Arxiv:2004.01992V2 [Quant-Ph] 31 Jan 2021 Ity [6–20]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hidden Variable Model for Universal Quantum Computation with Magic States on Qubits Michael Zurel,1, 2, ∗ Cihan Okay,1, 2, ∗ and Robert Raussendorf1, 2 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2Stewart Blusson Quantum Matter Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (Dated: February 2, 2021) We show that every quantum computation can be described by a probabilistic update of a proba- bility distribution on a finite phase space. Negativity in a quasiprobability function is not required in states or operations. Our result is consistent with Gleason's Theorem and the Pusey-Barrett- Rudolph theorem. It is often pointed out that the fundamental objects In Theorem 2, we apply this to quantum computation in quantum mechanics are amplitudes, not probabilities with magic states, showing that universal quantum com- [1, 2]. This fact notwithstanding, here we construct a de- putation can be classically simulated by the probabilistic scription of universal quantum computation|and hence update of a probability distribution. of all quantum mechanics in finite-dimensional Hilbert This looks all very classical, and therein lies a puzzle. spaces|in terms of a probabilistic update of a probabil- In fact, our Theorem 2 is running up against a number ity distribution. In this formulation, quantum algorithms of no-go theorems: Theorem 2 in [23] and the Pusey- look structurally akin to classical diffusion problems. Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem [24] say that probabil- While this seems implausible, there exists a well-known ity representations for quantum mechanics do not exist, special instance of it: quantum computation with magic and [9{13] show that negativity in certain Wigner func- states (QCM) [3] on a single qubit. Compounding two tions is a precondition for speedup in quantum compu- standard one-qubit Wigner functions, a hidden variable tation. Further, does not Gleason's theorem prove that model can be constructed in which every one-qubit quan- the proper representation of state in quantum mechanics tum state is positively represented [4]. This representa- is density matrices rather than probability distributions? tion is furthermore covariant under all one-qubit Clifford As we explain in the discussion part of this Letter, unitaries and \positivity preserving" under all one-qubit there is no contradiction with those works. Rather, Pauli measurements. The update under such operations the above-quoted theorems make stronger assumptions preserves the probabilistic character of the model, and than we do and establish no-go theorems because hence QCM on one qubit can be classically simulated by of that. However, for describing universal quantum a probabilistic update of a probability function on eight computation|hence all quantum mechanics in finite- elements (see Fig. 1 for illustration). dimensional Hilbert spaces|our weaker assumptions suf- The prevailing view on the one-qubit example is that it is an exception and that for multiple qubits negativity (a) (b) will inevitably creep into any quasiprobability function A A 100 A000 of any computationally useful quantum state, render- 100 A ing classical simulations inefficient [5]. This hypothesis z+ 000 A110 is informed by the study of Wigner functions in finite- A110 A010 dimensional state spaces, which establishes Wigner func- y+ x- tion negativity as a necessary computational resource, y x+ A101 i.e., there can be no quantum speedup without negativ- - A A001 arXiv:2004.01992v2 [quant-ph] 31 Jan 2021 ity [6{20]. A quantum optics notion of quantumness| z 001 A111 - z A negativity of Wigner functions [21, 22]|and a compu- y A111 011 x tational notion|hardness of classical simulation|thus align. The viewpoint just summarized requires correction. As FIG. 1. One-qubit model. (a) The state space Λ1 is a we show in this Letter, the one-qubit case is not an ex- cube with eight vertices corresponding to the phase point op- sx sy sz erators Aα = [I + (−1) X + (−1) Y + (−1) Z]=2, with ception; rather it is an example illustrating the general 3 case. Every quantum state on any number of qubits can α = (sx; sy; sz) 2 Z2. The physical one-qubit states lie on or in the Bloch sphere which is contained in Λ and touches be represented by a probability function, and the update 1 the boundary of Λ1 at six points corresponding to the six of this probability function under Pauli measurement is one-qubit stabilizer states. (b) Update of the phase point also probabilistic. This is the content of Theorem 1 be- operators Aα under measurement of the Pauli observable Z. low. We emphasize that the states and operations are Each red arrow represents a transition probability of 1=2. both represented positively, not just one or the other. 2 fice. holds that The remainder of this Letter is organized as follows. X First, we define our setting and state our main results, Πa;sAαΠa;s = qα,a(β; s) Aβ: (3) Theorems 1 and 2. Then we prove them, and thereafter β2Vn discuss the above questions. For all a 2 En, α 2 Vn, the qα,a : Vn × Z2 −! R≥0 are Setting and Results.|We focus on systems of n qubits probability functions, for any n 2 N (the statement below applies to qudits in (iii) Denote by Pρ,a(s) the probability of obtaining out- an analogous manner) and consider arbitrary quantum come s for a measurement of Ta on the state ρ. Then, states evolving under sequences of Pauli measurements. the Born rule Pρ,a(s) = Tr(Πa;sρ) takes the form The measurements need not commute, and the sequences X may be arbitrarily long. This setting comprises universal Tr(Πa;sρ) = pρ(α)Qa(sjα); (4) quantum computation with magic states. α2Vn Below we devise a probability representation for this setting. The representation lives on a finite generalized where Qa(sjα) is given by phase space, and its purpose is to correctly reproduce the X joint measurements statistics for all quantum states and Qa(sjα) := qα,a(β; s): (5) all sequences of Pauli measurements. β2Vn We denote the n-qubit Pauli operators by Ta = Hence 0 ≤ Q (sjα) ≤ 1, for all a; s; α. φ(a) n n a i X(aX )Z(aZ ), 8a = (aX ; aZ ) 2 Z2 × Z2 =: En, with n aX [k] The above theorem describes a hidden variable model X(aX ) := ⊗ (Xk) , etc. The phases φ : En −! Z4 k=1 (HVM) [31{35]. For any fixed number of qubits, any are free to choose, subject to the constraint that all Ta quantum state can be described by a probability func- are Hermitian. The projectors onto the eigenspaces of tion with finitely many elements. This property distin- s Pauli observables are Πa;s := [I + (−1) Ta]=2. guishes it from the HVM of Beltrametti and Bugajski The state space Λn of our probabilistic model is defined [35], which also applies to all quantum states but requires n as follows. We denote by Herm1(2 ) the set of Hermitian an infinite state space. A further distinguishing property 2n operators on n-qubit Hilbert space H = C with the is the probabilistic state update under a dynamical pro- n property that Tr(X) = 1 for all X 2 Herm1(2 ), and by cess, Pauli measurement. Sn the set of all n-qubit pure stabilizer states [25{27]. Theorem 1 is illustrated in Fig. 1 through the example Then, we define the polytope Λn as of a single qubit and in the SM, Section V, for two qubits. Because of its capability to describe Pauli measure- Λ := fX 2 Herm (2n)j Tr(jσihσjX) ≥ 0; 8 jσi 2 S g n 1 n ments, the above HVM has bearing on a model of univer- (1) sal quantum computation, namely quantum computation (also see [28]). The elements X 2 Λ are the \states" n with magic states (QCM) [3]. QCM is closely related to (though not necessarily proper quantum states) that be- the circuit model (see the SM, Sec. IV, for background). have \well" under all sequences of Pauli measurements; The difference is that in QCM the set of operations is namely, the probabilities for the outcome sequences are restricted to a sequence of Clifford unitaries interspersed all non-negative and add up to unity. with Pauli measurements. These operations are applied Λ is defined as the intersection of a finite number n to an initial \magic" state. The only property of QCM of halfspaces. Furthermore, it is bounded [see Supple- relevant for the present discussion is its quantum compu- mental Material (SM), Section VI]. Therefore, by the tational universality [3, 27, 36]. Minkowski-Weyl theorem [29, 30], Λ can equivalently n To apply the above probabilistic representation to be described as the convex hull of finitely many extreme QCM, we need to consider all its operational primitives| points (vertices). Denote by A the set of vertices of Λ , n n the Pauli measurements, the Clifford unitaries, and the and the vertices by A 2 A . These are our generalized α n magic states. Magic states (like all other quantum states) phase point operators, and the corresponding index set and Pauli measurements are positively represented by our fαg =: V is the generalized phase space. n HVM, cf. Theorem 1. This leaves the Clifford gates. The We now have the following result. easiest way of dealing with them is to observe that they are redundant, i.e., no computational power is lost if we Theorem 1 For all numbers of qubits n 2 N, (i) each n- qubit quantum state ρ can be represented by a probability consider sequences of Pauli measurements only. The rea- son is that the Clifford unitaries may be propagated past function pρ : Vn −! R≥0, all measurements, thereby conjugating the Pauli mea- X surements into (other) Pauli measurements.