arxiv: v3 [quant-ph] 30 Sep 2009

Transcription

1 Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations Aram W. Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd 3 Deartment of Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 W, U.K. MI - Research Laboratory for Electronics, Cambridge, MA 39, USA 3 MI - Research Laboratory for Electronics and Deartment of Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge, MA 39, USA arxiv:8.37v3 [quant-h] 3 Se 9 Solving linear systems of equations is a common roblem that arises both on its own and as a subroutine in more comlex roblems: given a matrix A and a vector b, find a vector x such that A x = b. We consider the case where one doesn t need to know the solution x itself, but rather an aroximation of the exectation value of some oerator associated with x, e.g., x M x for some matrix M. In this case, when A is sarse, N N and has condition number κ, classical algorithms can find x and estimate x M x in Õ(N κ time. Here, we exhibit a quantum algorithm for this task that runs in oly(log N, κ time, an exonential imrovement over the best classical algorithm. I. INRODUCION Quantum comuters are devices that harness quantum mechanics to erform comutations in ways that classical comuters cannot. For certain roblems, quantum algorithms suly exonential seedus over their classical counterarts, the most famous examle being Shor s factoring algorithm []. Few such exonential seedus are known, and those that are (such as the use of quantum comuters to simulate other quantum systems [] have so far found limited use outside the domain of quantum mechanics. his aer resents a quantum algorithm to estimate features of the solution of a set of linear equations. Comared to classical algorithms for the same task, our algorithm can be as much as exonentially faster. Linear equations lay an imortant role in virtually all fields of science and engineering. he sizes of the data sets that define the equations are growing raidly over time, so that terabytes and even etabytes of data may need to be rocessed to obtain a solution. In other cases, such as when discretizing artial differential equations, the linear equations may be imlicitly defined and thus far larger than the original descrition of the roblem. For a classical comuter even to aroximate the solution of N linear equations in N unknowns in general requires time that scales at least as N. Indeed, merely to write out the solution takes time of order N. Frequently, however, one is interested not in the full solution to the equations, but rather in comuting some function of that solution, such as determining the total weight of some subset of the indices. We show that in some cases, a quantum comuter can aroximate the value of such a function in time which scales logarithmically in N, and olynomially in the condition number (defined below and desired recision. he deendence on N is exonentially better than what is achievable classically, while the deendence on condition number is comarable, and the deendence on error is worse. hus our algorithm can achieve useful, and even exonential, seedus in a wide variety of settings where N is large and the condition number is small. We sketch here the basic idea of our algorithm, and then discuss it in more detail in the next section. Given a Hermitian N N matrix A, and a unit vector b, suose we would like to find x satisfying A x = b. (We discuss later questions of efficiency as well as how the assumtions we have made about A and b can be relaxed. First, the algorithm reresents b as a quantum state b = N i= b i i. Next, we use techniques of Hamiltonian simulation[3, 4] to aly e iat to b for a suerosition of different times t. his ability to exonentiate A translates, via the wellknown technique of hase estimation[5 7], into the ability to decomose b in the eigenbasis of A and to find the corresonding eigenvalues λ j. Informally, the state of the system after this stage is close to N j= β j u j λ j, where u j is the eigenvector basis of A, and b = N j= β j u j. We would then like to erform the linear ma taking λ j to Cλ j λ j, where C is a normalizing constant. As this oeration is not unitary, it has some robability of failing, which will enter into our discussion of the run-time below. After it succeeds, we uncomute the λ j register and are left with a state roortional to N j= β jλ j u j = A b = x. An imortant factor in the erformance of the matrix inversion algorithm is κ, the condition number of A, or the ratio between A s largest and smallest eigenvalues. As the condition number grows, A becomes closer to a matrix which cannot be inverted, and the solutions become less stable. Such a matrix is said to be ill-conditioned. Our algorithms will generally assume that the singular values of A lie between /κ and ; equivalently κ I A A I. In this case, our runtime will scale as κ log(n/ǫ, where ǫ is the additive error achieved in the outut state x. herefore, the greatest advantage our algorithm has over classical algorithms occurs when both κ and /ǫ are oly log(n, in which case it achieves an exonential seedu. However, we will also discuss later some techniques for handling ill-conditioned matrices.

2 his rocedure yields a quantum-mechanical reresentation x of the desired vector x. Clearly, to read out all the comonents of x would require one to erform the rocedure at least N times. However, often one is interested not in x itself, but in some exectation value x M x, where M is some linear oerator (our rocedure also accommodates nonlinear oerators as described below. By maing M to a quantum-mechanical oerator, and erforming the quantum measurement corresonding to M, we obtain an estimate of the exectation value x M x = x M x, as desired. A wide variety of features of the vector x can be extracted in this way, including normalization, weights in different arts of the state sace, moments, etc. A simle examle where the algorithm can be used is to see if two different stochastic rocesses have similar stable state [8]. Consider a stochastic rocess x t = A x t + b, where the i th coordinate in the vector x t reresents the abundance of item i in time t. he stable state of this distribution is given by x = (I A b. Let x t = A x t + b, and x = (I A b. o know if x and x are similar, we erform the SWAP test between them [9]. We note that classically finding out if two robability distributions are similar requires at least O( N samles []. he strength of the algorithm is that it works only with O(log N-qubit registers, and never has to write down all of A, b or x. In situations (detailed below where the Hamiltonian simulation and our non-unitary ste incur only oly log(n overhead, this means our algorithm takes exonentially less time than a classical comuter would need even to write down the outut. In that sense, our algorithm is related to classical Monte Carlo algorithms, which achieve dramatic seedus by working with samles from a robability distribution on N objects rather than by writing down all N comonents of the distribution. However, while these classical samling algorithms are owerful, we will rove that in fact any classical algorithm requires in general exonentially more time than our quantum algorithms to erform the same matrix inversion task. Outline he rest of the Letter roceeds by first describing our algorithm in detail, analyzing its run-time and comaring it with the best known classical algorithms. Next, we rove (modulo some comlexity-theoretic assumtions hardness results for matrix inversion that imly both that our algorithm s run-time is nearly otimal, and that it runs exonentially faster than any classical algorithm. We conclude with a discussion of alications, generalizations and extensions. Related work Previous aers gave quantum algorithms to erform linear algebraic oerations in a limited setting []. Our work was extended by [] to solving nonlinear differential equations. II. ALGORIHM We now give a more detailed exlanation of the algorithm. First, we want to transform a given Hermitian matrix A into a unitary oerator e iat which we can aly at will. his is ossible (for examle if A is s-sarse and efficiently row comutable, meaning it has at most s nonzero entries er row and given a row index these entries can be comuted in time O(s. Under these assumtions, Ref. [3] shows how to simulate e iat in time Õ(log(Ns t, where the Õ suresses more slowly-growing terms (described in [3]. If A is not Hermitian, define ( A C = A ( ( b As C is Hermitian, we can solve the equation C y = to obtain y =. Alying this reduction if necessary, x the rest of the Letter assumes that A is Hermitian. We also need an efficient rocedure to reare b. For examle, if b i and i i=i b i are efficiently comutable then we can use the rocedure of Ref. [4] to reare b. Alternatively, our algorithm could be a subroutine in a larger quantum algorithm of which some other comonent is resonsible for roducing b. he next ste is to decomose b in the eigenvector basis, using hase estimation [5 7]. Denote by u j the eigenvectors of A (or equivalently, of e iat, and by λ j the corresonding eigenvalues. Let Ψ := sin π(τ + τ= ( τ ( for some large. he coefficients of Ψ are chosen (following [5, 7] to minimize a certain quadratic loss function which aears in our error analysis (see [3] for details.

3 Next we aly the conditional Hamiltonian evolution τ= τ τ C e iaτt/ on Ψ C b, where t = O(κ/ǫ. Fourier transforming the first register gives the state N α k j β j k u j, (3 j= k= where k are the Fourier basis states, and α k j is large if and only if λ j πk t. Defining λ k := πk/t, we can relabel our k register to obtain N α k j β j λk u j j= k= Adding an ancilla qubit and rotating conditioned on N j= k= λ k yields ( α k j β j λk u j C + C λk, λ k where C = O(/κ. We now undo the hase estimation to uncomute the we would have α k j = if λ k = λ j, and otherwise. Assuming this for now, we obtain ( N β j u j C λ + C j λ j j= λ k. If the hase estimation were erfect, o finish the inversion we measure the last qubit. Conditioned on seeing, we have the state N C N β j u j j= C β j / λ j λ j which corresonds to x = n j= β jλj u j u to normalization. We can determine the normalization factor from the robability of obtaining. Finally, we make a measurement M whose exectation value x M x corresonds to the feature of x that we wish to evaluate. Run-time and error analysis We resent an informal descrition of the sources of error; the exact error analysis and runtime considerations are resented in [3]. Performing the hase estimation is done by simulating e iat. Assuming that A is s-sarse, this can be done with error ǫ in time roortional to ts (t/ǫ o( =: Õ(ts. he dominant source of error is hase estimation. his ste errs by O(/t in estimating λ, which translates into a relative error of O(/λt in λ. If λ /κ taking t = O(κ/ǫ induces a final error of ǫ. Finally, we consider the success robability of the ost-selection rocess. Since C = O(/κ and λ, this robability is at least Ω(/κ. Using amlitude amlification [5], we find that O(κ reetitions are sufficient. Putting this all together, we obtain the stated runtime of Õ ( log(ns κ /ǫ. j= 3 III. OPIMALIY Classical matrix inversion algorithms o ut our algorithm in context, one of the best general-urose classical matrix inversion algorithms is the conjugate gradient method [6], which, when A is ositive definite, uses O( κlog(/ǫ matrix-vector multilications each taking time O(Ns for a total runtime of O(Ns κ log(/ǫ. (If A is not ositive definite, O(κ log(/ǫ multilications are required, for a total time of O(N sκ log(/ǫ. An imortant question is whether classical methods can be imroved when only a summary statistic of the solution, such as x M x, is required. Another question is whether our quantum algorithm could be imroved, say to achieve error ǫ in time roortional to oly log(/ǫ. We show that the answer to both questions is negative, using an argument from comlexity theory. Our strategy is to rove that the ability to invert matrices (with the right choice of arameters can be used to simulate a general quantum comutation.

4 he comlexity of matrix inversion We show that a quantum circuit using n qubits and gates can be simulated by inverting an O(-sarse matrix A of dimension N = O( n κ. he condition number κ is O( if we need A to be ositive definite or O( if not. his imlies that a classical oly(log N, κ, /ǫ-time algorithm would be able to simulate a oly(n-gate quantum algorithm in oly(n time. Such a simulation is strongly conjectured to be false, and is known to be imossible in the resence of oracles [7]. he reduction from a general quantum circuit to a matrix inversion roblem also imlies that our algorithm cannot be substantially imroved (under standard assumtions. If the run-time could be made olylogarithmic in κ, then any roblem solvable on n qubits could be solved in oly(n time (i.e. BQP=PSPACE, a highly unlikely ossibility. Even imroving our κ-deendence to κ δ for δ > would allow any time- quantum algorithm to be simulated in time o(; iterating this would again imly that BQP=PSPACE. Similarly, imroving the error deendence to oly log(/ǫ would imly that BQP includes PP, and even minor imrovements would contradict oracle lower bounds [8]. he reduction We now resent the key reduction from simulating a quantum circuit to matrix inversion. Let C be a quantum circuit acting on n = log N qubits which alies two-qubit gates U,...U. he initial state is n and the answer is determined by measuring the first qubit of the final state. Now adjoin an ancilla register of dimension 3 and define a unitary U = t+ t U t + t+ + t+ I + t++ mod 3 t+ U 3+ t. (4 t= We have chosen U so that for + t, alying U t to ψ yields t + U U ψ. If we now define A = I Ue / then κ(a = O(, and we can exand A = k U k e k/, (5 4 his can be interreted as alying U t for t a geometrically-distributed random variable. Since U 3 = I, we can assume t 3. If we measure the first register and obtain + t (which occurs with robability e /( + e + e 4 / then we are left with the second register in the state U U ψ, corresonding to a successful comutation. Samling from x allows us to samle from the results of the comutation. his establishes that matrix inversion is BQP-comlete, and roves our above claims about the difficulty of imroving our algorithm. IV. DISCUSSION here are a number of ways to extend our algorithm and relax the assumtions we made while resenting it. We will discuss first how to invert a broader class of matrices and then consider measuring other features of x and erforming oerations on A other than inversion. Certain non-sarse A can be simulated and therefore inverted; see [4] for techniques and examles. It is also ossible to invert non-square matrices, using the reduction resented from the non-hermitian case to the Hermitian one. he matrix inversion algorithm can also handle ill-conditioned matrices by inverting only the art of b which is in the well-conditioned art of the matrix. Formally, instead of transforming b = j β j u j to x = j λ j β j u j, we transform it to a state which is close to λ j β j u j well + β j u j ill j,λ j</κ j,λ j /κ in time roortional to κ for any chosen κ (i.e. not necessarily the true condition number of A. he last qubit is a flag which enables the user to estimate what the size of the ill-conditioned art, or to handle it in any other way she wants. his behavior can be advantageous if we know that A is not invertible and we are interested in the rojection of b on the well-conditioned art of A. Another method that is often used in classical algorithms to handle ill-conditioned matrices is to aly a reconditioner[9]. If we have a method of generating a reconditioner matrix B such that κ(ab is smaller than κ(a, then we can solve A x = b by instead solving the ossibly easier matrix inversion roblem (AB c = B b. Further, if A and B are both sarse, then AB is as well. hus, as long as a state roortional to B b can be efficiently reared, our algorithm could otentially run much faster if a suitable reconditioner is used.

5 he oututs of the algorithm can also be generalized. We can estimate degree-k olynomials in the entries of x by generating k coies of x and measuring the nk-qubit observable i,...,i k,j,...,j k M i,...,i k,j,...,j k i,...,i k j,...,j k on the state x k. Alternatively, one can use our algorithm to generate a quantum analogue of Monte-Carlo, where given A and b we samle from the vector x, meaning that the value i occurs with robability x i. Perhas the most far-reaching generalization of the matrix inversion algorithm is not to invert matrices at all! Instead, it can comute f(a b for any comutable f. Deending on the degree of nonlinearity of f, nontrivial tradeoffs between accuracy and efficiency arise. Some variants of this idea are considered in [4,, ]. Acknowledgements. We thank the W.M. Keck foundation for suort, and AWH thanks them as well as MI for hositality while this work was carried out. AWH was also funded by the U.K. EPSRC grant QIP IRC. SL thanks R. Zecchina for encouraging him to work on this roblem. We are grateful as well to R. Cleve, D. Farmer, S. Gharabian, J. Kelner, S. Mitter, P. Parillo, D. Sielman and M. egmark for helful discussions. 5 APPENDIX A: PROOF DEAILS In this aendix, we describe and analyze our algorithm in full detail. While the body of the aer attemted to convey the sirit of the rocedure and left out various imrovements, here we take the oosite aroach and describe everything, albeit ossibly in a less intuitive way. We also describe in more detail our reductions from non-hermitian matrix inversion to Hermitian matrix inversion (Section A 4 and from a general quantum comutation to matrix inversion (Section A 5. As inuts we require a rocedure to roduce the state b, a method of roducing the s non-zero elements of any row of A and a choice of cutoff κ. Our run-time will be roughly quadratic in κ and our algorithm is guaranteed to be correct if A and A κ. he condition number is a crucial arameter in the algorithm. Here we resent one ossible method of handling ill-conditioned matrices. We will define the well-conditioned art of A to be the san of the eigensaces corresonding to eigenvalues /κ and the ill-conditioned art to be the rest. Our strategy will be to flag the ill-conditioned art of the matrix (without inverting it, and let the user choose how to further handle this. Since we cannot exactly resolve any eigenvalue, we can only aroximately determine whether vectors are in the well- or ill-conditioned subsaces. Accordingly, we choose some κ > κ (say κ = κ. Our algorithm then inverts the well-conditioned art of the matrix, flags any eigenvector with eigenvalue /κ as ill-conditioned, and interolates between these two behaviors when /κ < λ < /κ. his is described formally in the next section. We resent this strategy not because it is necessarily ideal in all cases, but because it gives a concrete illustration of the key comonents of our algorithm. Finally, the algorithm roduces x only u to some error ǫ which is given as art of the inut. We work only with ure states, and so define error in terms of distance between vectors, i.e. α β = ( Re α β. Since ancilla states are roduced and then imerfectly uncomuted by the algorithm, our outut state will technically have high fidelity not with x but with x.... In general we do not write down ancilla qubits in the state, so we write x instead of x... for the target state, b instead of b... for the initial state, and so on.. Detailed descrition of the algorithm o roduce the inut state b, we assume that there exists an efficiently-imlementable unitary B, which when alied to initial roduces the state b, ossibly along with garbage in an ancilla register. We make no further assumtion about B; it may reresent another art of a larger algorithm, or a standard state-rearation rocedure such as [4]. Let B be the number of gates required to imlement B. We neglect the ossibility that B errs in roducing b since, without any other way of roducing or verifying the state b, we have no way to mitigate these errors. hus, any errors in roducing b necessarily translate directly into errors in the final state x. Next, we define the state Ψ = sin π(τ + τ= τ (A for a to be chosen later. Using [4], we can reare Ψ u to error ǫ Ψ in time oly log(/ǫ Ψ.

6 One other subroutine we will need is Hamiltonian simulation. Using the reductions described in Section A 4, we can assume that A is Hermitian. o simuluate e iat for some t, we use the algorithm of [3]. If A is s-sarse, t t and we want to guarantee that the error is ǫ H, then this requires time H = O(log(N(log (N s t 9 log(s t /ǫ H = Õ(log(Ns t (A he scaling here is better than any ower of /ǫ H, which means that the additional error introduced by this ste introduces is negligible comared with the rest of the algorithm, and the runtime is almost linear with t. Note that this is the only ste where we require that A be sarse; as there are some other tyes of Hamiltonians which can be simulated efficiently (e.g. [3, 4, ], this broadens the set of matrices we can handle. he key subroutine of the algorithm, denoted U invert, is defined as follows:. Preare Ψ C from u to error ǫ Ψ.. Aly the conditional Hamiltonian evolution τ= τ τ C e iaτt/ u to error ǫ H. 3. Aly the Fourier transform to the register C. Denote the resulting basis states with k, for k =,.... Define λ k := πk/t. 4. Adjoin a three-dimensional register S in the state S h( λ k := f( λ k g( λ k nothing S + f( λ k well S + g( λ k ill S, for functions f(λ, g(λ defined below in (A3. Here nothing indicates that the desired matrix inversion hasn t taken lace, well indicates that it has, and ill means that art of b is in the ill-conditioned subsace of A. 5. Reverse stes -3, uncomuting any garbage roduced along the way. he functions f(λ, g(λ are known as filter functions[], and are chosen so that for some constant C > : f(λ = /Cκλ for λ /κ, g(λ = /C for λ /κ := /κ and f (λ + g (λ for all λ. Additionally, f(λ should satisfy a certain continuity roerty that we will describe in the next section. Otherwise the functions are arbitrary. One ossible choice is κλ ( when λ /κ f(λ = sin π λ κ κ when κ κ > λ κ (A3a when κ > λ ( when λ /κ g(λ = cos π λ κ κ when κ κ > λ κ when κ > λ 6 (A3b If U invert is alied to u j it will, u to an error we will discuss below, adjoin the state h(λ j. Instead if we aly U invert to b (i.e. a suerosition of different u j, measure S and obtain the outcome well, then we will have aroximately alied an oerator roortional to A. Let (comuted in the next section denote the success robability of this measurement. Rather than reeating / times, we will use amlitude amlification [5] to obtain the same results with O(/ reetitions. o describe the rocedure, we introduce two new oerators: acting only on the S register and R succ = I S well well S, R init = I initial initial. Our main algorithm then follows the amlitude amlification rocedure: we start with U invert B initial and reeatedly aly U invert BR init B U invert R succ. Finally we measure S and sto when we obtain the result well. he number of reetitions would ideally be π/4, which in the next section we will show is O(κ. While is initially unknown, the rocedure has a constant robability of success if the number of reetitions is a constant fraction of π/4. hus, following [5] we reeat the entire rocedure with a geometrically increasing number of reetitions each time:,, 4, 8,..., until we have reached a ower of two that is κ. his yields a constant robability of success using 4κ reetitions. Putting everything together, the run-time is Õ(κ( B+t s log(n, where the Õ suresses the more-slowly growing terms of (log (N, ex(o(/ log(t /ǫ H and oly log(/ǫ Ψ. In the next section, we will show that t can be taken to be O(κ/ǫ so that the total run-time is Õ(κ B + κ s log(n/ǫ.

7 7. Error Analysis In this section we show that taking t = O(κ/ǫ introduces an error of ǫ in the final state. he main subtlety in analyzing the error comes from the ost-selection ste, in which we choose only the art of the state attached to the well register. his can otentially magnify errors in the overall state. On the other hand, we may also be interested in the non-ostselected state, which results from alying U invert a single time to b. For instance, this could be used to estimate the amount of weight of b lying in the ill-conditioned comonents of A. Somewhat surrisingly, we show that the error in both cases is uer-bounded by O(κ/t. In this section, it will be convenient to ignore the error terms ǫ H and ǫ Ψ, as these can be made negligible with relatively little effort and it is the errors from hase estimation that will dominate. Let Ũ denote a version of U invert in which everything excet the hase estimation is exact. Since Ũ U invert O(ǫ H + ǫ Ψ, it is sufficient to work with Ũ. Define U to be the ideal version of U invert in which there is no error in any ste. heorem (Error bounds.. In the case when no ost-selection is erformed, the error is bounded as Ũ U O(κ/t. (A4. If we ost-select on the flag register being in the sace sanned by { well, ill } and define the normalized ideal state to be x and our actual state to be x then x x O(κ/t. (A5 3. If b is entirely within the well-conditioned subsace of A and we ost-select on the flag register being well then x x O(κ/t. (A6 he third claim is often of the most ractical interest, but the other two are useful if we want to work with the ill-conditioned sace, or estimate its weight. he rest of the section is devoted to the roof of heorem. We first show that the third claim is a corollary of the second, and then rove the first two claims more or less indeendently. o rove (A5 assuming (A4, observe that if b is entirely in the well-conditioned sace, the ideal state x is roortional to A b well. Model the ost-selection on well by a ost-selection first on the sace sanned by { well, ill }, followed by a ost-selection onto well. By (A4, the first ost-selection leaves us with error O(κ/t. his imlies that the second ost-selection will succeed with robability O(κ /t and therefore will increase the error by at most O(κ/t. he final error is then O(κ/t as claimed in (A6. Now we turn to the roof of (A4. A crucial iece of the roof will be the following statement about the continuity of h(λ. Lemma. he ma λ h(λ is O(κ-Lischitz, meaning that for any λ λ, for some c = O(. h(λ h(λ = ( Re h(λ h(λ cκ λ λ, Proof. Since λ h(λ is continuous everywhere and differentiable everywhere excet at /κ and /κ, it suffices to bound the norm of the derivative of h(λ. We consider it iece by iece. When λ > /κ, d dλ h(λ = κ λ 3 /κ λ nothing κλ well, which has squared norm κ λ 4 (κ λ + 4κ λ κ. Next, when /κ d < λ < /κ, the norm of 4 dλ h(λ is π κ = π κ. κ Finally d dλ h(λ = when λ < /κ. his comletes the roof, with c = π.

8 Now we return to the roof of (A4. Let P denote the first three stes of the algorithm. hey can be thought of as maing the initial zero qubits to a k register, together with some garbage, as follows: 8 P = n u j u j k j= α k j k garbage(j, k initial, where the guarantee that the hase estimation algorithm gives us is that α k j is concentrated around λ j πk/t =: λ k. echnically, P should be comleted to make it a unitary oerator by defining some arbitrary behavior on inuts other than initial in the last register. Consider a test state b = N j= β j u j. he ideal functionality is defined by while the actual algorithm roduces the state ϕ = U b = N β j u j h(λ j, j= ϕ = Ũ b = P N β j u j j= k α k j k h( λ k, We wish to calculate ϕ ϕ, or equivalently the inner roduct between P ϕ and P ϕ = j,k β jα k j u j k h(λ j. his inner roduct is ϕ ϕ = N β j k j= α k j h( λ k h(λ j := E j E k h( λ k h(λ j, where we think of j and k as random variables with joint distribution Pr(j, k = β j α k j. hus Re ϕ ϕ = E j E k Re h( λ k h(λ j. Let δ = λ j t πk = t (λ j λ k. From Lemma, Re h( λ k h(λ j c κ δ /t, where c π is a constant. here are two sources of infidelity. For δ π, the inner roduct is at least π c κ /t. For larger values of δ, we use the bound α k j 64π /(λ j t πk 4 (roved in Section A3 to find an infidelity contribution that is k= λ j t π + 64π δ 4 c κ δ t = 64π c κ t k= 4π k = 8π c 3 Summarizing, we find that Re ϕ ϕ 5π c κ /t, which translates into ϕ ϕ 4πcκ/t = π κ/t. Since the initial state b was arbitrary, this bounds the oerator distance Ũ U as claimed in (A4. urning now to the ost-selected case, we observe that κ t. x := = f(a b well + g(a b ill b (f(a + g(a b j β j u j (f(λ j well + g(λ j ill j β j (f(λ j + g(λ j (A7 (A8 =: j β j u j (f(λ j well + g(λ j ill. (A9 Where in the last ste we have defined := E j [f(λ j + g(λ j ] to be the robability that the ost-selection succeeds. Naively, this ost-selection could magnify the errors by as much as /, but by careful examination of the errors, we find that this worst-case situation only occurs when the

9 errors are small in the first lace. his is what will allow us to obtain the same O(κ/t error bound even in the ost-selected state. Now write the actual state that we roduce as 9 x := P N j= β j u j k α k j k (f( λ k well + g( λ k ill E j,k f( λ k + g( λ k (A =: P N j= β j u j k α k j k (f( λ k well + g( λ k ill, (A where we have defined = E j,k [f( λ k + g( λ k ]. Recall that j and k are random variables with joint distribution Pr(j, k = β j α k j. We evaluate the contribution of a single j value. Define λ := λ j and λ := πk/t. Note that δ = t (λ λ and that Eδ, Eδ = O(. Here δ deends imlicitly on both j and k, and the above bounds on its exectations hold even when conditioning on an arbitrary value of j. We further abbreviate f := f(λ, f := f(λ, g := g(λ and g = g(λ. hus := E[f + g ] and = E[ f + g ]. Our goal is to bound x x in (A5. We work instead with the fidelity F := x x = E[f f + g g] = + E[( f ff+( g gg] + = E[f + g ] + E[( f ff + ( g gg] + ( + E[( f ff + ( g gg] ( (A (A3 Next we exand = E[ f f ] + E[ g g ] (A4 = E[( f f( f + f] + E[( g g( g + g] (A5 = E[( f ff] + E[( g gg] + E[( f f ] + E[( g g ] (A6 Substituting into (A3, we find F E[( f f + ( g g ] E[( f ff + ( g gg] (A7 We now need an analogue of the Lischitz condition given in Lemma. Lemma 3. Let f, f, g, g be defined as above, with κ = κ. hen where c = π /. f f + g g c κ t δ f + g Proof. Remember that f = f(λ δ/t and similarly for g. Consider the case first when λ /κ. In this case g =, and we need to show that f f κ δf t = λ λ λ (A8 o rove this, we consider four cases. First, suose λ /κ. hen f f = λ λ κ λ λ λ = /κ (so f = / and λ < /κ. Since sin π α α for α, we have δ /t λ. Next, suose f f λ κ κ = κ( λ = κ( κ λ, (A9 κ

10 and using λ = /κ we find that f f = λ λ λ, as desired. Next, if λ < /κ < λ and f < f then relacing λ with /κ only makes the inequality tighter. Finally, suose λ < /κ < λ and f < f. Using (A9 and λ > /κ we find that f f κ λ < λ/λ = (λ λ/λ, as desired. Now, suose that λ < /κ. hen And similarly f f δ t max f = π δ 4 t κ. g g δ t max g = π δ 4 t κ. Finally f(λ + g(λ = / for any λ /κ, imlying the result. Now we use Lemma 3 to bound the two error contributions in (A3. First bound E[( f f + ( g g ] ( κ O t E[(f + g δ ] E[f + g O ] ( κ t (A he first inequality used Lemma 3 and the second used the fact that E[δ ] O( even when conditioned on an arbitrary value of j (or equivalently λ j. Next, E[( f ff + ( g gg] [ ( E ( f ] f + ( g g (f + g [ ] E δ κ (f t + g ( κ O t, (A where the first inequality is Cauchy-Schwartz, the second is Lemma 3 and the last uses the fact that E[ δ ] E[δ ] = O( even when conditioned on j. We now substitute (A and (A into (A6 (and assume κ t to find ( κ O t. (A Substituting (A, (A and (A into (A7, we find Re x x O(κ /t, or equivalently, that x x ǫ. his comletes the roof of heorem. 3. Phase estimation calculations Here we describe, in our notation, the imroved hase-estimation rocedure of [5, 7], and rove the concentration bounds on α k j. Adjoin the state Ψ = sin π(τ + τ= Aly the conditional Hamiltonian evolution τ τ τ eiaτt/. Assume the target state is u j, so this becomes simly the conditional hase τ τ τ eiλjtτ/. he resulting state is τ. Ψλjt = e iλ j t τ sin π(τ + τ u j. τ=

11 We now measure in the Fourier basis, and find that the inner roduct with τ= e πikτ τ u j is (defining δ := λ j t πk: α k j = τ= = i e i τ (λjt πk sin π(τ + τ= = i = i = + eiδ i τ= e i τδ (e iπ(τ+/ e iπ(τ+/ e iπ e iτ δ+π e iπ e iτ δ π ( e iπ e iπ+iδ ( = ( + eiδ e iδ/ i e i δ+π e iδ/ e i (δ+π e i ( = e i δ ( cos( δ = e i δ ( cos( δ = e i δ ( cos( δ e iπ (δ+π e iπ+iδ e i δ π e iδ/ e i (δ π e i i sin ( δ π sin ( δ π (δ π (A3 (A4 (A5 (A6 (A7 i sin ( (A8 δ+π ( sin ( (A9 δ+π sin ( ( δ π sin δ+π sin ( ( δ+π sin δ π (A3 cos( ( δ sin π sin ( ( δ+π sin δ π (A3 Following [5, 7], we make the assumtion that π δ /. Further using α α 3 /6 sin α α and ignoring hases we find that 4π α k j (δ π ( δ +π 3 8π δ. hus α k j 64π /δ whenever k λ j t /π. (A3 4. he non-hermitian case Suose A C M N with M N. Generically Ax = b is now underconstrained. Let the singular value decomosition of A be A = M λ j u j v j, j= with u j C M, v j C N and λ λ M. Let V = san{ v,..., v M }. Define ( A H = A. (A33 H is Hermitian with eigenvalues ±λ,..., ±λ M, corresonding to eigenvectors w ± j := ( u j ± v j. It also has N M zero eigenvalues, corresonding to the orthogonal comlement of V. o run our algorithm we use the inut b. If b = M j= β j u j then b = M j= β j ( w + j + w j

12 and running the inversion algorithm yields a state roortional to H b = M j= β j λ j ( M w + j w j = j= β j λ j v j. Droing the inital, this defines our solution x. Note that our algorithm does not roduce any comonent in V, although doing so would have also yielded valid solutions. In this sense, it could be said to be finding the x that minimizes x x while solving A x = b. On the other hand, if M N then the roblem is overconstrained. Let U = san{ u,..., u N }. he equation A x = b is satisfiable only if b U. In this case, alying H to b will return a valid solution. But if b has some weight in U, then b will have some weight in the zero eigensace of H, which will be flagged as ill-conditioned by our algorithm. We might choose to ignore this art, in which case the algorithm will return an x satisfying A x = N j= u j u j b. 5. Otimality In this section, we exlain in detail two imortant ways in which our algorithm is otimal u to olynomial factors. First, no classical algorithm can erform the same matrix inversion task; and second, our deendence on condition number and accuracy cannot be substantially imroved. We resent two versions of our lower bounds; one based on comlexity theory, and one based on oracles. We say that an algorithm solves matrix inversion if its inut and outut are. Inut: An O(-sarse matrix A secified either via an oracle or via a oly(log(n-time algorithm that returns the nonzero elements in a row.. Outut: A bit that equals one with robability x M x ±ǫ, where M = I N/ corresonds to measuring the first qubit and x is a normalized state roortional to A b for b =. Further we demand that A is Hermitian and κ I A I. We take ǫ to be a fixed constant, such as /, and later deal with the deendency in ǫ. If the algorithm works when A is secified by an oracle, we say that it is relativizing. Even though this is a very weak definition of inverting matrices, this task is still hard for classical comuters. heorem 4.. If a quantum algorithm exists for matrix inversion running in time κ δ oly log(n for some δ >, then BQP=PSPACE.. No relativizing quantum algorithm can run in time κ δ oly log(n. 3. If a classical algorithm exists for matrix inversion running in time oly(κ, log(n, then BPP=BQP. Given an n-qubit -gate quantum comutation, define U as in (4. Define ( I Ue A = I U e. (A34 Note that A is Hermitian, has condition number κ and dimension N = 6 n. Solving the matrix inversion roblem corresonding to A roduces an ǫ-aroximation of the quantum comutation corresonding to alying U,..., U, assuming we are allowed to make any two outcome measurement on the outut state x. Recall that ( I Ue = U k e k/. We define a measurement M, which oututs zero if the time register t is between + and, and the original measurement s outut was one. As Pr( + k = e /( + e + e 4 and is indeendent of the result of the measurement M, we can estimate the exectation of M with accuracy ǫ by iterating this rocedure O ( /ǫ times. In order to erform the simulation when measuring only the first qubit, define ( I6 n B = I 3 n Ue. (A36 k (A35

13 We now define B to be the matrix B, after we ermuted the rows and columns such that if ( B C = B. (A37 ( b and C y =, then measuring the first qubit of y would corresond to erform M on x. he condition number of C is equal to that of A, but the dimension is now N = 8 n. Now suose we could solve matrix inversion in time κ δ (log(n/ǫ c for constants c, δ >. Given a comutation with n /8, let m = log(n δ log(log(n and ǫ = /m. For sufficiently large n, ǫ / log(n. hen ( c ( c log(n 3n κ δ ( δ δ c (n log(n c, ǫ ǫ where c = δ 3 c is another constant. We now have a recie for simulating an n i -qubit i -gate comutation with n i+ = n i + log(8 i qubits, i+ = δ i c 3 (n i log(n i c gates and error ǫ. Our strategy is to start with an n -qubit -gate comutation and iterate this simulation l m times, ending with an n l -qubit l -gate comutation with error mǫ /. We sto iterating either after m stes, or whenever i+ > δ/ i, whichever comes first. In the latter case, we set l equal to the first i for which i+ > δ/ i. In the case where we iterated the reduction m times, we have i ( δ/i ( δ/i n, imlying that m n. On the other hand, suose we sto for some l < m. For each i < l we have i+ δ/ i. hus i ( δ/i n for each i l. his allows us to bound n i = n + i j= log(8 i i = n + n j= ( δ/j + i log(8 ( 4 δ + n + m log(8. Defining yet another constant, this imlies that i+ δ i c 3 (n log(n c. Combining this with our stoing condition l+ > δ/ l we find that l (c 3 (n log(n c δ = oly(n. herefore, the runtime of the rocedure is olynomial in n regardless of the reason we stoed iterating the rocedure. he number of qubits used increases only linearly. Recall that the QBF (totally quantified Boolean formula satisfiability roblem is PSPACE-comlete, meaning that any k-bit roblem instance for any language in PSPACE can be reduced to a QBF roblem of length n = oly(k (see [3] for more information. he formula can be solved in time n /8, by exhaustive enumeration over the variables. hus a PSPACE comutation can be solved in quantum olynomial time. his roves the first art of the theorem. o incororate oracles, note that our construction of U in (4 could simly relace some of the U i s with oracle queries. his reserves sarsity, although we need the rows of A to now be secified by oracle queries. We can now iterate the seedu in exactly the same manner. However, we conclude with the ability to solve the OR roblem on n inuts in oly(n time and queries. his, of course, is imossible [4], and so the urorted relativizing quantum algorithm must also be imossible. he roof of art 3 of heorem 4 simly formulates a oly(n-time, n-qubit quantum comutation as a κ = oly(n, N = n oly(n matrix inversion roblem and alies the classical algorithm which we have assumed exists. heorem 4 established the universality of the matrix inversion algorithm. o extend the simulation to roblems which are not decision roblems, note that the algorithm actually sulies us with x (u to some accuracy. For examle, instead of measuring an observable M, we can measure x in the comutational basis, obtaining the result i with robability i x. his gives a way to simulate quantum comutation by classical matrix inversion algorithms. In turn, this can be used to rove lower bounds on classical matrix inversion algorithms, where we assume that the classical algorithms outut samles according to this distribution. heorem 5. No relativizing classical matrix inversion algorithm can run in time N α βκ unless 3α + 4β /. If we consider matrix inversion algorithms that work only on ositive definite matrices, then the N α βκ bound becomes N α βκ. Proof. Recall Simon s roblem [7], in which we are given f : Z n {, } n such that f(x = f(y iff x + y = a for some a Z n that we would like to find. It can be solved by running a 3n-qubit n + -gate quantum comutation O(n times and erforming a oly(n classical comutation. he randomized classical lower bound is Ω( n/ from birthday arguments. 3

14 Converting Simon s algorithm to a matrix A yields κ 4n and N 36n 3n. he run-time is N α βκ (3α+4βn oly(n. o avoid violating the oracle lower bound, we must have 3α + 4β /, as required. Next, we argue that the accuracy of algorithm cannot be substantially imroved. Returning now to the roblem of estimating x M x, we recall that classical algorithms can aroximate this to accuracy ǫ in time O(N κ oly(log(/ǫ. his oly(log(/ǫ deendence is because when writing the vectors b and x as bit strings means that adding an additional bit will double the accuracy. However, samling-based algorithms such as ours cannot hoe for a better than oly(/ǫ deendence of the run-time on the error. hus roving that our algorithm s error erformance cannot be imroved will require a slight redefinition of the roblem. Define the matrix inversion estimation roblem as follows. Given A, b, M, ǫ, κ, s with A, A κ, A s- sarse and efficiently row-comutable, b = and M = I N/ : outut a number that is within ǫ of x M x with robability /3, where x is the unit vector roortional to A b. he algorithm resented in our aer can be used to solve this roblem with a small amount of overhead. By roducing x u to trace distance ǫ/ in time Õ(log(Nκ s /ǫ, we can obtain a samle of a bit which equals one with robability µ with µ x M x ǫ/. Since the variance of this bit is /4, taking /3ǫ samles gives us a /3 robability of obtaining an estimate within ǫ/ of µ. hus quantum comuters can solve the matrix inversion estimation roblem in time Õ(log(Nκ s /ǫ 3. We can now show that the error deendence of our algorithm cannot be substantially imroved. heorem 6.. If a quantum algorithm exists for the matrix inversion estimation roblem running in time oly(κ, log(n, log(/ǫ then BQP=PP.. No relativizing quantum algorithm for the matrix inversion estimation roblem can run in time N α oly(κ/ǫ β unless α + β. Proof.. A comlete roblem for the class PP is to count the number of satisfying assignments to a SA formula. Given such formula φ, a quantum circuit can aly it on a suerosition of all n assignments for variables, generating the state z,..., z n φ(z,... z n. z,...,z n {,} he robability of obtaining when measuring the last qubit is equal to the number of satisfying truth assignments divided by n. A matrix inversion estimation rocedure which runs in time oly log(/ǫ would enable us to estimate this robability to accuracy n in time oly(log( n = oly(n. his would imly that BQP = PP as required.. Now assume that φ(z is rovided by the outut of an oracle. Let C denote the number of z {, } n such that φ(z =. From [8], we know that determining the arity of C requires Ω( n queries to φ. However, exactly determining C reduces to the matrix inversion estimation roblem with N = n, κ = O(n and ǫ = n. By assumtion we can solve this in time (α+βn oly(n, imlying that α + β. 4 [] P. W. Shor. Algorithms for quantum comutation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In S. Goldwasser, editor, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symosium on Foundations of Comuter Science, ages 4 34, New York, 994. IEEE Comuter Society Press. [] S. Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 73:73 78, August 996. [3] D.W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B.C. Sanders. Efficient Quantum Algorithms for Simulating Sarse Hamiltonians. Comm. Math. Phys., 7(:359 37, 7. arxiv:quant-h/5839. [4] A.M. Childs. On the relationshi between continuous- and discrete-time quantum walk, 8. arxiv:8.3. [5] A. Luis and J. Peřina. Otimum hase-shift estimation and the quantum descrition of the hase difference. Phys. Rev. A, 54(5: , Nov 996. [6] R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca. Quantum Algorithms Revisited, 997. arxiv:quant-h/9786. [7] V. Buzek, R. Derka, and S. Massar. Otimal quantum clocks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 8:7, 999. arxiv:quanth/9884. [8] D.G. Luenberger. Introduction to Dynamic Systems: heory, Models, and Alications. Wiley, New York, 979. [9] H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf. Quantum fingerrinting. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87(6: ,.

15 [] P. Valiant. esting symmetric roerties of distributions. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symosium on heory of comuting (SOC, ages ACM Press New York, NY, USA, 8. [] A. Klaenecker and M. Rotteler. Quantum Physics itle: Engineering Functional Quantum Algorithms. Phys. Rev. A, 67:3(R, 3. [] S. K. Leyton and. J. Osborne. A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations, 8. arxiv: [3] A.W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations, 8. arxiv:8.37. [4] L. Grover and. Rudolh. Creating suerositions that corresond to efficiently integrable robability distributions. arxiv:quant-h/8. [5] G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. a. Quantum Amlitude Amlification and Estimation, volume 35 of Contemorary Mathematics Series Millenium Volume. AMS, New York,. arxiv:quant-h/555. [6] Jonathan R. Shewchuk. An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain. echnical Reort CMU-CS-94-5, School of Comuter Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, March 994. [7] Daniel R. Simon. On the ower of quantum comutation. SIAM J. Com., 6: , 997. [8] E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Siser. A limit on the seed of quantum comutation in determining arity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 8: , 998. arxiv:quant-h/9845. [9] K. Chen. Matrix reconditioning techniques and alications. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., 5. [] L. Sheridan, D. Maslov, and M. Mosca. Aroximating fractional time quantum evolution, 9. arxiv: [] D. Aharonov and A. a-shma. Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symosium on heory of comuting (SOC, ages 9. ACM Press New York, NY, USA, 3. arxiv:quant-h/33. [] P.C. Hansen. Rank-deficient and discrete ill-osted roblems: Numerical asects of linear inversion. SIAM, Philadelhia, PA, 998. [3] M. Siser. Introduction to the heory of Comutation. International homson Publishing, 996. [4] C.H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazirani. he strengths and weaknesses of quantum comutation. SIAM Journal on Comuting, 6:5 53,