Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ethan Bernstein
dblp:56/3307
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
0000-0001-9819-0639ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Theory of computation · 3 · 2 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Theoretical computer science
3 papers |
Computational complexity · 64% Quantum computing and quantum information · 36% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Learning theory · 100% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational complexity
complexity classes |
0.0 | 3 | 1997 | Quantum Complexity Theory · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Quantum complexity theory · STOC 1993 |
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum complexity theory |
0.0 | 3 | 1997 | Quantum Complexity Theory · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Quantum complexity theory · STOC 1993 |
Computational complexity › complexity classes
BQP |
0.0 | 2 | 1997 | Quantum Complexity Theory · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Quantum complexity theory · STOC 1993 |
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum complexity theory
quantum turing machines |
0.0 | 2 | 1997 | Quantum Complexity Theory · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 Quantum complexity theory · STOC 1993 |
Computational complexity › relativization
oracle separation |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 |
Computational complexity › query complexity
quantum query complexity |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 |
Computational complexity
relativization |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 |
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory › concept class learning
linear function learning |
0.0 | 1 | 1992 | Absolute Error Bounds for Learning Linear Functions Online · COLT 1992 |
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning |
0.0 | 1 | 1992 | Absolute Error Bounds for Learning Linear Functions Online · COLT 1992 |
Computational complexity › computability theory
church-turing thesis |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | Quantum Complexity Theory · SIAM J. Comput. 1997 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
oracle separation · 0.0universal quantum turing machine · 0.0counting argument · 0.0worst-case analysis · 0.0absolute error bounds · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum ComputingabstractRecently a great deal of attention has been focused on quantum computation following a sequence of results [Bernstein and Vazirani, in Proc. 25th Annual ACM Symposium Theory Comput., 1993, pp. 11--20, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1277--1339], [Simon, in Proc. 35th Annual IEEE Symposium Foundations Comput. Sci., 1994, pp. 116--123, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1340--1349], [Shor, in Proc. 35th Annual IEEE Symposium Foundations Comput. Sci., 1994, pp. 124--134] suggesting that quantum computers are more powerful than classical probabilistic computers. Following Shor's result that factoring and the extraction of discrete logarithms are both solvable in quantum polynomial time, it is natural to ask whether all of $\NP$ can be efficiently solved in quantum polynomial time. In this paper, we address this question by proving that relative to an oracle chosen uniformly at random with probability 1 the class $\NP$ cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine (QTM) in time $o(2^{n/2})$. We also show that relative to a permutation oracle chosen uniformly at random with probability 1 the class $\NP \cap \coNP$ cannot be solved on a QTM in time $o(2^{n/3})$. The former bound is tight since recent work of Grover [in {\it Proc.\ $28$th Annual ACM Symposium Theory Comput.}, 1996] shows how to accept the class $\NP$ relative to any oracle on a quantum computer in time $O(2^{n/2})$. Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, Umesh V. Vazirani |
SIAM J. Comput. | 2 |
| 1997 | Quantum Complexity TheoryabstractIn this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch's model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97--117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specified. We prove that $O(\log T)$ bits of precision suffice to support a T step computation. This justifies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church--Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class $\BPP$. The class $\BQP$ of languages that are efficiently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satisfies $\BPP \subseteq \BQP \subseteq \Ptime^{\SP}$. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory. Ethan Bernstein, Umesh V. Vazirani |
SIAM J. Comput. | 1 |
| 1993 | Quantum complexity theoryabstractAbstract. In this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our rst result is the existence of an ecient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch’s model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97{117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specied. We prove that O(log T) bits of precision suce to support a T step computation. This justies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the rst formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church{Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class BPP. The class BQP of languages that are eciently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satises BPP ⊆ BQP ⊆ P]P. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory. Ethan Bernstein, Umesh V. Vazirani |
STOC | 1 |
| 1992 | Absolute Error Bounds for Learning Linear Functions OnlineabstractIn this note, we consider the problem of learning a linear function from ** to ** online. Two previous algorithms have been presented which achieve an optimal sum of squared error terms. We show that neither algorithm performs well with respect to absolute error. We also show that in both problem settings, very simple ideas given an algorithm which achieves optimal or close to optimal worst case absolute error. Ethan Bernstein |
COLT | 1 |