The Power of Quantum Fourier Sampling

A line of work initiated by Terhal and DiVincenzo and Bremner, Jozsa, and Shepherd, shows that quantum computers can efficiently sample from probability distributions that cannot be exactly sampled efficiently on a classical computer, unless the PH collapses. Aaronson and Arkhipov take this further by considering a distribution that can be sampled efficiently 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 by a quantum computer. We then argue that these distributions cannot be approximately sampled classically, unless the PH collapses, under variants of the Aaronson and 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, and many other familiar #P-hard polynomials. Although our construction, unlike that proposed by Aaronson and Arkhipov, likely requires a universal quantum computer, we are able to use this additional power to weaken the conjectures needed to prove approximate sampling hardness results.

[1]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  A linear-optical proof that the permanent is #P-hard , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[2]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  BQP and the polynomial hierarchy , 2009, STOC '10.

[3]  Yaoyun Shi Both Toffoli and controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computing , 2003, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[4]  Scott Aaronson A Counterexample to the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture , 2010, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[5]  R. Jozsa,et al.  Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[6]  A. C. Berry The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates , 1941 .

[7]  Keisuke Fujii,et al.  On the hardness of classically simulating the one clean qubit model , 2013, Physical review letters.

[8]  M. E. Muller,et al.  A Note on the Generation of Random Normal Deviates , 1958 .

[9]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  A n^5/2 Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs , 1971, SWAT.

[10]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Complexity limitations on quantum computation , 1999, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[11]  Emanuele Viola,et al.  On beating the hybrid argument , 2012, ITCS '12.

[12]  Gerard J. Milburn,et al.  Efficient linear optics quantum computation , 2001, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[13]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  New Directions In Testing , 1989, Distributed Computing And Cryptography.

[14]  V. Vu,et al.  On the permanent of random Bernoulli matrices , 2008 .

[15]  David P. DiVincenzo,et al.  Adaptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and arthur-merlin games , 2002, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[16]  Scott Aaronson The Equivalence of Sampling and Searching , 2013, Theory of Computing Systems.

[17]  Elwyn R. Berlekamp,et al.  Algebraic coding theory , 1984, McGraw-Hill series in systems science.

[18]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations , 2015, Physical review letters.

[19]  Bill Fefferman,et al.  Pseudorandom generators and the BQP vs. PH problem , 2010, ArXiv.

[20]  Dieter van Melkebeek,et al.  Graph Nonisomorphism Has Subexponential Size Proofs Unless the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy Collapses , 2002, SIAM J. Comput..

[21]  Leonard M. Adleman,et al.  Quantum Computability , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Seinosuke Toda,et al.  PP is as Hard as the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy , 1991, SIAM J. Comput..

[23]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Polynominal time algorithms for discrete logarithms and factoring on a quantum computer , 1994, ANTS.

[24]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  The computational complexity of linear optics , 2010, STOC '11.

[25]  Eric Vigoda,et al.  A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries , 2004, JACM.

[26]  Stuart A. Kurtz,et al.  Gap-Definable Counting Classes , 1994, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[27]  A. Harrow,et al.  Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2016, 1602.07674.

[28]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  The Complexity of Computing the Permanent , 1979, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[29]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach , 2009 .

[30]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The Art of Computer Programming: Volume 3: Sorting and Searching , 1998 .

[31]  Michael A. Nielsen,et al.  Quantum computing and polynomial equations over the finite field Z2 , 2005, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[32]  Richard Jozsa,et al.  Classical simulation complexity of extended Clifford circuits , 2013, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[33]  Dennis M. Healy,et al.  Fast Discrete Polynomial Transforms with Applications to Data Analysis for Distance Transitive Graphs , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[34]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  Quantum Complexity Theory , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[35]  Larry J. Stockmeyer,et al.  On Approximation Algorithms for #P , 1985, SIAM J. Comput..

[36]  Gilles Brassard,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing , 1997, SIAM J. Comput..

[37]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  A n^5/2 Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs , 1971, SWAT.