Efficient unitary paths and quantum computational supremacy: A proof of average-case hardness of Random Circuit Sampling

One-parameter interpolations between any two unitary matrices (e.g., quantum gates) $U_1$ and $U_2$ along efficient paths contained in the unitary group are constructed. Motivated by applications, we propose the continuous unitary path $U(\theta)$ obtained from the QR-factorization \[ U(\theta)R(\theta)=(1-\theta)A+\theta B, \] where $U_1 R_1=A$ and $U_2 R_2=B$ are the QR-factorizations of $A$ and $B$, and $U(\theta)$ is a unitary for all $\theta$ with $U(0)=U_1$ and $U(1)=U_2$. The QR-algorithm is modified to, instead of $U(\theta)$, output a matrix whose columns are proportional to the corresponding columns of $U(\theta)$ and whose entries are polynomial or rational functions of $\theta$. By an extension of the Berlekamp-Welch algorithm we show that rational functions can be efficiently and exactly interpolated with respect to $\theta$. We then construct probability distributions over unitaries that are arbitrarily close to the Haar measure. Demonstration of computational advantages of NISQ over classical computers is an imperative near-term goal, especially with the exuberant experimental frontier in academia and industry (e.g., IBM and Google). A candidate for quantum computational supremacy is Random Circuit Sampling (RCS), which is the task of sampling from the output distribution of a random circuit. The aforementioned mathematical results provide a new way of scrambling quantum circuits and are applied to prove that exact RCS is $\#P$-Hard on average, which is a simpler alternative to Bouland et al's. (Dis)Proving the quantum supremacy conjecture requires "approximate" average case hardness; this remains an open problem for all quantum supremacy proposals.

[1]  F. Mezzadri How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups , 2006, math-ph/0609050.

[2]  F. Moore,et al.  Polynomial Codes Over Certain Finite Fields , 2017 .

[3]  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.

[4]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond , 2018, Quantum.

[5]  T. Takayanagi Holographic spacetimes as quantum circuits of path-integrations , 2018, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[6]  Adam Bouland,et al.  Quantum Supremacy and the Complexity of Random Circuit Sampling , 2018, ITCS.

[7]  Rolando L. La Placa,et al.  How many qubits are needed for quantum computational supremacy? , 2018, Quantum.

[8]  H. Neven,et al.  Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices , 2016, Nature Physics.

[9]  P. Hayden,et al.  Black holes as mirrors: Quantum information in random subsystems , 2007, 0708.4025.

[10]  Aram W. Harrow,et al.  Quantum computational supremacy , 2017, Nature.

[11]  Nathaniel E. Helwig,et al.  An Introduction to Linear Algebra , 2006 .

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

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

[14]  A. Harrow,et al.  Approximate Unitary t-Designs by Short Random Quantum Circuits Using Nearest-Neighbor and Long-Range Gates , 2018, Communications in Mathematical Physics.

[15]  Ramamohan Paturi,et al.  On the degree of polynomials that approximate symmetric Boolean functions (preliminary version) , 1992, STOC '92.

[16]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments , 2016, CCC.

[17]  Elizabeth Meckes,et al.  Concentration of Measure and the Compact Classical Matrix Groups , 2014 .