DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Faculty Summit 2018 Systems | Fueling Future Disruptions an HPC Systems Guy’S View of Quantum Computing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Faculty Summit 2018 Systems | Fueling Future Disruptions an HPC Systems Guy’S View of Quantum Computing Research Faculty Summit 2018 Systems | Fueling future disruptions An HPC Systems Guy’s View of Quantum Computing Torsten Hoefler ETH Zurich, Switzerland (Professor) Microsoft Quantum, Redmond (Visiting Researcher) Who is this guy and what is he doing here? 1 professor, 6 scientific staff, 13 PhD students 6.5k staff, 20k students, focus on research Climate Sim Deep Learning [1] Vector DAPP [1] M. Besta, TH: Slim Fly: A Cost Effective Low-Diameter Network Topology, IEEE/ACM SC14, best student paper 0 = |1 What is a qubit and how do I get one? 1 “I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” ⟩ |+ Schrödinger (about the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics) ⟩ 11 0 ==0 = 0 ++1 =|1 + = 1 1 00 1 | = |0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 ΨΨ 0 For1 example:⟩ + = 0 + |1 Ψ⟩ ⟩ 1 1 2 2 ⟩ One qubit can include a lot of information in and but can only sample one bit while losing all 0 1 (encoding n bits takes operations) Ω qubits live in a vector space of 2 complex numbers (all combinations + entanglement) = | e.g., = 00 + 01 + 10 + |11 .. n 2 0 1 2 3 Ψ � ⟩ Ψ ⟩ =0 2 −1 Example: adding 2 numbers in O(log ) time Quantum Adder final adder state Reminder: Classical Adder (entangled “probability distribution”) |0101 H 101 … 1 1 … [ ] = (|00 + 01=+ 10 + |11| ) 4 2 ⟩ .. 0 ⟩ � ⟩⟩ |00 H =0 2 −1 … 01 010 1 + 1 00 … |0010 H 11| … 0 … + 1 ⟩ 1 1 0 [ ] = (|00 + 01= + 10 + |11| ) 0 4 2 logarithmic + logarithmic 1 .. + |0⟩ � ⟩ Ψprint(a,⟩ a+b) −1 11 ⟩ =0 2 −1 ⟩ depth depth 1 H 11 (“measure”) −1 0 0 |0⟩ 010 … linear 1 linear 00 |0 work | ⟩ … work … 0 ⟩ −1 |0 | ⋅⟩ 2 ⟩ ⋅⟩ We add all 2 numbers in parallel but only recover classical bits! A Corollary to Holevo’s Theorem (1973): at most classical bits can be extracted from a quantum state with qubits even though that system requires 2 1 complex numbers to be represented! My corollary:− practical quantum algorithms read a linear-size input and modify an exponential-size quantum state such that the correct (polynomial size) output is likely to be measured. Question: Are quantum algorithms good at solving problems where a solution is verifiable efficiently (polynomial time)? Answer: Kind of So quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems!? A problem is in NP if a solution can be verified deterministically in polynomial time. • Even quantum computers may not solve NP-hard problems (limited by linearity of operators). But since quantum is at least as powerful as classic, we do not know! • New complexity class: Bounded-error Quantum Polynomial time (BQP) NPI – e.g., graph isomorphism factoring, discrete logarithm ? NP BQP PSPACE NP-complete P Hardware and software architecture for quantum computing 300K Logical layer qubits bits abstraction Q# programming >100kW Quantum Instruction language SW circuits stream + data Classical LogicClassical Q intermediate 77K representation (liquid Gate synthesis Build Gates Factory nitrogen) (T, Rotation, control and Microcoded MW <1kW multi-control, …) qubit routing instructions Control for 4K Q error correction QEC Codes Microcoded (liquid (Steane etc., QEC (varies MW helium) instructions <10W 1:n mapping) with code) <0.1K Physical control Physical Analog pulse Qubit control (dilution HW refrigeration) quantum generators pulses <0.01W qubits state Full Example: Grover’s search allocate log qubits Q# code ⌈ 2 ⌉ ( ) → ↦ • Task: find for which = (invert ( )) • Classical requires ∈ ( ) queries • Quantum requires queries 1 1 average 2 0 ⋯ ⋯ |0 … 00 |0 … 01 |0 … 10 |0 … 11 ⋯ | ⋯ |1 … 10 |1 … 11 ⟩ ⟩ ⟩ ⟩ ⋯ ⟩ ⋯ ⟩ ⟩ Quadratic speedup? Grover on a real machine Performance estimates must be understood to be believed (inspired by Donald Knuth’s “An algorithm must be seen to be believed”) 1. Query complexity model – how algorithms are developed ( ) • = 2 queries ( = 2 - represented by bits) 2. Express 4 (oracle and diffusion operator) as n-bit unitary • Assuming n-bit operations for oracle! • = 2 = 2 n-bit operations - 3. Decompose 4 unitary into two-bit (+arbitrary4 rotation) gates • = 2 2( 1) elementary operations - = 2 4( 1) 4. Design 2 approximate4 ⋅ − implementations in discrete 4 gate⋅ set −(using HTHT...) • = 2 2( 1) discrete T gate operations - = 2 48( 1) � 5. Mapping 2 4 to real⋅ hardware− (swaps and teleport) 4 ⋅ − • Not to simple to model, depends on oracle – potentially 2 slowdown 6. Quantum error correction Θ • Not so simple, depends on quality of physical bits and circuit depth, huge constant slowdown Quadratic speedup? Grover on a real machine Performance estimates must be understood to be believed (inspired by Donald Knuth’s “An algorithm must be seen to be believed”) 1. Query complexity model – how algorithms are developed age (of the) universe (13.772 billion years) • = 2 queries ( = 2 - represented by bits) Quantum computer with logical error rates 10 100 years 2. Express (oracle and diffusion operator) as n-bit unitary and gate4 times of 10 s vs. classical at 1 teraop/s.−24 • Assuming n-bit operations for oracle! 1 year −6 ≤ • = 2 n-bit operations - = 2 seconds 3. Decompose 4 unitary into38 two billion-bit (+arbitrary4years rotation) gates • = 2 2( 1) elementary operations - = 2 4( 1) 4. Design 2 approximate4 ⋅ − implementations in discrete 4 gate⋅ set −(using HTHT...) • = 2 2( 1) discrete T gate operations - = 2 48( 1) � 5. Mapping 2 4 to real⋅ hardware− (swaps and teleport) 4 ⋅ − • Not to simple to model, depends on oracle – probably 2 slowdown search bits 6. Quantum error correction Θ • Not so simple, depends on quality of physical bits and circuit depth, huge constant slowdown from Grassl et al.: “Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates”, arXiv:1512.04965 Real applications? Quantum Quantum Chemistry/Physics . Original idea by Feynman – use quantum effects to evaluate quantum effects . Design catalysts, exotic materials, … Breaking encryption & bitcoin . Big hype – destructive impact – single-shot (but big) business case . Not trivial (requires arithmetic) but possible Your connection is not private Accelerating heuristical solvers . Quadratic speedup can be very powerful! . Requires much more detailed resource analysis systems problem Quantum machine learning . Feynman may argue: “quantum advantage” assumes that circuits cannot be simulated classically they represent very complex functions that could be of use in ML? Quantum me on the rocky Thanks! path to develop my intuition for • Special thanks to Matthias Troyer and Doug Carmean quantum computation • Thanks to: Thomas Haener, Damian Steiger, Martin Roetteler, Nathan Wiebe, Mike Upton, Bettina Heim, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Jeongwan Haah, Dave Wecker, Krysta Svore • And the whole MSFT Quantum / QuArC team! All used images belong to the respective owners – source list in appendix How does a quantum computer work? Quantum systems are most Qubits are arranged on a naturally seen as accelerators Quantum circuits use predication (commonly 2D) substrate (no control flow) Work in close cooperation with a Reuse big parts of process traditional control circuit Circuit view simplifies reasoning technology in microelectronics but requires classical envelope Qubits are error prone, need to be Commonly limited to neighbor highly isolated (major challenge) interactions between qubits Quantum error correction enabled Limited range, may require the dream of quantum computers swapping across chip Operations (“gates”) are applied Operations (“gates”) have highly to qubits in place! varying complexity As opposed to bits flowing Some are literally free (classical through traditional computers! tracking), some are very expensive Backup For the unexpected discussions Physical qubit implementations • Photons • Polarization encoding, number of photons (Fock state), arrival timing • Electrons • Spin, charge (number), • Nuclei • Spin through NMR • Josephson junctions/superconducting • Charge (incl. transmon), flux, phase • Quantum dots • Spin, electron localization • Majorana • MZMs Elements of a quantum computation • Classical control flow • Execute outer loop and classical parts of programs (W=?, D=?) • Gate application, Measurement, Initialization • Clifford gates (W=1, D=1), T gates (W=?, D=?), Measurement (W=?, D=?), Initialization (W=?, D=1) • Qubit control (depends on technology, may be complex as well) • Error correction • Surface code (W=?, D=?, distribution?), Steane code (W=?, D=?, distribution) • Input-specific recompilation • (inputs may change during execution due to measurement results, maybe precompile, check algorithms) Basic components for a universal quantum computer • State preparation (usually |0>) • Gate application (a universal set is H, CNOT, pi/8 phase rotation) • Measurement (sufficient in standard basis |0>, |1>) • Wait (apply identity, to sync with operations on other qubits) • All needs to be performed fault-tolerant! Thank you! .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer
    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale digital computers will advance our knowledge of QCD, but some challenges will remain, especially concerning real-time evolution and properties of nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Digital computers may never be able to address these (and other) problems; quantum computers will solve them eventually, though I’m not sure when. The physics payoff may still be far away, but today’s research can hasten the arrival of a new era in which quantum simulation fuels progress in fundamental physics. Frontiers of Physics short distance long distance complexity Higgs boson Large scale structure “More is different” Neutrino masses Cosmic microwave Many-body entanglement background Supersymmetry Phases of quantum Dark matter matter Quantum gravity Dark energy Quantum computing String theory Gravitational waves Quantum spacetime particle collision molecular chemistry entangled electrons A quantum computer can simulate efficiently any physical process that occurs in Nature. (Maybe. We don’t actually know for sure.) superconductor black hole early universe Two fundamental ideas (1) Quantum complexity Why we think quantum computing is powerful. (2) Quantum error correction Why we think quantum computing is scalable. A complete description of a typical quantum state of just 300 qubits requires more bits than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Why we think quantum computing is powerful We know examples of problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer, where we believe the problems are hard for classical computers.
    [Show full text]
  • (CST Part II) Lecture 14: Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing
    Quantum Computing (CST Part II) Lecture 14: Fault Tolerant Quantum Computing The history of the universe is, in effect, a huge and ongoing quantum computation. The universe is a quantum computer. Seth Lloyd 1 / 21 Resources for this lecture Nielsen and Chuang p474-495 covers the material of this lecture. 2 / 21 Why we need fault tolerance Classical computers perform complicated operations where bits are repeatedly \combined" in computations, therefore if an error occurs, it could in principle propagate to a huge number of other bits. Fortunately, in modern digital computers errors are so phenomenally unlikely that we can forget about this possibility for all practical purposes. Errors do, however, occur in telecommunications systems, but as the purpose of these is the simple transmittal of some information, it suffices to perform error correction on the final received data. In a sense, quantum computing is the worst of both of these worlds: errors do occur with significant frequency, and if uncorrected they will propagate, rendering the computation useless. Thus the solution is that we must correct errors as we go along. 3 / 21 Fault tolerant quantum computing set-up For fault tolerant quantum computing: We use encoded qubits, rather than physical qubits. For example we may use the 7-qubit Steane code to represent each logical qubit in the computation. We use fault tolerant quantum gates, which are defined such thata single error in the fault tolerant gate propagates to at most one error in each encoded block of qubits. By a \block of qubits", we mean (for example) each block of 7 physical qubits that represents a logical qubit using the Steane code.
    [Show full text]
  • Slides 6, HT 2019 Space Complexity
    Computational Complexity; slides 6, HT 2019 Space complexity Prof. Paul W. Goldberg (Dept. of Computer Science, University of Oxford) HT 2019 Paul Goldberg Space complexity 1 / 51 Road map I mentioned classes like LOGSPACE (usually calledL), SPACE(f (n)) etc. How do they relate to each other, and time complexity classes? Next: Various inclusions can be proved, some more easy than others; let's begin with \low-hanging fruit"... e.g., I have noted: TIME(f (n)) is a subset of SPACE(f (n)) (easy!) We will see e.g.L is a proper subset of PSPACE, although it's unknown how they relate to various intermediate classes, e.g.P, NP Various interesting problems are complete for PSPACE, EXPTIME, and some of the others. Paul Goldberg Space complexity 2 / 51 Convention: In this section we will be using Turing machines with a designated read only input tape. So, \logarithmic space" becomes meaningful. Space Complexity So far, we have measured the complexity of problems in terms of the time required to solve them. Alternatively, we can measure the space/memory required to compute a solution. Important difference: space can be re-used Paul Goldberg Space complexity 3 / 51 Space Complexity So far, we have measured the complexity of problems in terms of the time required to solve them. Alternatively, we can measure the space/memory required to compute a solution. Important difference: space can be re-used Convention: In this section we will be using Turing machines with a designated read only input tape. So, \logarithmic space" becomes meaningful. Paul Goldberg Space complexity 3 / 51 Definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Quant-Ph/9705031V3 26 Aug 1997 Eddt Rvn Unu Optrfo Crashing
    CALT-68-2112 QUIC-97-030 quant-ph/9705031 Reliable Quantum Computers John Preskill1 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Abstract The new field of quantum error correction has developed spectacularly since its origin less than two years ago. Encoded quantum information can be protected from errors that arise due to uncontrolled interactions with the environment. Recovery from errors can work effectively even if occasional mistakes occur during the recovery procedure. Furthermore, encoded quantum information can be processed without serious propagation of errors. Hence, an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed reliably, provided that the average probability of error per quantum gate is less than a certain critical value, the accuracy threshold. A quantum computer storing about 106 qubits, with a probability of error per quantum gate of order 10−6, would be a formidable factoring engine. Even a smaller, less accurate quantum computer would be able to perform many useful tasks. This paper is based on a talk presented at the ITP Conference on Quantum Coherence and Decoherence, 15-18 December 1996. 1 The golden age of quantum error correction Many of us are hopeful that quantum computers will become practical and useful computing devices some time during the 21st century. It is probably fair to say, though, that none of us can now envision exactly what the hardware of that machine of the future will be like; surely, it will be much different than the sort of hardware that experimental physicists are investigating these days. But of one thing we can be quite confident—that a practical quantum computer will incorporate some type of error correction into its operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimization of Transmon Design for Longer Coherence Time
    Optimization of transmon design for longer coherence time Simon Burkhard Semester thesis Spring semester 2012 Supervisor: Dr. Arkady Fedorov ETH Zurich Quantum Device Lab Prof. Dr. A. Wallraff Abstract Using electrostatic simulations, a transmon qubit with new shape and a large geometrical size was designed. The coherence time of the qubits was increased by a factor of 3-4 to about 4 µs. Additionally, a new formula for calculating the coupling strength of the qubit to a transmission line resonator was obtained, allowing reasonably accurate tuning of qubit parameters prior to production using electrostatic simulations. 2 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Theory 5 2.1 Coplanar waveguide resonator . 5 2.1.1 Quantum mechanical treatment . 5 2.2 Superconducting qubits . 5 2.2.1 Cooper pair box . 6 2.2.2 Transmon . 7 2.3 Resonator-qubit coupling (Jaynes-Cummings model) . 9 2.4 Effective transmon network . 9 2.4.1 Calculation of CΣ ............................... 10 2.4.2 Calculation of β ............................... 10 2.4.3 Qubits coupled to 2 resonators . 11 2.4.4 Charge line and flux line couplings . 11 2.5 Transmon relaxation time (T1) ........................... 11 3 Transmon simulation 12 3.1 Ansoft Maxwell . 12 3.1.1 Convergence of simulations . 13 3.1.2 Field integral . 13 3.2 Optimization of transmon parameters . 14 3.3 Intermediate transmon design . 15 3.4 Final transmon design . 15 3.5 Comparison of the surface electric field . 17 3.6 Simple estimate of T1 due to coupling to the charge line . 17 3.7 Simulation of the magnetic flux through the split junction .
    [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]
  • LI-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf
    FAULT-TOLERANCE ON NEAR-TERM QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND SUBSYSTEM QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTING CODES A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Muyuan Li In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Computational Science and Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology May 2020 Copyright c Muyuan Li 2020 FAULT-TOLERANCE ON NEAR-TERM QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND SUBSYSTEM QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTING CODES Approved by: Dr. Kenneth R. Brown, Advisor Department of Electrical and Computer Dr. C. David Sherrill Engineering School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Duke University Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Edmond Chow Dr. Richard Vuduc School of Computational Science and School of Computational Science and Engineering Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. T.A. Brian Kennedy Date Approved: March 19, 2020 School of Physics Georgia Institute of Technology I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. R. P. Feynman To my family and my friends. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Ken Brown, who has guided me through my graduate studies with his patience, wisdom, and generosity. He has always been supportive and helpful, and always makes himself available when I needed. I have been constantly inspired by his depth of knowledge in research, as well as his immense passion for life. I would also like to thank my committee members, Professors Edmond Chow, T.A. Brian Kennedy, C. David Sherrill, and Richard Vuduc, for their time and helpful sugges- tions. One half of my graduate career was spent at Georgia Tech and the other half at Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero-Knowledge Proof Systems
    Extracted from a working draft of Goldreich's FOUNDATIONS OF CRYPTOGRAPHY. See copyright notice. Chapter ZeroKnowledge Pro of Systems In this chapter we discuss zeroknowledge pro of systems Lo osely sp eaking such pro of systems have the remarkable prop erty of b eing convincing and yielding nothing b eyond the validity of the assertion The main result presented is a metho d to generate zero knowledge pro of systems for every language in NP This metho d can b e implemented using any bit commitment scheme which in turn can b e implemented using any pseudorandom generator In addition we discuss more rened asp ects of the concept of zeroknowledge and their aect on the applicabili ty of this concept Organization The basic material is presented in Sections through In particular we start with motivation Section then we dene and exemplify the notions of inter active pro ofs Section and of zeroknowledge Section and nally we present a zeroknowledge pro of systems for every language in NP Section Sections dedicated to advanced topics follow Unless stated dierently each of these advanced sections can b e read indep endently of the others In Section we present some negative results regarding zeroknowledge pro ofs These results demonstrate the optimality of the results in Section and mo tivate the variants presented in Sections and In Section we present a ma jor relaxion of zeroknowledge and prove that it is closed under parallel comp osition which is not the case in general for zeroknowledge In Section we dene and discuss zeroknowledge pro ofs of knowledge In Section we discuss a relaxion of interactive pro ofs termed computationally sound pro ofs or arguments In Section we present two constructions of constantround zeroknowledge systems The rst is an interactive pro of system whereas the second is an argument system Subsection is a prerequisite for the rst construction whereas Sections and constitute a prerequisite for the second Extracted from a working draft of Goldreich's FOUNDATIONS OF CRYPTOGRAPHY.
    [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]
  • Taking the Quantum Leap with Machine Learning
    Introduction Quantum Algorithms Current Research Conclusion Taking the Quantum Leap with Machine Learning Zack Barnes University of Washington Bellevue College Mathematics and Physics Colloquium Series [email protected] January 15, 2019 Zack Barnes University of Washington UW Quantum Machine Learning Introduction Quantum Algorithms Current Research Conclusion Overview 1 Introduction What is Quantum Computing? What is Machine Learning? Quantum Power in Theory 2 Quantum Algorithms HHL Quantum Recommendation 3 Current Research Quantum Supremacy(?) 4 Conclusion Zack Barnes University of Washington UW Quantum Machine Learning Introduction Quantum Algorithms Current Research Conclusion What is Quantum Computing? \Quantum computing focuses on studying the problem of storing, processing and transferring information encoded in quantum mechanical systems.\ [Ciliberto, Carlo et al., 2018] Unit of quantum information is the qubit, or quantum binary integer. Zack Barnes University of Washington UW Quantum Machine Learning Supervised Uses labeled examples to predict future events Unsupervised Not classified or labeled Introduction Quantum Algorithms Current Research Conclusion What is Machine Learning? \Machine learning is the scientific study of algorithms and statistical models that computer systems use to progressively improve their performance on a specific task.\ (Wikipedia) Zack Barnes University of Washington UW Quantum Machine Learning Uses labeled examples to predict future events Unsupervised Not classified or labeled Introduction Quantum
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computers
    Quantum Computers ERIK LIND. PROFESSOR IN NANOELECTRONICS Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 1 Disclaimer Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 2 Quantum Computers Classical Digital Computers Why quantum computers? Basics of QM • Spin-Qubits • Optical qubits • Superconducting Qubits • Topological Qubits Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 3 Classical Computing • We build digital electronics using CMOS • Boolean Logic • Classical Bit – 0/1 (Defined as a voltage level 0/+Vdd) +vDD +vDD +vDD Inverter NAND Logic is built by connecting gates Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 4 Classical Computing • We build digital electronics using CMOS • Boolean Logic • Classical Bit – 0/1 • Very rubust! • Modern CPU – billions of transistors (logic and memory) • We can keep a logical state for years • We can easily copy a bit • Mainly through irreversible computing However – some problems are hard to solve on a classical computer Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 5 Computing Complexity Searching an unsorted list Factoring large numbers Grovers algo. – Shor’s Algorithm BQP • P – easy to solve and check on a 푛 classical computer ~O(N) • NP – easy to check – hard to solve on a classical computer ~O(2N) P P • BQP – easy to solve on a quantum computer. ~O(N) NP • BQP is larger then P • Some problems in P can be more efficiently solved by a quantum computer Simulating quantum systems Note – it is still not known if 푃 = 푁푃. It is very hard to build a quantum computer… Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 6 Basics of Quantum Mechanics A state is a vector (ray) in a complex Hilbert Space Dimension of space – possible eigenstates of the state For quantum computation – two dimensional Hilbert space ۧ↓ Example - Spin ½ particle - ȁ↑ۧ 표푟 Spin can either be ‘up’ or ‘down’ Erik Lind EIT, Lund University 7 Basics of Quantum Mechanics • A state of a system is a vector (ray) in a complex vector (Hilbert) Space.
    [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]