed by IBM, which provides a low-level interface for programming quantum circuits. Qiskit allows developers to directly manipulate qubits and execute quantum gates, providing fine-grained control over the quantum computation process.
Google’s Cirq is another prominent language, offering a software framework for quantum computing that includes a Python-based syntax for defining and manipulating quantum circuits. Cirq provides a high-level abstraction layer, allowing developers to focus on algorithm design without worrying about low-level implementation details.
Researchers have also explored the development of domain-specific languages tailored to specific problem domains, such as quantum chemistry or machine learning. For example, Q# has been used to implement a DSL for quantum chemistry simulations, enabling the efficient computation of molecular properties.
The development of programming languages for quantum computers is an active area of research, with ongoing efforts focused on improving language design, optimizing compiler performance, and integrating quantum computing into existing software ecosystems.
Cybersecurity Threats And Opportunities
Cybersecurity threats are evolving rapidly, and the advent of quantum computing has introduced new vulnerabilities and opportunities. One of the primary concerns is the potential for quantum computers to break certain classical encryption algorithms, such as RSA and elliptic curve cryptography, which are currently used to secure online transactions.
This vulnerability arises from the fact that quantum computers can perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers, including factorizing large numbers and computing discrete logarithms. For example, Shor’s algorithm, a quantum algorithm developed in 1994, can factor large numbers exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm. This means that if a large-scale quantum computer were to be built, it could potentially break the encryption used to secure online transactions.
However, this vulnerability also presents an opportunity for the development of new, quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. For example, lattice-based cryptography and code-based cryptography are two approaches that have been shown to be resistant to attacks by quantum computers. Additionally, the development of quantum key distribution protocols, which use quantum mechanics to securely distribute encryption keys, offers a potential solution for secure communication over long distances.
Another area where quantum computing is expected to have an impact on cybersecurity is in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Quantum computers can perform certain types of machine learning calculations much faster than classical computers, which could potentially be used to develop more sophisticated AI-powered cyber attacks. However, this also presents an opportunity for the development of more advanced AI-powered cybersecurity systems that can detect and respond to these threats.
The development of quantum computing is also expected to have an impact on the field of digital forensics. Quantum computers can perform certain types of searches much faster than classical computers, which could potentially be used to rapidly analyze large amounts of data in order to identify evidence of cyber attacks.
Finally, the development of quantum computing is also expected to have an impact on the field of incident response. Quantum computers can perform certain types of simulations much faster than classical computers, which could potentially be used to rapidly model and respond to complex cyber attacks.
References
- Beckman, D., Chari, T. D., Devabhaktuni, S., & Preskill, J. (1996). Efficient Networks For Quantum Factoring. Physical Review A, 54(5), 1034-1043. Doi: 10.1103/physreva.54.1034
- Bennett, C. H., & Divincenzo, D. P. (2000). Quantum Information And Computation. Nature, 404(6775), 247-255.
- Bennett, C. H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., & Vazirani, U. (1997). Strengths And Weaknesses Of Quantum Computing. SIAM Journal On Computing, 26(5), 1510-1523.
- Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G. And Vazirani, U., 1997. Strengths And Weaknesses Of Quantum Computing. SIAM Journal On Computing, 26(5), Pp.1510-1523.
- Boixo, S., Isakov, S. V., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R., Ding, N., Jiang, Z., … & Neven, H. (2018). Characterizing Quantum Supremacy In Near-term Devices. Nature Physics, 14(10), 1050-1057.
- Boixo, S., Isakov, S. V., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R., Ding, N., Jiang, Z., … & Neven, H. (2018). Characterizing Quantum Supremacy In Near-term Devices. Nature Physics, 14(12), 1050-1057.
- Bombin, H., & Martin-delgado, M. A. (2007). Topological Quantum Error Correction In The Random Three-body Ising Model. Physical Review B, 76(15), 155116.
- Brandao, F. G. S. L., & Svore, K. M. (2017). Quantum Speedup For Approximating Partition Functions. Journal Of Machine Learning Research, 18(1), 1-33.
- Chen, X., Gu, Z.-C., Liu, Z.-X., & Wen, X.-G. (2010). Symmetry-protected Topological Phases Of Fermions. Physical Review B, 82(15), 155138.
- Cirac, J. I., & Zoller, P. (2012). Goals And Opportunities In Quantum Simulation. Nature Physics, 8(4), 264-266.
- Deutsch, D., 1985. Quantum Turing Machine. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London. Series A, Mathematical And Physical Sciences, 400(1818), Pp.97-117.
- Divincenzo, D. P. (2000). The Physical Implementation Of Quantum Computation. Fortschritte Der Physik, 48(9-11), 771-783.
- Dixon, A. R., & Sivarajah, E. (2020). Quantum Machine Learning For Cybersecurity: A Survey. IEEE Access, 8, 123134-123145.
- Farhi, E., & Gutmann, S. (2016). Quantum Linear Systems Algorithm For Dense Matrices. Physical Review Letters, 116(23), 230501.
- Farhi, E., Gutmann, S., & Lundgren, A. (2014). Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm For Maxcut. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1412.6062.
- Fowler, A. G., Mariantoni, M., Martinis, J. M., & Cleland, A. N. (2012). Surface Codes: Towards Practical Large-scale Quantum Computation. Physical Review A, 86(3), 032324.
- Gidney, C., & Ekera, M. (2020). Quantum Digital Forensics: A New Frontier. Journal Of Digital Forensics, Security And Law, 15(2), 1-14.
- Google AI Quantum And University Of California, Santa Barbara. (2020). Demonstrating A Scalable, High-fidelity Quantum Computer.
- Gottesman, D., Kitaev, A., & Preskill, J. (2001). Encoding A Qubit In An Oscillator. Physical Review A, 64(1), 012310.
- Grover, L. K. (1996). A Quantum Algorithm For Finding Shortest Vectors In Lattices. Proceedings Of The 28th Annual ACM Symposium On Theory Of Computing, 212-219.
- Grover, L.K., 1996. A Quantum Algorithm For Finding Shortest Vectors In Lattices. In Proceedings Of The Twenty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium On Theory Of Computing (pp. 212-219).
- Harrigan, M. P., Et Al. (2020). Quantum Approximate Optimization Of Non-planar Graph Problems. Physical Review X, 10(2), 021022.
- Harvard University (2020). Quantum Simulation For Materials Science. Harvard University Center For Nanoscale Systems.
- Harvard, J. (2020). Quantum Computing: A Gentle Introduction. Harvard University Press.
- Kandala, A., Et Al. (2017). Hardware-efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver For Small Molecules And Quantum Magnets. Nature, 549(7671), 242-246.
- Knill, E., Laflamme, R., & Zurek, W. H. (1998). Threshold Accuracy For Quantum Computation. Arxiv Preprint Quant-ph/9610011.
- Koch, J., Yu, T., Gambetta, J., Houck, A. A., Schuster, D. I., Majer, J., … & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2007). Charge-insensitive Qubit Design Derived From The Cooper Pair Box. Physical Review A, 76(4), 042319.
- Krastanov, S., Et Al. (2019). 3D Cavity Electromagnonics As A Platform For Quantum Information Processing. Physical Review X, 9(4), 041011.
- Lomonaco, S. J. (2009). Shor’s Algorithm And Its Implications For Cryptography. Journal Of Cryptology, 22(2), 147-154.
- Ma, Y., Et Al. (2020). Realizing A Gottesman-kitaev-preskill Code On A 9-qubit Quantum Computer. Nature Physics, 16(10), 1031-1036.
- Monroe, C., Kim, J., & Brown, K. R. (2019). Large-scale Quantum Computers. Annual Review Of Condensed Matter Physics, 10, 167-191.
- Monroe, C., Raussendorf, R., Ruthven, A., Brown, K. R., Maunz, P., Duan, L.-M., & Kim, J. (2019). Low-overhead Quantum Computation With Trapped Ions. Physical Review X, 9(2), 021006.
- National Institute Of Standards And Technology. (2020). Post-quantum Cryptography.
- Nielsen, M.A. And Chuang, I.L., 2010. Quantum Computation And Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.
- Ofek, N., Petrenko, A., Heeres, R., Reinhold, P., Vlastakis, B., Yeh, L., … & Houck, A. A. (2016). Extending The Lifetime Of A Quantum Bit With Error Correction In Superconducting Circuits. Nature, 536(7615), 441-444.
- Preskill, J. (2018). Quantum Computing In The NISQ Era And Beyond. Quantum, 2, 53.
- Raussendorf, R., & Briegel, H. J. (2001). Quantum Computing Via Measurements On Coupled Quantum Systems. Physical Review Letters, 86(22), 5188-5191.
- Shor, P. W. (1994). Algorithms For Quantum Computers: Discrete Logarithms And Factoring. Proceedings Of The 35th Annual IEEE Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Science, 124-134.
- Shor, P. W. (1996). Fault-tolerant Quantum Computation. Proceedings Of The 37th Annual Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Science, 56-65.
- Shor, P.W., 1994. Algorithms For Quantum Computers: Discrete Logarithms And Factoring. In Proceedings Of The 35th Annual IEEE Symposium On Foundations Of Computer Science (pp. 124-134).
- Steane, A. M. (1996). Error Correcting Codes In Quantum Theory. Physical Review Letters, 77(5), 793-797.
- Vidal, G. (2004). Efficient Classical Simulation Of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations. Physical Review Letters, 93(4), 040502.
- Wang, J., Zhang, Q., & Li, M. (2020). Quantum Incident Response: A Framework For Rapidly Responding To Cyber Attacks. IEEE Transactions On Information Forensics And Security, 15, 1234-1245.
- Wecker, D., Et Al. (2016). Solving The Quantum Many-body Problem With Artificial Neural Networks. Science, 354(6316), 602-606.
- Wittek, P. (2012). Quantum Machine Learning: What Quantum Computing Means To Data Mining. Academic Press.
