DOCSLIB.ORG

QMA/Qpoly ⊆ PSPACE/Poly : De-Merlinizing Quantum Protocols

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
QMA/Qpoly ⊆ PSPACE/Poly : De-Merlinizing Quantum Protocols QMA/qpoly PSPACE/poly: De-Merlinizing Quantum Protocols ⊆ Scott Aaronson∗ University of Waterloo Abstract But what if Alice is a quantum advisor, who can send Bob a quantum state ψf ? Even in that case, Ambainis This paper introduces a new technique for removing ex- et al. [4] showed that Alice| i has to send Ω (2n/n) qubits for istential quantifiers over quantum states. Using this tech- Bob to succeed with probability at least 2/3 on every x. nique, we show that there is no way to pack an exponential Subsequently Nayak [11] improved this to Ω (2n), mean- number of bits into a polynomial-size quantum state, in such ing that there is no quantum improvement over the classical a way that the value of any one of those bits can later be bound. Since 2n qubits is too many for Alice to communi- proven with the help of a polynomial-size quantum witness. cate during her weekly meetings with Bob, it seems Bob is We also show that any problem in QMA with polynomial- out of luck. size quantum advice, is also in PSPACE with polynomial- So in desperation, Bob turns for help to Merlin, the star size classical advice. This builds on our earlier result that student in his department. Merlin knows f as well as x, BQP/qpoly PP/poly, and offers an intriguing counter- and can thus evaluate f (x). The trouble is that Merlin point to the recent⊆ discovery of Raz that QIP/qpoly = ALL. would prefer to take credit for evaluating f (x) himself, so Finally, we show that QCMA/qpoly PP/poly and that he might deliberately mislead Bob. Furthermore, Merlin QMA/rpoly = QMA/poly. ⊆ (whose brilliance is surpassed only by his ego) insists that all communication with lesser students be one-way: Bob is to listen in silence while Merlin lectures him. On the 1. Introduction other hand, Merlin has no time to give an exponentiallylong lecture, any more than Alice does. With “helpers” like these, Bob might ask, who needs ad- Let Bob be a graduatestudent, and let x be an n-bit string versaries? And yet, is it possible that Bob could play Al- representing his thesis problem. Bob’s goal is to learn ice and Merlin against each other—cross-checking Merlin’s f (x), where f : 0, 1 n 0, 1 is a function that maps specific but unreliable assertions against Alice’s vague but every thesis problem{ to} its→ binary { } answer (“yes” or “no”). reliable advice? In other words, does there exist a random- Bob knows x (his problem), but is completely ignorant of f ized protocol satisfying the following properties? (how to solve the problem). So to evaluate f (x), he’s go- ing to need help from his thesis advisor, Alice. Like most (i) Alice and Merlin both send Bob poly (n) bits. advisors, Alice is infinitely powerful, wise, and benevolent. But also like most advisors, she’s too busy to find out what (ii) If Merlin tells Bob the truth about f (x), then there problems her students are working on. Instead, she just exists a message from Merlin that causes Bob to accept doles out the same advice s to all of them, which she hopes with probability at least 2/3. will let them evaluate f (x) for any x they might encounter. (iii) If Merlin lies about f (x) (i.e., claims that f (x)=1 The question is, how long does s have to be, for Bob to be when f (x)=0 or vice versa), then no message from able to evaluate f (x) for any x? Merlin causes Bob to accept with probability greater Clearly, the answer is that s has to be 2n bits long— than 1/3. since otherwise s will underdetermine the truth table of f. Indeed, let g (x, s) be Bob’s best guess as to f (x), given x It is relatively easy to show that the answer is no: if Alice and s. Then even if Alice can choose s probabilistically, sends a bits to Bob and Merlin sends w bits, then for Bob and we only require that g (x, s) = f (x) with probability to succeed we must have a (w +1)= Ω(2n). Indeed, this at least 2/3 for every x, still one can show that s needs to is basically tight: for all w 1, there exists a protocol in n be Ω (2 ) bits long. ≥ 2n which Merlin sends w bits and Alice sends O w + n bits. ∗ Of course, even if Merlin didn’t send anything, it would Email: [email protected]. Supported by ARDA, CIAR, and IQC. Part of this work was done at Caltech. suffice for Alice to send 2n bits. At the other extreme, 1 if Merlin sends 2n bits, then it suffices for Alice to send Aaronson [1] showed that BQP/qpoly PP/poly, an Θ (n)-bit “fingerprint” to authenticate Merlin’s message. where BQP/qpoly is the class of problems solvable⊆ in BQP But in any event, either Alice or Merlin will have to send an with polynomial-size quantum advice. He also gave an or- exponentially-long message. acle relative to which NP BQP/qpoly. Together, these On the other hand, what if Alice and Merlin can both results seemed to place strong6⊂ limits on the power of quan- send quantum messages? Our main result will show that, tum advice. even in this most general scenario, Bob is still out of luck. However, recently Raz [14] reopened the subject, by Indeed, if Alice sends a qubits to Bob, and Merlin sends showing that in some cases quantum advice can be ex- w qubits, then Bob cannot succeed unless a (w +1) = traordinarily powerful. In particular, Raz showed that Ω 2n/n2 . Apart from the n2 factor (which we conjec- QIP (2) /qpoly = ALL, where QIP (2) is the class of prob- ture can be removed), this implies that no quantum protocol lems that admit two-round quantum interactive proof sys- is asymptotically better than the classical one. It follows, tems. Raz’s result was actually foreshadowed by an obser- then, that Bob ought to drop out of grad school and send his vation in [1], that PostBQP/qpoly = ALL. Here PostBQP resume to Google. is the class of problems solvable in quantum polynomial time, if at any time we can measure the computer’s state 1 1.1. Banishing Merlin and then “postselect” on a particular outcome occurring. These results should make any complexity theorist a lit- tle queasy, and not only because jumping from QIP or But why should anyone care about this result, apart from (2) PostBQP to ALL is like jumping from a hilltop to the edge Alice, Bob, Merlin, and the Google recruiters? One reason of the universe. A more serious problem is that these is that the proof introduces a new technique for removing existential quantifiers over quantum states, which might be results fail to “commute” with standard complexity inclu- sions. For example, even though PostBQP is strictly con- useful in other contexts. The basic idea is for Bob to loop tained in BQEXPEXP, notice that BQEXPEXP qpoly is over all possible messages that Merlin could have sent, and / (very) strictly contained in PostBQP qpoly! accept if and only if there exists a message that would cause / him to accept. The problem is that in the quantum case, the number of possible messages from Merlin is doubly- 1.3. The Quantum Advice Hypothesis exponential. So to loop over all of them, it seems we’d first need to amplify Alice’s message an exponential num- On the other hand, the same pathologies would occur ber of times. But surprisingly, we show that this intuition with classical randomized advice. For neither the result of is wrong: to account for any possible quantum message Raz [14], nor that of Aaronson [1], makes any essential use from Merlin, it suffices to loop over all possible classical of quantum mechanics. That is, instead of saying that messages from Merlin! For, loosely speaking, any quan- QIP (2) /qpoly = PostBQP/qpoly = ALL, tum state can eventually be detected by the “shadows” it casts on computational basis states. However, turning this we could equally well have said that insight into a “de-Merlinization” procedure requires some work: we need to amplify Alice’s and Merlin’s messages in IP (2) /rpoly = PostBPP/rpoly = ALL, a subtle way, and then deal with the degradation of Alice’s message that occurs regardless. where IP (2) and PostBPP are the classical analogues of QIP (2) and PostBQP respectively, and /rpoly means “with polynomial-size randomized advice.” 1.2. QMA With Quantum Advice Inspired by this observation, here we propose a gen- eral hypothesis: that whenever quantum advice behaves like In any case, the main motivation for our result is that it exponentially-long classical advice, the reason has nothing implies a new containment in quantum complexity theory: to do with quantum mechanics. More concretely: namely that The Quantum Advice Hypothesis: For any “natural” QMA/qpoly PSPACE/poly. • complexity class , if /qpoly = ALL, then /rpoly = ⊆ ALL as well. C C C Here QMA is the quantum version of MA, and /qpoly 1Here is the proof: given a Boolean function f : {0, 1}n → {0, 1}, means “with polynomial-size quantum advice.” Previously, take it was not even known whether QMA qpoly ALL, where 1 / = |ψ i = |xi|f (x)i n n/2 ALL is the class of all languages! Nevertheless, some con- 2 0 1 n x∈{X, } text might be helpful for understanding why our new con- as the advice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computational Complexity: a Modern Approach
    i Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach Draft of a book: Dated January 2007 Comments welcome! Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak Princeton University [email protected] Not to be reproduced or distributed without the authors’ permission This is an Internet draft. Some chapters are more finished than others. References and attributions are very preliminary and we apologize in advance for any omissions (but hope you will nevertheless point them out to us). Please send us bugs, typos, missing references or general comments to [email protected] — Thank You!! DRAFT ii DRAFT Chapter 9 Complexity of counting “It is an empirical fact that for many combinatorial problems the detection of the existence of a solution is easy, yet no computationally efficient method is known for counting their number.... for a variety of problems this phenomenon can be explained.” L. Valiant 1979 The class NP captures the difficulty of finding certificates. However, in many contexts, one is interested not just in a single certificate, but actually counting the number of certificates. This chapter studies #P, (pronounced “sharp p”), a complexity class that captures this notion. Counting problems arise in diverse fields, often in situations having to do with estimations of probability. Examples include statistical estimation, statistical physics, network design, and more. Counting problems are also studied in a field of mathematics called enumerative combinatorics, which tries to obtain closed-form mathematical expressions for counting problems. To give an example, in the 19th century Kirchoff showed how to count the number of spanning trees in a graph using a simple determinant computation. Results in this chapter will show that for many natural counting problems, such efficiently computable expressions are unlikely to exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World
    Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World by Scott Joel Aaronson Bachelor of Science (Cornell University) 2000 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Umesh Vazirani, Chair Professor Luca Trevisan Professor K. Birgitta Whaley Fall 2004 The dissertation of Scott Joel Aaronson is approved: Chair Date Date Date University of California, Berkeley Fall 2004 Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World Copyright 2004 by Scott Joel Aaronson 1 Abstract Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World by Scott Joel Aaronson Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Umesh Vazirani, Chair More than a speculative technology, quantum computing seems to challenge our most basic intuitions about how the physical world should behave. In this thesis I show that, while some intuitions from classical computer science must be jettisoned in the light of modern physics, many others emerge nearly unscathed; and I use powerful tools from computational complexity theory to help determine which are which. In the first part of the thesis, I attack the common belief that quantum computing resembles classical exponential parallelism, by showing that quantum computers would face serious limitations on a wider range of problems than was previously known. In partic- ular, any quantum algorithm that solves the collision problem—that of deciding whether a sequence of n integers is one-to-one or two-to-one—must query the sequence Ω n1/5 times.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity Zoo
    The Complexity Zoo Scott Aaronson www.ScottAaronson.com LATEX Translation by Chris Bourke [email protected] 417 classes and counting 1 Contents 1 About This Document 3 2 Introductory Essay 4 2.1 Recommended Further Reading ......................... 4 2.2 Other Theory Compendia ............................ 5 2.3 Errors? ....................................... 5 3 Pronunciation Guide 6 4 Complexity Classes 10 5 Special Zoo Exhibit: Classes of Quantum States and Probability Distribu- tions 110 6 Acknowledgements 116 7 Bibliography 117 2 1 About This Document What is this? Well its a PDF version of the website www.ComplexityZoo.com typeset in LATEX using the complexity package. Well, what’s that? The original Complexity Zoo is a website created by Scott Aaronson which contains a (more or less) comprehensive list of Complexity Classes studied in the area of theoretical computer science known as Computa- tional Complexity. I took on the (mostly painless, thank god for regular expressions) task of translating the Zoo’s HTML code to LATEX for two reasons. First, as a regular Zoo patron, I thought, “what better way to honor such an endeavor than to spruce up the cages a bit and typeset them all in beautiful LATEX.” Second, I thought it would be a perfect project to develop complexity, a LATEX pack- age I’ve created that defines commands to typeset (almost) all of the complexity classes you’ll find here (along with some handy options that allow you to conveniently change the fonts with a single option parameters). To get the package, visit my own home page at http://www.cse.unl.edu/~cbourke/.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1506.08857V1 [Quant-Ph] 29 Jun 2015
    Absolutely Maximally Entangled states, combinatorial designs and multi-unitary matrices Dardo Goyeneche National Quantum Information Center of Gda´nsk,81-824 Sopot, Poland and Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Technical University of Gda´nsk,80-233 Gda´nsk,Poland Daniel Alsina Dept. Estructura i Constituents de la Mat`eria,Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. Jos´e I. Latorre Dept. Estructura i Constituents de la Mat`eria,Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. and Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, USA Arnau Riera ICFO-Institut de Ciencies Fotoniques, Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain Karol Zyczkowski_ Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krak´ow,Poland and Center for Theoretical Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland (Dated: June 29, 2015) Absolutely Maximally Entangled (AME) states are those multipartite quantum states that carry absolute maximum entanglement in all possible partitions. AME states are known to play a relevant role in multipartite teleportation, in quantum secret sharing and they provide the basis novel tensor networks related to holography. We present alternative constructions of AME states and show their link with combinatorial designs. We also analyze a key property of AME, namely their relation to tensors that can be understood as unitary transformations in every of its bi-partitions. We call this property multi-unitarity. I. INTRODUCTION entropy S(ρ) = −Tr(ρ log ρ) ; (1) A complete characterization, classification and it is possible to show [1, 2] that the average entropy quantification of entanglement for quantum states re- of the reduced state σ = TrN=2j ih j to N=2 qubits mains an unfinished long-term goal in Quantum Infor- reads: N mation theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Unitary Quantum Computation in the Ground Space of Local Hamiltonians
    Non-Unitary Quantum Computation in the Ground Space of Local Hamiltonians Na¨ıri Usher,1, ∗ Matty J. Hoban,2, 3 and Dan E. Browne1 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. 2University of Oxford, Department of Computer Science, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, United Kingdom. 3School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, UK A central result in the study of Quantum Hamiltonian Complexity is that the k-local hamilto- nian problem is QMA-complete [1]. In that problem, we must decide if the lowest eigenvalue of a Hamiltonian is bounded below some value, or above another, promised one of these is true. Given the ground state of the Hamiltonian, a quantum computer can determine this question, even if the ground state itself may not be efficiently quantum preparable. Kitaev's proof of QMA-completeness encodes a unitary quantum circuit in QMA into the ground space of a Hamiltonian. However, we now have quantum computing models based on measurement instead of unitary evolution, further- more we can use post-selected measurement as an additional computational tool. In this work, we generalise Kitaev's construction to allow for non-unitary evolution including post-selection. Fur- thermore, we consider a type of post-selection under which the construction is consistent, which we call tame post-selection. We consider the computational complexity consequences of this construc- tion and then consider how the probability of an event upon which we are post-selecting affects the gap between the ground state energy and the energy of the first excited state of its corresponding Hamiltonian.
    [Show full text]
  • CS286.2 Lectures 5-6: Introduction to Hamiltonian Complexity, QMA-Completeness of the Local Hamiltonian Problem
    CS286.2 Lectures 5-6: Introduction to Hamiltonian Complexity, QMA-completeness of the Local Hamiltonian problem Scribe: Jenish C. Mehta The Complexity Class BQP The complexity class BQP is the quantum analog of the class BPP. It consists of all languages that can be decided in quantum polynomial time. More formally, Definition 1. A language L 2 BQP if there exists a classical polynomial time algorithm A that ∗ maps inputs x 2 f0, 1g to quantum circuits Cx on n = poly(jxj) qubits, where the circuit is considered a sequence of unitary operators each on 2 qubits, i.e Cx = UTUT−1...U1 where each 2 2 Ui 2 L C ⊗ C , such that: 2 i. Completeness: x 2 L ) Pr(Cx accepts j0ni) ≥ 3 1 ii. Soundness: x 62 L ) Pr(Cx accepts j0ni) ≤ 3 We say that the circuit “Cx accepts jyi” if the first output qubit measured in Cxjyi is 0. More j0i specifically, letting P1 = j0ih0j1 be the projection of the first qubit on state j0i, j0i 2 Pr(Cx accepts jyi) =k (P1 ⊗ In−1)Cxjyi k2 The Complexity Class QMA The complexity class QMA (or BQNP, as Kitaev originally named it) is the quantum analog of the class NP. More formally, Definition 2. A language L 2 QMA if there exists a classical polynomial time algorithm A that ∗ maps inputs x 2 f0, 1g to quantum circuits Cx on n + q = poly(jxj) qubits, such that: 2q i. Completeness: x 2 L ) 9jyi 2 C , kjyik2 = 1, such that Pr(Cx accepts j0ni ⊗ 2 jyi) ≥ 3 2q 1 ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity Theory
    Complexity Theory Course Notes Sebastiaan A. Terwijn Radboud University Nijmegen Department of Mathematics P.O. Box 9010 6500 GL Nijmegen the Netherlands [email protected] Copyright c 2010 by Sebastiaan A. Terwijn Version: December 2017 ii Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Complexity theory . .1 1.2 Preliminaries . .1 1.3 Turing machines . .2 1.4 Big O and small o .........................3 1.5 Logic . .3 1.6 Number theory . .4 1.7 Exercises . .5 2 Basics 6 2.1 Time and space bounds . .6 2.2 Inclusions between classes . .7 2.3 Hierarchy theorems . .8 2.4 Central complexity classes . 10 2.5 Problems from logic, algebra, and graph theory . 11 2.6 The Immerman-Szelepcs´enyi Theorem . 12 2.7 Exercises . 14 3 Reductions and completeness 16 3.1 Many-one reductions . 16 3.2 NP-complete problems . 18 3.3 More decision problems from logic . 19 3.4 Completeness of Hamilton path and TSP . 22 3.5 Exercises . 24 4 Relativized computation and the polynomial hierarchy 27 4.1 Relativized computation . 27 4.2 The Polynomial Hierarchy . 28 4.3 Relativization . 31 4.4 Exercises . 32 iii 5 Diagonalization 34 5.1 The Halting Problem . 34 5.2 Intermediate sets . 34 5.3 Oracle separations . 36 5.4 Many-one versus Turing reductions . 38 5.5 Sparse sets . 38 5.6 The Gap Theorem . 40 5.7 The Speed-Up Theorem . 41 5.8 Exercises . 43 6 Randomized computation 45 6.1 Probabilistic classes . 45 6.2 More about BPP . 48 6.3 The classes RP and ZPP .
    [Show full text]
  • On the Power of Quantum Fourier Sampling
    On the Power of Quantum Fourier Sampling Bill Fefferman∗ Chris Umansy Abstract A line of work initiated by Terhal and DiVincenzo [TD02] and Bremner, Jozsa, and Shepherd [BJS10], shows that restricted classes of quantum computation can efficiently sample from probability distributions that cannot be exactly sampled efficiently on a classical computer, unless the PH collapses. Aaronson and Arkhipov [AA13] take this further by considering a distribution that can be sampled ef- ficiently by linear optical quantum computation, that under two feasible conjectures, cannot even be approximately sampled classically within bounded total variation distance, unless the PH collapses. In this work we use Quantum Fourier Sampling to construct a class of distributions that can be sampled exactly by a quantum computer. We then argue that these distributions cannot be approximately sampled classically, unless the PH collapses, under variants of the Aaronson-Arkhipov conjectures. In particular, we show a general class of quantumly sampleable distributions each of which is based on an “Efficiently Specifiable” polynomial, for which a classical approximate sampler implies an average-case approximation. This class of polynomials contains the Permanent but also includes, for example, the Hamiltonian Cycle polynomial, as well as many other familiar #P-hard polynomials. Since our distribution likely requires the full power of universal quantum computation, while the Aaronson-Arkhipov distribution uses only linear optical quantum computation with noninteracting bosons, why is this result interesting? We can think of at least three reasons: 1. Since the conjectures required in [AA13] have not yet been proven, it seems worthwhile to weaken them as much as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs 1 1 Pspace ⊆ IP
    CS294: Probabilistically Checkable and Interactive Proofs January 24, 2017 Interactive Proofs 1 Instructor: Alessandro Chiesa & Igor Shinkar Scribe: Mariel Supina 1 Pspace ⊆ IP The first proof that Pspace ⊆ IP is due to Shamir, and a simplified proof was given by Shen. These notes discuss the simplified version in [She92], though most of the ideas are the same as those in [Sha92]. Notes by Katz also served as a reference [Kat11]. Theorem 1 ([Sha92]) Pspace ⊆ IP. To show the inclusion of Pspace in IP, we need to begin with a Pspace-complete language. 1.1 True Quantified Boolean Formulas (tqbf) Definition 2 A quantified boolean formula (QBF) is an expression of the form 8x19x28x3 ::: 9xnφ(x1; : : : ; xn); (1) where φ is a boolean formula on n variables. Note that since each variable in a QBF is quantified, a QBF is either true or false. Definition 3 tqbf is the language of all boolean formulas φ such that if φ is a formula on n variables, then the corresponding QBF (1) is true. Fact 4 tqbf is Pspace-complete (see section 2 for a proof). Hence to show that Pspace ⊆ IP, it suffices to show that tqbf 2 IP. Claim 5 tqbf 2 IP. In order prove claim 5, we will need to present a complete and sound interactive protocol that decides whether a given QBF is true. In the sum-check protocol we used an arithmetization of a 3-CNF boolean formula. Likewise, here we will need a way to arithmetize a QBF. 1.2 Arithmetization of a QBF We begin with a boolean formula φ, and we let n be the number of variables and m the number of clauses of φ.
    [Show full text]
  • Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent
    Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent Scott Aaronson∗ John Watrous† MIT University of Waterloo Abstract While closed timelike curves (CTCs) are not known to exist, studying their consequences has led to nontrivial insights in general relativity, quantum information, and other areas. In this paper we show that if CTCs existed, then quantum computers would be no more powerful than classical computers: both would have the (extremely large) power of the complexity class PSPACE, consisting of all problems solvable by a conventional computer using a polynomial amount of memory. This solves an open problem proposed by one of us in 2005, and gives an essentially complete understanding of computational complexity in the presence of CTCs. Following the work of Deutsch, we treat a CTC as simply a region of spacetime where a “causal consistency” condition is imposed, meaning that Nature has to produce a (probabilistic or quantum) fixed-point of some evolution operator. Our conclusion is then a consequence of the following theorem: given any quantum circuit (not necessarily unitary), a fixed-point of the circuit can be (implicitly) computed in polynomial space. This theorem might have independent applications in quantum information. 1 Introduction The possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs) within general relativity and quantum gravity theories has been studied for almost a century [11, 15, 13]. A different line of research has sought to understand the implications of CTCs, supposing they existed, for quantum mechanics, computation, and information [9, 8, 5]. In this paper we contribute to the latter topic, by giving the first complete characterization of the computational power of CTCs.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proofs for Quantum Computations
    Innovations in Computer Science 2010 Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations Dorit Aharonov Michael Ben-Or Elad Eban School of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that these systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked [21]: If computing predictions for Quantum Mechanics requires exponential resources, is Quantum Mechanics a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To provide answers to these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs [13] the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: ”Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one” (providing a partial answer to a challenge posted in [1]). We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to Ben-Or, Cr´epeau, Gottesman, Hassidim, and Smith [8], combined with quantum fault tolerance and secure multiparty quantum computation techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Supremacy
    Quantum Supremacy Practical QS: perform some computational task on a well-controlled quantum device, which cannot be simulated in a reasonable time by the best-known classical algorithms and hardware. Theoretical QS: perform a computational task efficiently on a quantum device, and prove that task cannot be efficiently classically simulated. Since proving seems to be beyond the capabilities of our current civilization, we lower the standards for theoretical QS. One seeks to provide formal evidence that classical simulation is unlikely. For example: 3-SAT is NP-complete, so it cannot be efficiently classical solved unless P = NP. Theoretical QS: perform a computational task efficiently on a quantum device, and prove that task cannot be efficiently classically simulated unless “the polynomial Heierarchy collapses to the 3nd level.” Quantum Supremacy A common feature of QS arguments is that they consider sampling problems, rather than decision problems. They allow us to characterize the complexity of sampling measurements of quantum states. Which is more difficult: Task A: deciding if a circuit outputs 1 with probability at least 2/3s, or at most 1/3s Task B: sampling from the output of an n-qubit circuit in the computational basis Sampling from distributions is generically more difficult than approximating observables, since we can use samples to estimate observables, but not the other way around. One can imagine quantum systems whose local observables are easy to classically compute, but for which sampling the full state is computationally complex. By moving from decision problems to sampling problems, we make the task of classical simulation much more difficult.
    [Show full text]