BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Xiangfu Zou

Xiangfu Zou appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
quant-phComputational ComplexityFormal Languages and Automata Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2010arXiv

Arbitrated quantum signature schemes without using entangled states

A digital signature is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or document. For signing quantum messages, some arbitrated quantum signature schemes have being proposed. However, in the existing literature, arbitrated quantum signature schemes depend on entanglement. In this paper, we present two arbitrated quantum signature schemes without utilizing entangled states in the signing phase and the verifying phase. The first proposed scheme can preserve the merits in the existing schemes. Then, we point out, in this scheme and the prior schemes, there exists a problem that Bob can repudiate the integrality of the signatures. To conquer this problem, we construct another arbitrated quantum signature scheme without using quantum entangled states but using a public board. The new scheme has three advantages: it does not utilize entangled states while it can preserve all merits in the existing schemes; the integrality of the signature can avoid being disavowed by the receiver; and, it provides a higher efficiency in transmission and reduces the complexity of implementation. Furthermore, we present a technique such that the quantum message can keep secret to the arbitrator in a arbitrated quantum signature scheme.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Characterizations of one-way general quantum finite automata

In this paper we study a generalized model named one-way general quantum finite automata} (1gQFA), in which each symbol in the input alphabet induces a trace-preserving quantum operation, instead of a unitary transformation. Two different kinds of 1gQFA will be studied: measure-once one-way general quantum finite automata} (MO-1gQFA), and measure-many one-way general quantum finite automata (MM-1gQFA). We prove that MO-1gQFA recognize, with bounded error, precisely the set of all regular languages. We prove that MM-1gQFA also recognize only regular languages with bounded error. Thus, MM-1gQFA and MO-1gQFA have the same language recognition power, which is greatly different from the conventional case in which the number of times the measurement is performed in the computation generally affects the language recognition power of one-way QFA. Finally, we present a sufficient and necessary condition for two MM-1gQFA to be equivalent.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Decidability of the Equivalence of Multi-Letter Quantum Finite Automata

Multi-letter {\it quantum finite automata} (QFAs) were a quantum variant of classical {\it one-way multi-head finite automata} (J. Hromkovič, Acta Informatica 19 (1983) 377-384), and it has been shown that this new one-way QFAs (multi-letter QFAs) can accept with no error some regular languages $(a+b)^{*}b$ that are unacceptable by the previous one-way QFAs. In this paper, we study the decidability of the equivalence of multi-letter QFAs, and the main technical contributions are as follows: (1) We show that any two automata, a $k_{1}$-letter QFA ${\cal A}_1$ and a $k_{2}$-letter QFA ${\cal A}_2$, over the same input alphabet $Σ$ are equivalent if and only if they are $(n^2m^{k-1}-m^{k-1}+k)$-equivalent, where $m=|Σ|$ is the cardinality of $Σ$, $k=\max(k_{1},k_{2})$, and $n=n_{1}+n_{2}$, with $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$ being the numbers of states of ${\cal A}_{1}$ and ${\cal A}_{2}$, respectively. When $k=1$, we obtain the decidability of equivalence of measure-once QFAs in the literature. It is worth mentioning that our technical method is essentially different from that for the decidability of the case of single input alphabet (i.e., $m=1$). (2) However, if we determine the equivalence of multi-letter QFAs by checking all strings of length not more than $ n^2m^{k-1}-m^{k-1}+k$, then the worst time complexity is exponential, i.e., $O(n^6m^{n^2m^{k-1}-m^{k-1}+2k-1})$. Therefore, we design a polynomial-time $O(m^{2k-1}n^{8}+km^kn^{6})$ algorithm for determining the equivalence of any two multi-letter QFAs. Here, the time complexity is concerning the number of states in the multi-letter QFAs, and $k$ is thought of as a constant.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Reply to "Comment on 'Semiquantum-key distribution using less than four quantum states' "

Recently Boyer and Mor pointed out the first conclusion of Lemma 1 in our original paper is not correct, and therefore, the proof of Theorem 5 based on Lemma 1 is wrong. Furthermore, they gave a direct proof for Theorem 5 and affirmed the conclusions in our original paper. In this reply, we admit the first conclusion of Lemma 1 is not correct, but we need to point out the second conclusion of Lemma 1 is correct. Accordingly, all the proofs for Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and Theorems 3--6 are only based on the the second conclusion of Lemma 1 and therefore are correct.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access