arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 10 Jan 2018
|
|
- Alexandra Tucker
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Merlin-Arthur with efficient quantum Merlin and quantum supremacy for the second level of the Fourier hierarchy Tomoyuki Morimae, 1,2,3, Yuki Takeuchi, 4, and Harumichi Nishimura 5, 1 Department of Computer Science, Gunma University, arxiv: v2 [quant-ph] 10 Jan Tenjincho, Kiryu, Gunma, , Japan 2 JST, PRESTO, Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama, , Japan 3 Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics (YITP), Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwakecho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto , Japan 4 Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka , Japan 5 Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya, Aichi, , Japan (Dated: January 11, 2018) 1
2 Abstract It is a long-standing open problem whether quantum computing can be verified by a classical verifier. In the computational complexity term, it is Does any BQP problem have an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier?. Several partial solutions to the open problem have been obtained. For example, verifiable blind quantum computing protocols demonstrate that if the verifier is slightly quantum, the problem is solved. Furthermore, the answer to the open problem is yes for specific BQP problems, such as the recursive Fourier sampling. In this paper, we consider a problem of distinguishing output probability distributions of two quantum circuits. We show that the problem is BQP-complete, but if the two circuits are restricted to some circuits in the second level of the Fourier hierarchy, such as IQP circuits, the problem has a Merlin-Arthur proof system where the prover (Merlin) has the power of BQP for yes instances. Our result is therefore another example of specific BQP problems that have an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier. As an additional result, we also consider a simple model in the second level of the Fourier hierarchy, and show that a multiplicative-error classical efficient sampling of the output probability distribution of the model causes the collapse of the polynomialtime hierarchy to the third or the second level. The model consists of a classical reversible circuit sandwiched by two layers of Hadamard gates. The proof technique for its quantum supremacy is different from those for previous sub-universal models, such as IQP, Boson Sampling, and DQC1, and therefore the technique itself might be useful for other applications. Electronic address: tomoyuki.morimae@yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp Electronic address: takeuchi@qi.mp.es.osaka-u.ac.jp Electronic address: hnishimura@is.nagoya-u.ac.jp 2
3 I. INTRODUCTION It is a long-standing open problem whether quantum computing can be verified by a classical verifier. In the computational complexity term, it is Does any BQP problem have an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier? [1]. Answering this question is important not only for practical applications of cloud quantum computing but also for foundations of computer science and quantum physics [2]. Partial solutions to the open problem have been obtained. For example, several verification protocols [3, 4] and verifiable blind quantum computing protocols [5 9] demonstrate that if the verifier has a weak quantum ability, such as preparations or measurements of single-qubit quantum states, any BQP problem can be verified with a BQP prover. Furthermore, it is known that if more than two entangling BQP provers who are not communicating with each other are allowed, any BQP problem is verified with a BPP verifier [10 12]. Since BQP is contained in IP, a natural approach to the open problem is to restrict the prover of IP to BQP when the problem is in BQP [13]. In fact, recently, a significant step in this line has been obtained in Ref. [14]. The authors of Ref. [14] have constructed a new smart interactive proof system that verifies the value of the trace of operators with a postbqp prover and a BPP verifier. Actually, the answer to the open problem is yes if we consider specific BQP problems. For example, it is known that the recursive Fourier sampling [15] has an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier [16]. Its proof is elegant, but so far we do not know how to generalize it to other BQP problems. Furthermore, it was suggested in Ref. [17] that a problem of deciding whether there exist some results that occur with high probability or not for circuits in the second level of the Fourier hierarchy (FH 2 ) [18, 19] is verified by a Merlin-Arthur (MA) protocol with Merlin who is BQP in the honest case [20]. The first main result of the present paper is to introduce another example of problems that have an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier. We consider the following promise problem, which we call Probability Distribution Distinguishability with Maximum Norm (PDD-Max): Problem (PDD-Max): Given a classical description of two quantum circuits U 1 and U 2 acting on N qubits that consist of poly(n) number of elementary gates, and parameters a and b such that 0 b < a 1 and a b 1/poly(N), decide 3
4 YES: there exists z {0,1} N such that p z q z a. NO: for any z {0,1} N, p z q z b. Here, p z z U 1 0 N 2 and q z z U 2 0 N 2. We first show that PDD-Max is BQP-complete (Sec. II). We next show that if U 1 and U 2 are some types of circuits in FH 2 (such as IQP circuits, and circuits in Fig. 1(a) and (c)), PDD-Max is in MA with Merlin who is enough to be BQP for yes instances (Sec. III). This result demonstrates that PDD-Max with the restriction in FH 2 is another example of problems that have an interactive proof system with a BQP prover and a BPP verifier. This result also suggests that PDD-Max with the FH 2 restriction is not BQP-hard, since BQP is not believed to be in MA. FH 2 contains many important quantum circuits. For example, Simon s algorithm [23] and Shor s factoring algorithm [24] use such circuits. Furthermore, the IQP model [21, 22] is also in FH 2. The IQP model is a well-known example of sub-universal quantum computing models whose output probability distributions cannot be classically efficiently sampled unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. Other sub-universal models that exhibit similar quantum supremacy are also known, such as the depth four model [25], the Boson sampling model [26], the DQC1 model [27 31], the Fourier sampling model [32], and the conjugated Clifford model [33]. The second main result of the present paper is to add another simple model in FH 2 to the above list of sub-universal models. Let us consider the following model, which we call the Hadamard-classical circuit with one-qubit (HC1Q) model (see Fig. 1(a)): 1. The initial state is 0 N. 2. H (N 1) I is applied, where H is the Hadamard gate. 3. A polynomial-time uniformly-generated classical reversible circuit C : {0,1} N w C(w) {0,1} N is applied coherently. 4. H (N 1) I is applied. 5. All qubits are measured in the computational basis. 4
5 0 0 N-1 H (a) C H M M (b) N-1 0 H C' H M 0 0 N-m m H (c) C H M M FIG. 1: (a) The HC1Q model. M is the computational-basis measurement. A single line with the slash represents a set of N 1 qubits. The Hadamard gate H is applied on each qubit. The measurement M is done on each qubit. (b) The circuit similar to HC1Q model, but the last 0 qubit is removed. (c) A generalization of (a). We show that the HC1Q model is universal with a postselection. More precisely, we show the following statement: Let U be a polynomial-time uniformly-generated quantum circuit acting on n qubits that consists of poly(n) number of Hadamard gates and classical reversible gates, such as X, CNOT, and Toffoli. The HC1Q model of Fig. 1(a) for N = poly(n) equipped with a postselection can generate the state U 0 n. Its proof is given in Sec. IV. The proof is based on a new idea that is different from those used in the previous results [21, 25, 26, 28]. Proofs for the depth-four model [25], the Boson sampling model [26], andthe IQPmodel [21] use gadgetsthat can insert some gatesinapost hoc way by using a postselection. The proof for the DQC1 model [28] uses a postselection to initialize the maximally-mixed state I n /2 n to the pure state 0 n. As we will see later, our proof is different from those: we first construct a polynomial-time non-deterministic algorithm that simulates the action of U on 0 n. We then show that the polynomial-time non-deterministic algorithm is simulated by the HC1Q model with a postselection. This new idea itself seems to be useful for other applications. An immediate corollary of the result is quantum supremacy of the HC1Q model: Output probability distributions of the HC1Q model of Fig. 1(a) cannot be classically efficiently sampled with a multiplicative error ǫ < 1 unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses to 5
6 the third level. Here, we say that a probability distribution {p z } z is classically efficiently sampled with a multiplicative error ǫ if there exists a classical polynomial-time sampler such that p z q z ǫp z for all z, where q z is the probability that the classical sampler outputs z. This result demonstrates an interesting phase transition between classical and quantum. To see it, let us consider the circuit of Fig. 1(b), which is obtained by removing the last 0 qubit of Fig. 1(a). Here, C : {0,1} N 1 w C (w) {0,1} N 1 is a polynomial-time uniformly-generated classical reversible circuit. The circuit of Fig. 1(b) is trivially classically simulatable, since C is a permutation on {0,1} N 1 and therefore C + (N 1) = 1 2 N 1 x {0,1} N 1 C (x) = + (N 1), where + ( )/ 2. Our result therefore suggests that the addition of a single 0 qubit to the trivial circuit of Fig. 1(b) changes its complexity dramatically. The third level collapse of the polynomial-time hierarchy for the depth-four model, the Boson sampling model, the IQP model, and the DQC1 model can be improved to the second level collapse [30, 31]. In Sec. IV, we show that the same improvement is possible for the HC1Q model of Fig. 1(a). It is known that for the N-qubit IQP model probability distributions of measurement results on O(log(N)) number of qubits can be classically exactly sampled in polynomial time[21]. InSec.VweshowanalogousresultsforourmodelsofFig.1(a)and(c): probability distributions of measurement results on O(log(N)) number of qubits in these models can be classically sampled in polynomial time with a 1/poly(N) L1-norm error. II. BQP COMPLETENESS In this section, we show that PDD-Max is BQP-complete. We first show that PDD-Max is BQP-hard. Let A = (A yes,a no ) be a promise problem in BQP. Let V x be the polynomialtime quantum circuit, which acts on n qubits, corresponding to the instance x. If we write 6
7 V x 0 n as V x 0 n = α 0 φ α 1 φ 1 with certain n 1 qubit states φ 0 and φ 1, we have α 1 2 r when x A yes, and α 2 r when x A no, where r is any polynomial. We consider the circuit of Fig. 2 as U 1 in PDD-Max. The state immediately before the measurement is α 0 0 m V x ( 0 φ 0 )+ 1 α 1 + m V x ( 1 φ 1 ). When x A yes, the probability of obtaining the measurement result 0 n+m+1 is p 0 n+m+1 = α 0 n V x( 0 φ 0 ) 2 = α 2 (1 2 r ) 2. When x A no, the probability of obtaining themeasurement result 0z, where z {0,1} n+m, is [ p 0z = α z 0 m V x 0 )] ( 0 φ 2 α 2 r, and the probability of obtaining the measurement result 1z, where z {0,1} n+m, is p 1z = 2 m (1 α) z m+1,...,z n+m V x( 1 φ 1 ) 2 2 m. Therefore, when x A yes, 1 p 0 n+m+1 (1 2 r ) 2 2 (n+m+1), 2 n+m+1 and when x A no, p z 1 2 n+m+1 pz n+m+1 max(2 m,2 r )+2 (n+m+1) for any z {0,1} n+m+1. Hence if we take U 2 such that {q z } z is the uniformly random distribution, A is BQP-hard. We next show that PDD-Max is in BQP. To show it, we use the following well known result. Chernoff-Hoeffding bound: Let X 1,...,X T be i.i.d. real random variables with X i 1 for every i = 1,...,T. Then [ 1 Pr T T ] X i E(X i ) ǫ 1 2e Tǫ2 i=1 7 2.
8 0 M m 0 H M 0 V x V M 0 n-1 M x FIG. 2: A circuit to show the BQP hardness. We show that the following BQP protocol solves PDD-Max with a 1/poly(N) completeness-soundness gap (i.e., the gap of acceptance probabilities between the yesinstances and the no-instances is lowerbounded by 1/poly(N)): 1. Flip a fair coin s {0,1}. Generate U s+1 0 N, and measure each qubit in the computational basis. Let z {0,1} N be the measurement result. 2. Run the SWAP test (Fig. 3) between U 1 0 N and z for T times, where T is a polynomial of N specified later. Let m j {0,1} be the measurement result of the jth run, where j = 1,2,...,T. Calculate p z 1 T T ( 1) m j. j=1 From the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound, p z p z ǫ with probability larger than 1 2e Tǫ2 2, where p z z U 1 0 N 2. In a similar way, calculate the estimator q z of q z z U 2 0 N Calculate p z q z. If p z q z a a b, accept. Otherwise, reject. 4 First, let us consider the case when the answer to PDD-Max is YES. If z obtained in step 1 satisfies p z q z a, and if p z and q z satisfy p z p z a b 8 and q z q z a b 8, we definitely accept. The probability η of occurring such an event is lowerbounded as η a 2 ( p z +q ) z 2 z: p z q z a ) 2 (1 2e T(a b)2 128 a 2 (1 2e k ) 2, [ Pr p z p z a b 8 ] [ Pr q z q z a b ] 8 8
9 0 H H M ψ φ SWAP FIG. 3: The SWAP test between ψ and φ. SWAP in the circuit means the SWAP gate that exchanges two quantum states as ψ φ φ ψ. The expectation value of ( 1) m for the measurement result m is ψ φ 2. where we have taken T 128k (a b) 2 and k is any polynomial of N. Therefore, the acceptance probability p acc of our protocol is lowerbounded as p acc η a 2 (1 2e k ) 2. Next, let us consider the case when the answer to PDD-Max is NO. If p z p z a b 8 and q z q z a b 8, which occurs with probability (1 2e k ) 2, we definitely reject. The rejection probability p rej is therefore lowerbounded as p rej (1 2e k ) 2. Therefore, the acceptance probability p acc is upperbounded as p acc = 1 p rej 1 (1 2e k ) 2 = 4e k 4e 2k. The completeness-soundness gap is therefore a 2 (1 2e k ) 2 (4e k 4e 2k ) 1 poly(n) for sufficiently large k, which shows that PDD-Max is in BQP. III. RESTRICTION TO FH 2 CIRCUITS In this section, we show that if U 1 and U 2 are restricted to some circuits in FH 2, PDD- Max is in MA with honest BQP Merlin. We mean that a promise problem A is in MA with honest BQP Merlin, if A is in MA, and the prover (honest Merlin) that makes the verifier (Arthur) accept with high probability for the yes-instances is a BQP prover. 9
10 To understand our idea, we first restrict U 1 and U 2 to be circuits in the form of Fig. 1(a). Similar results are obtained for other circuits in FH 2, such as IQP circuits and the Simon type ones. These generalizations are discussed at the end of this section. Our MA protocol with honest BQP Merlin runs as follows. 1. If Merlin is honest, he flips a fair coin s {0,1}. He next generates U s+1 0 N, and measures each qubit in the computational basis to obtain the result z {0,1} N. He sends z to Arthur. If Merlin is malicious, his computational ability is unbounded, and what he sends to Arthur can be any N bit string. 2. Let T be a polynomial of N specified later. Arthur generates {x i } T i=1 and {y i } T i=1, where each of x i {0,1} N 1 and y i {0,1} N 1 is a uniformly and independently chosen random N 1 bit string. 3. Arthur calculates p z 1 T T f(x i,y i ), i=1 where f(x,y) ( 1) N 1 j=1 [C j(x0) z j +C j (y0) z j ] δ CN (x0),z N δ CN (y0),z N. Here, C : {0,1} N w C(w) {0,1} N is the classical circuit in U 1, x0 (x 1,...,x N 1,0), C j (x0) is the jth bit of C(x0) {0,1} N, and z j is the jth bit of z {0,1} N. We call p z the estimator of p z. Note that p z can be calculated in classical poly(n) time. 4. In a similar way, Arthur calculates the estimator q z of q z. If Arthur accepts. Otherwise, he rejects. p z q z a a b 4, 10
11 Note that p z is given as p z = 1 2 2(N 1) x,y {0,1} N 1 f(x,y). Therefore, from the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound, the estimator p z satisfies p z p z ǫ with probability 1 2e Tǫ2 2. For q z, a similar result holds. It is easy to check that the honest prover is a BQP prover in the above protocol. Now we show that the above protocol can verify PDD-Max. The proof is similar to that for the BQP case given in Sec. II. First, let us consider the case when the answer to PDD-Max is yes. If the z that Merlin sends to Arthur satisfies p z q z a, and the p z and q z that Arthur calculates satisfy p z p z a b and q 8 z q z a b, Arthur definitely accepts. Taking the honest prover in 8 step 1, the probability η of occurring such an event is lowerbounded as η a 2 ( p z +q ) z 2 z: p z q z a (1 2e T(a b)2 128 [ Pr p z p z a b 8 ) 2 a 2 (1 2e k ) 2, ] [ Pr q z q z a b ] 8 where we have taken T 128k (a b) 2 and k is any polynomial of N. Therefore, the probability p acc that Arthur accepts in our protocol is lowerbounded as p acc a 2 (1 2e k ) 2. Next, let us consider the case when the answer to PDD-Max is no. If p z p z a b 8 and q z q z a b 8, which occurs with probability (1 2e k ) 2, Arthur definitely rejects. Therefore, the probability p acc that Arthur accepts in our protocol is upperbounded as p acc 1 (1 2e k ) 2 = 4e k 4e 2k. The completeness-soundness gap is therefore a 2 (1 2e k ) 2 (4e k 4e 2k ) 1 poly(n) for sufficiently large k, which shows that PDD-Max is in MA with honest BQP Merlin. From the proof, it is clear that similar results hold for other circuits in FH 2 whose f(x,y) is bounded by at most poly(n) and calculatable in classical polynomial time (in x, y, and z ). For example, let us consider the IQP model. For the IQP model, f(x,y) is a 11
12 complex-valued function, but we can use the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound for complex random variables introduced in Ref. [34]. The other example is Fig. 1(c). The model of Fig. 1(a) uses only one single ancilla qubit that is not rotated by H. The model of Fig. 1(c) is a generalization of Fig. 1(a) so that m = poly(n) ancilla qubits initialized in 0 are available. Such a circuit is used, for example, in the Simon s algorithm [23]. We can show a similar result for such a circuit. In fact, the probability p s,t of obtaining the result (s,t) {0,1} N m {0,1} m is p s,t = 1 2 2(N m) x,y {0,1} N m ( 1) C1,...,N m(x0m) s+c1,...,n m(y0m) s δ t,cn m+1,...,n (x0 m )δ t,cn m+1,...,n (y0 m ), and therefore the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound argument can be used. Here, C 1,...,N m (x0 m ) is the first N m bits of C(x0 m ), and C N m+1,...,n (y0 m ) is the last m bits of C(x0 m ). IV. QUANTUM SUPREMACY OF OUR MODEL In this section, we provide the results on quantum supremacy of the HC1Q model in Fig. 1 (a). First we show that the model is universal with a postselection. We are given a unitary operator U = u t...u 2 u 1 acting on n qubits, where u i is H or a classical gate for all i = 1,2,...,t. From U, we define U u t+n...u t+1 U, where u t+i ish acting onith qubit (i = 1,2,...,n). Let us consider the following polynomialtime non-deterministic algorithm, which simulates the action of U on 0 n. We represent the state of the register of the polynomial-time non-deterministic computing by s z, where s {0,1} and z {0,1} n. (Note that using the ket notation to represent the state of the register of the polynomial-time non-deterministic computing is just for convenience. The polynomial-time non-deterministic computing is, of course, not quantum computing.) 1. The initial state of the register is s = 0 z = 0 n. 2. Repeat the following for i = 1,...,t+n. 12
13 2-a. If u i is a classical gate we update the state of the register as g : {0,1} n z g(z) {0,1} n, s z s g(z). 2-b. If u i is H acting on jth qubit, we update the state of the register in the following Let us define h by non-deterministic way: s z 1,...,z j 1,0,z j+1,...,z n s z s z j z 1,...,z j 1,1,z j+1,...,z n. h {i {1,2,...,t+n} ui = H}, i.e., h is the number of H appearing in U. The above polynomial-time non-deterministic algorithm does the non-deterministic transition h times, and therefore the algorithm has 2 h computational paths. We label each path by an h-bit string y {0,1} h. We write the final state of the register for the path y {0,1} h by s(y) z(y), where s(y) {0,1} and z(y) {0,1} n. For each y, we can calculate s(y) and z(y) in classical polynomial-time. Let W be a classical circuit that calculates s(y) and z(y) on input y. It is obvious that U 0 n = 1 2 h y {0,1} h ( 1) s(y) z(y). Now we show that the state H n U 0 n = U 0 n can be generated by the HC1Q model with a postselection. Let us consider the quantum circuit of Fig. 4. It is easy to show that the state immediately before the postselection is 1 2 n+h+1 y {0,1} h (H h y ) (H s(y) ) (H n z(y) ) 1 + ψ 0, (1) where ψ is a certain (h + n + 1)-qubit state whose detail is irrelevant [35]. After the postselection, the state becomes 1 2 h y {0,1} h ( 1) s(y) H n z(y) = H n U 0 n = U 0 n. 13
14 0 H 0 H W 0 0 h n H H H H 0 FIG. 4: The quantum circuit with a postselection. The first h qubits, the (h+1)th qubit, and the last qubit are postselected to 0 h, 1, and 1, respectively. In this way, we have shown that the HC1Q model is universal with a postselection. By combining the above result with the well-known technique [21, 26, 28], we can show that the output probability distribution of the HC1Q model cannot be classically efficiently sampled with a multiplicative error ǫ < 1 unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses to the third level. It was shown in Refs. [30, 31] that the third level collapse of the polynomial-time hierarchy for most of the sub-universal models (including the depth-four model [25], the Boson sampling model [26], the IQP model [21], and the DQC1 model [28]) is improved to the second level collapse. The idea is to use the class NQP [37] in stead of postbqp. NQP is a quantum version of NP, and defined as follows. Definition: A promise problem A = (A yes,a no ) is in NQP if and only if there exists a polynomial-time uniformly-generated family {V x } x of quantum circuits such that if x A yes then p acc > 0, and if x A no then p acc = 0. Here p acc is the acceptance probability of V x. By using a similar argument of Refs. [30, 31], we now show that the collapse of the polynomial-time hierarchy to the third level for the HC1Q model can be improved to that to the second level. In stead of doing the postselection, let us do the projective measurement {Λ,I h+n+2 Λ} on the state of Eq. (1). If Λ is obtained, we accept. Here, The acceptance probability p acc is Λ 0 0 h I n p acc = 0n U ( 0 0 I n 1 )U 0 n 2 h+n+2. Let us assume that a promise problem A = (A yes,a no ) is in NQP. Then there exists a polynomial-time uniformly-generated family {V x } x of quantum circuits that satisfies the 14
15 above definition of NQP. For an instance x, let us take U as V x. Assume that p acc is classically efficiently sampled with a multiplicative error ǫ < 1. It means that there exists a classical polynomial-time computer such that p acc q acc ǫp acc, where q acc is the probability that the classical computer accepts. If x A yes then q acc (1 ǫ)p acc > 0. If x A no then q acc (1+ǫ)p acc = 0. A is therefore in NP. Hence NQP NP, which leads to the collapse of the polynomial-time hierarchy to the second level [30]: PH BP coc = P = BP NQP = BP NP = AM. V. CLASSICAL SIMULATABILITY In this section, we show that probability distributions of measurement results on k = O(log(N)) qubits of Fig. 1(a) and (c) can be classically sampled in polynomial time with a 1/poly(N) L1-norm error. For simplicity, a proof is given for the model of Fig. 1(a). The same proof works for the model of Fig. 1(c). Furthermore, for simplicity, we assume that the first k qubits are measured. Generalizations to other k qubits are easy. Let z {0,1} k be the measurement result. By a straightforward calculation, the probability of obtaining z is p z = 1 2 N 1 x {0,1} N 1 f(x), where f(x) 1 ( 1) z C1,...,k(x0)+z C1,...,k(y0) δ 2 k Ck+1,...,N (x0),c k+1,...,n (y0) y {0,1} N 1 = 1 ( 1) z C 1,...,k(x0)+z C 1,...,k (y0), 2 k y S 15
16 and S {0,1} N 1 is defined by S {y {0,1} N 1 C k+1,...,n (x0) = C k+1,...,n (y0)}. The subset S can be obtained in polynomial time in the following way: 1. Set S = {}. 2. Repeat the following for all α {0,1} k Calculate C 1 (αc k+1,...,n (x0)) If C 1 (αc k+1,...,n (x0)) = y0 for certain y {0,1} N 1, add y to S. 3. End. From the construction, S 2 k = poly(n). Therefore, the value of f(x) is exactly computable in polynomial time for each x. Furthermore, f(x) 1 because f(x) 1 ( 1) z C 1,...,k(x0)+z C 1,...,k (y0) 1. 2 k y S By using the Chernoff-Hoeffding bound, we can calculate the estimator p z of p z that satisfies in time poly(t). [ ] Pr p z p z ǫ 1 2e Tǫ2 2 For any polynomial r, let us take ǫ = k r. Given { p z} z, define the probability distribution {q z } z by q z p z z {0,1} k p z. Note that it is well defined, because z {0,1} k p z > 0, which is shown as follows: z {0,1} k p z z {0,1} k p z z {0,1} k (p z ǫ) = 1 2 k ǫ = k r > 0. 16
17 Furthermore, {q z } z is obtained in polynomial time. The distance between {p z } z and {q z } z is It is shown as follows. First, z {0,1} k p z q z 5 2 2k ǫ = 1 r. p z q z = z {0,1} p k z p z +ǫ 1 2 k ǫ = (p z +ǫ)(1+2 k ǫ+o(2 k ǫ)) = p z +p z 2 k ǫ+p z o(2 k ǫ)+ǫ+2 k ǫ 2 +ǫo(2 k ǫ) p z +5 2 k ǫ. Second, p z q z = z {0,1} p k z p z ǫ 1+2 k ǫ = (p z ǫ)(1 2 k ǫ+o(2 k ǫ)) = p z p z 2 k ǫ+p z o(2 k ǫ) ǫ+2 k ǫ 2 ǫo(2 k ǫ) p z 5 2 k ǫ. We finally show that {q z } z can be sampled in classical polynomial time. For simplicity, let us assume that each q z is represented in the m-bit binary: m q z = 2 j a z,j, j=1 where a z,j {0,1} for j = 1,2,...,m. (Otherwise, by polynomially increasing the size of m, we obtain exponentially good approximations.) The following algorithm samples the probability distribution {q z } z. 1. Randomly generate an m-bit string (w 1,...,w m ) {0,1} m. 2. Output z {0,1} k such that q y y<z j=1 m 2 j w j < q y, y z where y < z and y z mean the standard dictionary order. (For example, for three bits, 000 < 001 < 010 < 011 < 100 < 101 < 110 < 111.) 17
18 Acknowledgments We thank Keisuke Fujii, Seiichiro Tani, and Francois Le Gall for discussion. TM is supported by JST ACT-I No.JPMJPR16UP, JST PRESTO, and the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) No.JP17K12637 of JSPS. YT is supported by the Program for Leading Graduate Schools: Interactive Materials Science Cadet Program and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow No.JP17J HN is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) Nos , 16H01705 and (C) No.16K00015 of JSPS. [1] BQP is the class of promise problems that can be solved in quantum polynomial time. Here, a promise problem is a problem that can be answered by YES or NO under some promised conditions. A BQP prover is a prover whose computational ability is quantum polynomialtime. BPP is the class of promise problems that can be solved in classical probabilistic time. A BPP verifier is a verifier whose computational ability is classical probabilistic polynomial-time. [2] D. Aharonov and U. Vazirani, Is quantum mechanics falsifiable? A computational perspective on the foundations of quantum mechanics. arxiv: [3] T. Morimae, D. Nagaj, and N. Schuch, Quantum proofs can be verified using only single-qubit measurements. Phys. Rev. A 93, (2016). [4] T. Morimae and J. F. Fitzsimons, Post hoc verification with a single prover. arxiv: [5] J. F. Fitzsimons and E. Kashefi, Unconditionally verifiable blind computation. Phys. Rev. A 96, (2017). [6] D. Aharonov, M. Ben-Or, E. Eban, and U. Mahadev, Interactive proofs for quantum computations. arxiv: [7] M. Hayashi and T. Morimae, Verifiable measurement-only blind quantum computing with stabilizer testing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, (2015). [8] A. Broadbent, How to verify quantum computation. arxiv: [9] A. Gheorghiu, T. Kapourniotis, and E. Kashefi, Verification of quantum computation: an overview of existing approaches. arxiv: [10] M. McKague, Interactive proofs for BQP via self-tested graph states. Theory of Computing 12, 1 (2016). 18
19 [11] Z. Ji, Classical verification of quantum proofs. Proceedings of the 48th annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2016) p.885 (2016). [12] B. W. Reichardt, F. Unger, and U. Vazirani, Classical command of quantum systems. Nature 496, 456 (2013). [13] IP is the class of promise problems verified by an interactive proof system with a BPP verifier and a prover with unlimited computational ability. [14] D. Aharonov and A. Green, A quantum inspired proof of P #P IP. arxiv: [15] E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory. SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 1411 (1997). [16] M. McKague, Interactive proofs with efficient quantum prover for recursive Fourier sampling. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science 6, 1 (2012). [17] T. F. Demarie, Y. Ouyang, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Classical verification of quantum circuits containing few basis changes. arxiv: [18] Y. Shi, Quantum and classical tradeoffs. Theoretical Computer Science 344, 335 (2005). [19] FH k, the kth level of the Fourier hierarchy, is the class of quantum circuits with k levels of Hadamard gates and all other gates preserving the computational basis. [20] Merlin-Arthur (MA) is the class of promise problems that can be verified by a BPP verifier and a prover whose computational ability is unlimited. In MA, the prover first sends a bit string to the verifier, and the verifier then does the computing for the verification. [21] M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. Proc. R. Soc. A 467, 459 (2011). [22] M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, (2016). [23] D. R. Simon, On the power of quantum computation. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1994), p.116 (1994). [24] P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1994), p.124 (1994). [25] B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Adaptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and Arthur-Merlin games. Quant. Inf. Comput. 4, 134 (2004). [26] S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics. Theory of 19
20 Computing 9, 143 (2013). [27] E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Power of one bit of quantum information. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5672 (1998). [28] T. Morimae, K. Fujii, and J. F. Fitzsimons, Hardness of classically simulating the one clean qubit model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, (2014). [29] T. Morimae, Hardness of classically sampling one clean qubit model with constant total variation distance error. Phys. Rev. A 96, (R) (2017). [30] K. Fujii, H. Kobayashi, T. Morimae, H. Nishimura, S. Tamate, and S. Tani, Impossibility of classically simulating one-clean-qubit computation. arxiv: [31] K. Fujii, H. Kobayashi, T. Morimae, H. Nishimura, S. Tamate, and S. Tani, Power of quantum computation with few clean qubits. Proceedings of 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016), p.13:1. [32] B. Fefferman and C. Umans, The power of quantum Fourier sampling. arxiv: [33] A. Bouland, J. F. Fitzsimons, and D. E. Koh, Quantum advantage from conjugated Clifford circuits. arxiv: [34] M. Schwarz and M. Van den Nest, Simulating quantum circuits with sparse output distributions. arxiv: [35] Note that the (n + 1)-qubit Toffoli gate in Fig. 4 can be implemented with a polynomially many Toffoli gates by using ancilla qubits [36]. It is known that ancilla qubits do not need to be initialized [36]. Therefore, we can use + states as ancilla qubits, which keeps the circuit of Fig. 4 in the form of Fig. 1(a). [36] A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A (1995). [37] L. M. Adleman, J. DeMarrais, and M. A. Huang, Quantum Computability. SIAM J. Comput (1997). 20
Basics of quantum computing and some recent results. Tomoyuki Morimae YITP Kyoto University) min
Basics of quantum computing and some recent results Tomoyuki Morimae YITP Kyoto University) 50+10 min Outline 1. Basics of quantum computing circuit model, classically simulatable/unsimulatable, quantum
More informationComplexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments
Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments Scott Aaronson, Lijie Chen UT Austin, Tsinghua University MIT July 7, 2017 Scott Aaronson, Lijie Chen (UT Austin, Tsinghua University Complexity-Theoretic
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 24 Sep 2015
Power of Quantum Computation with Few Clean Qubits Keisuke Fujii Hirotada Kobayashi Tomoyuki Morimae Harumichi Nishimura Shuhei Tamate Seiichiro Tani arxiv:150907276v1 [quant-ph] 24 Sep 2015 The Hakubi
More informationGraph Non-Isomorphism Has a Succinct Quantum Certificate
Graph Non-Isomorphism Has a Succinct Quantum Certificate Tatsuaki Okamoto Keisuke Tanaka Summary This paper presents the first quantum computational characterization of the Graph Non-Isomorphism problem
More informationThreshold theorem for quantum supremacy arxiv:
2017.1.16-20 QIP2017 Seattle, USA Threshold theorem for quantum supremacy arxiv:1610.03632 Keisuke Fujii Photon Science Center, The University of Tokyo /PRESTO, JST 2017.1.16-20 QIP2017 Seattle, USA Threshold
More informationSimulation of quantum computers with probabilistic models
Simulation of quantum computers with probabilistic models Vlad Gheorghiu Department of Physics Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A. April 6, 2010 Vlad Gheorghiu (CMU) Simulation of quantum
More informationEdinburgh Research Explorer
Edinburgh Research Explorer Verification of Quantum Computation and the Price of Trust Citation for published version: Gheorghiu, A, Kapourniotis, T & Kashefi, E 2017, Verification of Quantum Computation
More informationIntroduction to Quantum Algorithms Part I: Quantum Gates and Simon s Algorithm
Part I: Quantum Gates and Simon s Algorithm Martin Rötteler NEC Laboratories America, Inc. 4 Independence Way, Suite 00 Princeton, NJ 08540, U.S.A. International Summer School on Quantum Information, Max-Planck-Institut
More informationClassical Verification of Quantum Computations
2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Classical Verification of Quantum Computations Urmila Mahadev Department of Computer Science, UC Berkeley mahadev@berkeley.edu Abstract
More informationCommuting Quantum Circuits and Complexity of Ising Partition Functions
Commuting Quantum Circuits and Complexity of Ising Partition Functions Keisuke Fujii 1,2 and Tomoyuki Morimae 3 arxiv:1311.2128v2 [quant-ph] 30 Aug 2016 1 The Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto
More informationSimulating classical circuits with quantum circuits. The complexity class Reversible-P. Universal gate set for reversible circuits P = Reversible-P
Quantum Circuits Based on notes by John Watrous and also Sco8 Aaronson: www.sco8aaronson.com/democritus/ John Preskill: www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229 Outline Simulating classical circuits
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v5 6 Apr 2005
Nonunitary quantum circuit Hiroaki Terashima 1, and Masahito Ueda 1, arxiv:quant-ph/3461v5 6 Apr 5 1 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 15-8551, Japan CREST, Japan Science and
More informationSub-Universal Models of Quantum Computation in Continuous Variables
Sub-Universal Models of Quantum Computation in Continuous Variables Giulia Ferrini Chalmers University of Technology Genova, 8th June 2018 OVERVIEW Sub-Universal Models of Quantum Computation Continuous
More informationQUANTUM ARTHUR MERLIN GAMES
comput. complex. 14 (2005), 122 152 1016-3328/05/020122 31 DOI 10.1007/s00037-005-0194-x c Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel 2005 computational complexity QUANTUM ARTHUR MERLIN GAMES Chris Marriott and John Watrous
More information. An introduction to Quantum Complexity. Peli Teloni
An introduction to Quantum Complexity Peli Teloni Advanced Topics on Algorithms and Complexity µπλ July 3, 2014 1 / 50 Outline 1 Motivation 2 Computational Model Quantum Circuits Quantum Turing Machine
More informationFourier Sampling & Simon s Algorithm
Chapter 4 Fourier Sampling & Simon s Algorithm 4.1 Reversible Computation A quantum circuit acting on n qubits is described by an n n unitary operator U. Since U is unitary, UU = U U = I. This implies
More informationUCSD Summer school notes
UCSD Summer school notes Interactive proofs for quantum computation Introduction As you all well known by now, it is generally believed that BQP does not contain NP-complete languages. But it is also believed
More informationA Complete Characterization of Unitary Quantum Space
A Complete Characterization of Unitary Quantum Space Bill Fefferman (QuICS, University of Maryland/NIST) Joint with Cedric Lin (QuICS) Based on arxiv:1604.01384 1. Basics Quantum space complexity Main
More informationBy allowing randomization in the verification process, we obtain a class known as MA.
Lecture 2 Tel Aviv University, Spring 2006 Quantum Computation Witness-preserving Amplification of QMA Lecturer: Oded Regev Scribe: N. Aharon In the previous class, we have defined the class QMA, which
More informationVerification of quantum computation
Verification of quantum computation THOMAS VIDICK CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Slides: http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~vidick/verification.{ppsx,pdf} 1. Problem formulation 2. Overview of existing
More informationInteractive proofs with efficient quantum prover for recursive Fourier sampling
CHICAGO JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 2012, Article 06, pages 1 10 http://cjtcs.cs.uchicago.edu/ Interactive proofs with efficient quantum prover for recursive Fourier sampling Matthew McKague
More informationIntroduction to Quantum Computing
Introduction to Quantum Computing Part I Emma Strubell http://cs.umaine.edu/~ema/quantum_tutorial.pdf April 12, 2011 Overview Outline What is quantum computing? Background Caveats Fundamental differences
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v5 3 Mar 2004
Adaptive Quantum Computation, Constant Depth Quantum Circuits and Arthur-Merlin Games Barbara M. Terhal David P. DiVincenzo arxiv:quant-ph/0205133v5 3 Mar 2004 March 12, 2008 Abstract We present evidence
More informationPerfect computational equivalence between quantum Turing machines and finitely generated uniform quantum circuit families
Quantum Inf Process (2009) 8:13 24 DOI 10.1007/s11128-008-0091-8 Perfect computational equivalence between quantum Turing machines and finitely generated uniform quantum circuit families Harumichi Nishimura
More informationCompute the Fourier transform on the first register to get x {0,1} n x 0.
CS 94 Recursive Fourier Sampling, Simon s Algorithm /5/009 Spring 009 Lecture 3 1 Review Recall that we can write any classical circuit x f(x) as a reversible circuit R f. We can view R f as a unitary
More informationExtended Superposed Quantum State Initialization Using Disjoint Prime Implicants
Extended Superposed Quantum State Initialization Using Disjoint Prime Implicants David Rosenbaum, Marek Perkowski Portland State University, Department of Computer Science Portland State University, Department
More informationarxiv:cs/ v1 [cs.cc] 15 Jun 2005
Quantum Arthur-Merlin Games arxiv:cs/0506068v1 [cs.cc] 15 Jun 2005 Chris Marriott John Watrous Department of Computer Science University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N
More informationPDQP/qpoly = ALL. Scott Aaronson
PDQP/qpoly = ALL Scott Aaronson Abstract We show that combining two different hypothetical enhancements to quantum computation namely, quantum advice and non-collapsing measurements would let a quantum
More informationA Systematic Algorithm for Quantum Boolean Circuits Construction
A Systematic Algorithm for Quantum Boolean Circuits Construction I.M. Tsai and S.Y. Kuo arxiv:quant-ph/0104037v2 19 Apr 2001 Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
More informationQuantum Supremacy and its Applications
Quantum Supremacy and its Applications HELLO HILBERT SPACE Scott Aaronson (University of Texas at Austin) USC, October 11, 2018 Based on joint work with Lijie Chen (CCC 2017, arxiv:1612.05903) and on forthcoming
More information6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory November 4th, Lecture 18
6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory November 4th, 2008 Lecturer: Scott Aaronson Lecture 18 1 Last Time: Quantum Interactive Proofs 1.1 IP = PSPACE QIP = QIP(3) EXP The first result is interesting, because
More informationSuccinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups
Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups John Watrous Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, Canada Abstract In this paper we consider a quantum computational
More informationQuantum Computing Lecture 8. Quantum Automata and Complexity
Quantum Computing Lecture 8 Quantum Automata and Complexity Maris Ozols Computational models and complexity Shor s algorithm solves, in polynomial time, a problem for which no classical polynomial time
More informationAnalyzing Quantum Circuits Via Polynomials
Analyzing Quantum Circuits Via Polynomials Kenneth W. Regan 1 University at Buffalo (SUNY) 23 January, 2014 1 Includes joint work with Amlan Chakrabarti and Robert Surówka Quantum Circuits Quantum circuits
More informationThe complexity of quantum sampling problems
The complexity of quantum sampling problems Michael Bremner with A. Montanaro, D. Shepherd, R. Mann, R. Jozsa, A. Lund, T. Ralph, S. Boixo, S. Isakov, V. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, M. Smelyanskiy, N. Ding,
More informationQuantum Supremacy and its Applications
Quantum Supremacy and its Applications HELLO HILBERT SPACE Scott Aaronson (University of Texas, Austin) Simons Institute, Berkeley, June 12, 2018 Based on joint work with Lijie Chen (CCC 2017, arxiv: 1612.05903)
More informationreport: RMT and boson computers
18.338 report: RMT and boson computers John Napp May 11, 2016 Abstract In 2011, Aaronson and Arkhipov [1] proposed a simple model of quantum computation based on the statistics of noninteracting bosons.
More informationNQP = co-c = P. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 73 (1998)
NQP = co-c = P Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 73 (1998) Tomoyuki Yamakami and Andrew C. Yao Department of Computer Science, Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 December
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 27 May 2013
Classical simulation complexity of extended Clifford circuits Richard Jozsa 1 and Maarten Van den Nest 2 arxiv:1305.6190v1 [quant-ph] 27 May 2013 1 DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of
More informationIntroduction to Quantum Computing
Introduction to Quantum Computing Petros Wallden Lecture 7: Complexity & Algorithms I 13th October 016 School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Complexity - Computational Complexity: Classification
More informationPh 219b/CS 219b. Exercises Due: Wednesday 22 February 2006
1 Ph 219b/CS 219b Exercises Due: Wednesday 22 February 2006 6.1 Estimating the trace of a unitary matrix Recall that using an oracle that applies the conditional unitary Λ(U), Λ(U): 0 ψ 0 ψ, 1 ψ 1 U ψ
More informationQMA(2) workshop Tutorial 1. Bill Fefferman (QuICS)
QMA(2) workshop Tutorial 1 Bill Fefferman (QuICS) Agenda I. Basics II. Known results III. Open questions/next tutorial overview I. Basics I.1 Classical Complexity Theory P Class of problems efficiently
More informationDatabase Manipulation Operations on Quantum Systems
Quant Inf Rev, No, 9-7 (203) 9 Quantum Information Review An International Journal http://dxdoiorg/02785/qir/0002 Database Manipulation Operations on Quantum Systems Ahmed Younes Department of Mathematics
More informationAn Introduction to Quantum Information and Applications
An Introduction to Quantum Information and Applications Iordanis Kerenidis CNRS LIAFA-Univ Paris-Diderot Quantum information and computation Quantum information and computation How is information encoded
More informationLecture 26: Arthur-Merlin Games
CS 710: Complexity Theory 12/09/2011 Lecture 26: Arthur-Merlin Games Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Chetan Rao and Aaron Gorenstein Last time we compared counting versus alternation and showed
More informationLecture 26: QIP and QMIP
Quantum Computation (CMU 15-859BB, Fall 2015) Lecture 26: QIP and QMIP December 9, 2015 Lecturer: John Wright Scribe: Kumail Jaffer 1 Introduction Recall QMA and QMA(2), the quantum analogues of MA and
More informationLecture 22: Quantum computational complexity
CPSC 519/619: Quantum Computation John Watrous, University of Calgary Lecture 22: Quantum computational complexity April 11, 2006 This will be the last lecture of the course I hope you have enjoyed the
More informationarxiv:cs/ v1 [cs.cc] 27 Jan 1999
PSPACE has -round quantum interactive proof systems arxiv:cs/9901015v1 [cs.cc] 7 Jan 1999 John Watrous Département d informatique et de recherche opérationnelle Université de Montréal Montréal (Québec),
More informationLecture 2: From Classical to Quantum Model of Computation
CS 880: Quantum Information Processing 9/7/10 Lecture : From Classical to Quantum Model of Computation Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Tyson Williams Last class we introduced two models for deterministic
More informationQuantum Merlin-Arthur Proof Systems: Are Multiple Merlins More Helpful to Arthur?
Quantum Merlin-Arthur Proof Systems: Are Multiple Merlins More Helpful to Arthur? Hirotada Kobayashi a b hirotada@nii.ac.jp Keiji Matsumoto a b keiji@nii.ac.jp Tomoyuki Yamakami c yamakami@u-fukui.ac.jp
More informationQuantum Communication Complexity
Quantum Communication Complexity Ronald de Wolf Communication complexity has been studied extensively in the area of theoretical computer science and has deep connections with seemingly unrelated areas,
More informationROM-BASED COMPUTATION: QUANTUM VERSUS CLASSICAL
arxiv:quant-ph/0109016v2 2 Jul 2002 ROM-BASED COMPUTATION: QUANTUM VERSUS CLASSICAL B. C. Travaglione, M. A. Nielsen Centre for Quantum Computer Technology, University of Queensland St Lucia, Queensland,
More informationLecture 23: Introduction to Quantum Complexity Theory 1 REVIEW: CLASSICAL COMPLEXITY THEORY
Quantum Computation (CMU 18-859BB, Fall 2015) Lecture 23: Introduction to Quantum Complexity Theory November 31, 2015 Lecturer: Ryan O Donnell Scribe: Will Griffin 1 REVIEW: CLASSICAL COMPLEXITY THEORY
More informationGeneral Properties of Quantum Zero-Knowledge Proofs
General Properties of Quantum Zero-Knowledge Proofs Hirotada Kobayashi Principles of Informatics Research Division, National Institute of Informatics 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan
More informationOn The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics by Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov
On The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics by Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov Maris Ozols April 22, 2011 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Complexity theory........................ 2 2 Computation with
More informationPROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION. By Remanth Dabbati
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati INDEX Probabilistic Turing Machine Probabilistic Complexity Classes Probabilistic Algorithms PROBABILISTIC TURING MACHINE It is a turing machine with ability
More informationComplexity-theoretic evidence for Random Circuit Sampling
Complexity-theoretic evidence for Random Circuit Sampling Chinmay Nirkhe UC Berkeley Visit Days 2018 Adam Bouland UC Berkeley Bill Fefferman UC Berkeley, U. Maryland/NIST Umesh Vazirani UC Berkeley Quantum
More informationImpossibility of Succinct Quantum Proofs for Collision- Freeness
Impossibility of Succinct Quantum Proofs for Collision- Freeness The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation As Published
More informationExponential Quantum Speed-ups are Generic
Exponential Quantum Speed-ups are Generic Fernando GSL Brandão 1 and Michał Horodecki 2 1 Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil 2 University of Gdansk, Poland The Role of Fourier Transform in Quantum
More informationA linear-optical proof that the permanent is #P-hard
A linear-optical proof that the permanent is #P-hard The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation As Published Publisher
More informationQUANTUM COMPUTATION. Exercise sheet 1. Ashley Montanaro, University of Bristol H Z U = 1 2
School of Mathematics Spring 017 QUANTUM COMPUTATION Exercise sheet 1 Ashley Montanaro, University of Bristol ashley.montanaro@bristol.ac.uk 1. The quantum circuit model. (a) Consider the following quantum
More informationHow hard is it to approximate the Jones polynomial?
How hard is it to approximate the Jones polynomial? Greg Kuperberg UC Davis June 17, 2009 The Jones polynomial and quantum computation Recall the Jones polynomial ( = Kauffman bracket): = q 1/2 q 1/2 =
More informationChapter 10. Quantum algorithms
Chapter 10. Quantum algorithms Complex numbers: a quick review Definition: C = { a + b i : a, b R } where i = 1. Polar form of z = a + b i is z = re iθ, where r = z = a 2 + b 2 and θ = tan 1 y x Alternatively,
More informationWitness-preserving Amplification of QMA
Witness-preserving Amplification of QMA Yassine Hamoudi December 30, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 QMA and the amplification problem.................. 2 1.2 Prior works................................
More informationAnalyzing Quantum Circuits Via Polynomials
Analyzing Quantum Circuits Via Polynomials Kenneth W. Regan 1 University at Buffalo (SUNY) 15 November, 2013 1 Includes joint work with Amlan Chakrabarti and Robert Surówka Quantum Circuits Quantum circuits
More informationCS Communication Complexity: Applications and New Directions
CS 2429 - Communication Complexity: Applications and New Directions Lecturer: Toniann Pitassi 1 Introduction In this course we will define the basic two-party model of communication, as introduced in the
More informationClassical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits
2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Classical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits Urmila Mahadev Department of Computer Science, UC Berkeley mahadev@berkeley.edu
More informationCS286.2 Lecture 8: A variant of QPCP for multiplayer entangled games
CS286.2 Lecture 8: A variant of QPCP for multiplayer entangled games Scribe: Zeyu Guo In the first lecture, we saw three equivalent variants of the classical PCP theorems in terms of CSP, proof checking,
More information6.080/6.089 GITCS May 6-8, Lecture 22/23. α 0 + β 1. α 2 + β 2 = 1
6.080/6.089 GITCS May 6-8, 2008 Lecturer: Scott Aaronson Lecture 22/23 Scribe: Chris Granade 1 Quantum Mechanics 1.1 Quantum states of n qubits If you have an object that can be in two perfectly distinguishable
More informationComplexity Classification of Conjugated Clifford Circuits
Complexity Classification of Conjugated Clifford Circuits Adam Bouland 1 Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA adam@csail.mit.edu
More informationNotes on Complexity Theory Last updated: November, Lecture 10
Notes on Complexity Theory Last updated: November, 2015 Lecture 10 Notes by Jonathan Katz, lightly edited by Dov Gordon. 1 Randomized Time Complexity 1.1 How Large is BPP? We know that P ZPP = RP corp
More informationOn The Complexity of Quantum Circuit Manipulation
On The Complexity of Quantum Circuit Manipulation Vincent Liew 1 Introduction The stabilizer class of circuits, introduced by Daniel Gottesman, consists of quantum circuits in which every gate is a controlled-not
More informationQuantum Computational Complexity
Quantum Computational Complexity John Watrous Institute for Quantum Computing and School of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. arxiv:0804.3401v1 [quant-ph] 21 Apr 2008
More informationComplexity Theory. Jörg Kreiker. Summer term Chair for Theoretical Computer Science Prof. Esparza TU München
Complexity Theory Jörg Kreiker Chair for Theoretical Computer Science Prof. Esparza TU München Summer term 2010 2 Lecture 15 Public Coins and Graph (Non)Isomorphism 3 Intro Goal and Plan Goal understand
More informationOn the complexity of stoquastic Hamiltonians
On the complexity of stoquastic Hamiltonians Ian Kivlichan December 11, 2015 Abstract Stoquastic Hamiltonians, those for which all off-diagonal matrix elements in the standard basis are real and non-positive,
More informationA new universal and fault-tolerant quantum basis
Information Processing Letters 75 000 101 107 A new universal and fault-tolerant quantum basis P. Oscar Boykin a,talmor a,b, Matthew Pulver a, Vwani Roychowdhury a, Farrokh Vatan a, a Electrical Engineering
More informationParallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems
Parallelization, amplification, and exponential time simulation of quantum interactive proof systems Alexei Kitaev John Watrous ABSTRACT In this paper we consider quantum interactive proof systems, which
More informationChallenges in Quantum Information Science. Umesh V. Vazirani U. C. Berkeley
Challenges in Quantum Information Science Umesh V. Vazirani U. C. Berkeley 1 st quantum revolution - Understanding physical world: periodic table, chemical reactions electronic wavefunctions underlying
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 7 Dec 2017
From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits arxiv:1712.02806v1 [quant-ph] 7 Dec 2017 Hakop Pashayan, 1 Stephen D. Bartlett, 1 and David Gross 2 1 Centre for Engineered Quantum
More informationComplex numbers: a quick review. Chapter 10. Quantum algorithms. Definition: where i = 1. Polar form of z = a + b i is z = re iθ, where
Chapter 0 Quantum algorithms Complex numbers: a quick review / 4 / 4 Definition: C = { a + b i : a, b R } where i = Polar form of z = a + b i is z = re iθ, where r = z = a + b and θ = tan y x Alternatively,
More informationLimits on the power of quantum statistical zero-knowledge
Limits on the power of quantum statistical zero-knowledge John Watrous Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, Canada jwatrous@cpsc.ucalgary.ca January 16, 2003 Abstract
More informationA Complete Characterization of Unitary Quantum Space
A Complete Characterization of Unitary Quantum Space Bill Fefferman 1 and Cedric Yen-Yu Lin 1 1 Joint Center for Quantum Information and Computer Science (QuICS), University of Maryland November 22, 2016
More informationLecture 18: Oct 15, 2014
E0 224 Computational Complexity Theory Indian Institute of Science Fall 2014 Department of Computer Science and Automation Lecture 18: Oct 15, 2014 Lecturer: Chandan Saha Scribe:
More informationVerification of quantum computation
Verification of quantum computation THOMAS VIDICK, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Presentation based on the paper: Classical verification of quantum computation by U. Mahadev (IEEE symp. on Foundations
More information1 Quantum Circuits. CS Quantum Complexity theory 1/31/07 Spring 2007 Lecture Class P - Polynomial Time
CS 94- Quantum Complexity theory 1/31/07 Spring 007 Lecture 5 1 Quantum Circuits A quantum circuit implements a unitary operator in a ilbert space, given as primitive a (usually finite) collection of gates
More informationQuantum Algorithms Lecture #3. Stephen Jordan
Quantum Algorithms Lecture #3 Stephen Jordan Summary of Lecture 1 Defined quantum circuit model. Argued it captures all of quantum computation. Developed some building blocks: Gate universality Controlled-unitaries
More informationThe P versus NP Problem in Quantum Physics
NeuroQuantology December 04 Volume Issue 4 Page 350-354 350 The P versus NP Problem in Quantum Physics Daegene Song ABSTRACT Motivated by the fact that information is encoded and processed by physical
More information6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory 30 October Lecture 17
6.896 Quantum Complexity Theory 30 October 2008 Lecturer: Scott Aaronson Lecture 17 Last time, on America s Most Wanted Complexity Classes: 1. QMA vs. QCMA; QMA(2). 2. IP: Class of languages L {0, 1} for
More informationZero-Knowledge Against Quantum Attacks
Zero-Knowledge Against Quantum Attacks John Watrous Department of Computer Science University of Calgary January 16, 2006 John Watrous (University of Calgary) Zero-Knowledge Against Quantum Attacks QIP
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 16 Nov 1995
Quantum Networks for Elementary Arithmetic Operations Vlatko Vedral, Adriano Barenco and Artur Ekert Clarendon Laboratory, Department of Physics University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PU, U.K. (Submitted to
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 12 May 2012
Multi-Prover Quantum Merlin-Arthur Proof Systems with Small Gap Attila Pereszlényi Centre for Quantum Technologies, National University of Singapore May, 0 arxiv:05.76v [quant-ph] May 0 Abstract This paper
More informationQuantum Circuits: Fanout, Parity, and Counting
Quantum Circuits: Fanout, Parity, and Counting Cristopher oore Santa Fe Institute, 399 yde Park Road, Santa Fe, New exico 875 moore@santafe.edu ariv:quant-ph/99346v3 7 ar 999 Abstract. We propose definitions
More informationAn Architectural Framework For Quantum Algorithms Processing Unit (QAPU)
An Architectural Framework For Quantum s Processing Unit (QAPU) Mohammad Reza Soltan Aghaei, Zuriati Ahmad Zukarnain, Ali Mamat, and ishamuddin Zainuddin Abstract- The focus of this study is developing
More informationClassical Verification of Quantum Computations
Classical Verification of Quantum Computations Urmila Mahadev UC Berkeley September 12, 2018 Classical versus Quantum Computers Can a classical computer verify a quantum computation? Classical output (decision
More informationOptimal Realizations of Controlled Unitary Gates
Optimal Realizations of Controlled nitary Gates Guang Song and Andreas Klappenecker Department of Computer Science Texas A&M niversity College Station, TX 77843-3112 {gsong,klappi}@cs.tamu.edu Abstract
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ Oct 2002
Measurement of the overlap between quantum states with the use of coherently addressed teleportation Andrzej Grudka* and Antoni Wójcik** arxiv:quant-ph/00085 Oct 00 Faculty of Physics, Adam Mickiewicz
More informationQuantum Lower Bound for Recursive Fourier Sampling
Quantum Lower Bound for Recursive Fourier Sampling Scott Aaronson Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton aaronson@ias.edu Abstract One of the earliest quantum algorithms was discovered by Bernstein and
More informationExact Quantum Algorithms for the Leader Election Problem
Exact Quantum Algorithms for the Leader Election Problem Seiichiro Tani 12, Hirotada Kobayashi 2, and Keiji Matsumoto 32 1 NTT Communication Science Laboratories, NTT Corporation, 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya,
More informationLecture 7 Limits on inapproximability
Tel Aviv University, Fall 004 Lattices in Computer Science Lecture 7 Limits on inapproximability Lecturer: Oded Regev Scribe: Michael Khanevsky Let us recall the promise problem GapCVP γ. DEFINITION 1
More informationFault-Tolerant Universality from Fault-Tolerant Stabilizer Operations and Noisy Ancillas
Fault-Tolerant Universality from Fault-Tolerant Stabilizer Operations and Noisy Ancillas Ben W. Reichardt UC Berkeley NSF, ARO [quant-ph/0411036] stabilizer operations, Q: Do form a universal set? prepare
More information