Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Bill Rosgen

dblp:08/252 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 4 · 2 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
2 papers
Quantum computing and quantum information · 70% Mathematical optimization · 30%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Emerging computing paradigms · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › cryptographic foundations
complexity-based cryptography
0.112011
Quantum Commitments from Complexity Assumptions · ICALP (1) 2011
Quantum computing and quantum information › quantum cryptography
quantum commitments
0.112011
Quantum Commitments from Complexity Assumptions · ICALP (1) 2011
Quantum computing and quantum information
quantum cryptography
0.112011
Quantum Commitments from Complexity Assumptions · ICALP (1) 2011
Emerging computing paradigms
quantum computing and quantum information
0.112005
On the Hardness of Distinguishing Mixed-State Quantum Computations · CCC 2005
Mathematical optimization
integer programming
0.112005
On the Hardness of Distinguishing Mixed-State Quantum Computations · CCC 2005
Mathematical optimization › integer programming
quantum interactive proofs
0.112005
On the Hardness of Distinguishing Mixed-State Quantum Computations · CCC 2005

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

complexity assumptions · 0.1complexity assumption · 0.1promise problem reduction · 0.1completeness · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Quantum commitments from complexity assumptions
André Chailloux, Iordanis Kerenidis, Bill Rosgen
Comput. Complex.3
2011 Quantum Commitments from Complexity Assumptions
André Chailloux, Iordanis Kerenidis, Bill Rosgen
ICALP (1)3
2008 Distinguishing Short Quantum Computations
abstract
Distinguishing logarithmic depth quantum circuits on mixed states is shown to be complete for $QIP$, the class of problems having quantum interactive proof systems. Circuits in this model can represent arbitrary quantum processes, and thus this result has implications for the verification of implementations of quantum algorithms. The distinguishability problem is also complete for $QIP$ on constant depth circuits containing the unbounded fan-out gate. These results are shown by reducing a $QIP$-complete problem to a logarithmic depth version of itself using a parallelization technique.
Bill Rosgen
STACS1
2005 On the Hardness of Distinguishing Mixed-State Quantum Computations
abstract
This paper considers the following problem. Two mixed-state quantum circuits Q/sub 0/ and Q/sub 1/ are given, and the goal is to determine which of two possibilities holds: (i) Q/sub 0/ and Q/sub 1/ act nearly identically on all possible quantum state inputs, or (ii) there exists some input state /spl rho/ that Q/sub 0/ and Q/sub 1/ transform into almost perfectly distinguishable outputs. This may be viewed as an abstraction of the problem that asks, given two discrete quantum mechanical processes described by sequences of local interactions, are the processes effectively the same or are they different? We prove that this promise problem is complete for the class QIP of problems having quantum interactive proof systems, and is therefore PSPACE-hard. This is in contrast to the fact that the analogous problem for classical (probabilistic) circuits is in AM, and for unitary quantum circuits is in QMA.
Bill Rosgen
CCC1