Linear time algorithm for quantum 2SAT

A canonical result about satisfiability theory is that the 2-SAT problem can be solved in linear time, despite the NP-hardness of the 3-SAT problem. In the quantum 2-SAT problem, we are given a family of 2-qubit projectors Q_{ij} on a system of n qubits, and the task is to decide whether the Hamiltonian H = sum Q_{ij} has a 0-eigenvalue, or it is larger than 1/n^c for some c = O(1). The problem is not only a natural extension of the classical 2-SAT problem to the quantum case, but is also equivalent to the problem of finding the ground state of 2-local frustration-free Hamiltonians of spin 1/2, a well-studied model believed to capture certain key properties in modern condensed matter physics. While Bravyi has shown that the quantum 2-SAT problem has a classical polynomial-time algorithm, the running time of his algorithm is O(n^4). In this paper we give a classical algorithm with linear running time in the number of local projectors, therefore achieving the best possible complexity.

[1]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The complexity of theorem-proving procedures , 1971, STOC.

[2]  Mikhail N. Vyalyi,et al.  Classical and Quantum Computation , 2002, Graduate studies in mathematics.

[3]  G. Vidal,et al.  Entanglement in quantum critical phenomena. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[4]  M. Lavagna Quantum Phase Transitions , 2001, cond-mat/0102119.

[5]  J. Eisert,et al.  Area laws for the entanglement entropy - a review , 2008, 0808.3773.

[6]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[7]  K. Parthasarathy On the maximal dimension of a completely entangled subspace for finite level quantum systems , 2004, quant-ph/0405077.

[8]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  A Linear-Time Algorithm for Testing the Truth of Certain Quantified Boolean Formulas , 1979, Inf. Process. Lett..

[9]  Zhengfeng Ji,et al.  complete characterization of the ground-space structure of two-body frustration-free hamiltonians for qubits , 2010, 1010.2480.

[10]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory , 1960, JACM.

[11]  Christopher R. Laumann,et al.  Phase transitions and random quantum satisfiability , 2009, ArXiv.

[12]  Sevag Gharibian,et al.  A Linear Time Algorithm for Quantum 2-SAT , 2015, CCC.

[13]  L. Landau Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons , 2003 .

[14]  Donald W. Loveland,et al.  A machine program for theorem-proving , 2011, CACM.

[15]  M. Krom The Decision Problem for a Class of First‐Order Formulas in Which all Disjunctions are Binary , 1967 .

[16]  Runyao Duan,et al.  No-go theorem for one-way quantum computing on naturally occurring two-level systems , 2010, 1004.3787.

[17]  Daniel Nagaj,et al.  Quantum 3-SAT Is QMA1-Complete , 2013, 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[18]  Sergey Bravyi,et al.  Efficient algorithm for a quantum analogue of 2-SAT , 2006, quant-ph/0602108.

[19]  C.H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On selecting a satisfying truth assignment , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[20]  Alon Itai,et al.  On the Complexity of Timetable and Multicommodity Flow Problems , 1976, SIAM J. Comput..