Fine-grained quantum computational supremacy

Output probability distributions of several sub-universal quantum computing models cannot be classically efficiently sampled unless some unlikely consequences occur in classical complexity theory, such as the collapse of the polynomial-time hierarchy. These results, so called quantum supremacy, however, do not rule out possibilities of super-polynomial-time classical simulations. In this paper, we study "fine-grained" version of quantum supremacy that excludes some exponential-time classical simulations. First, we focus on two sub-universal models, namely, the one-clean-qubit model (or the DQC1 model) and the HC1Q model. Assuming certain conjectures in fine-grained complexity theory, we show that for any $a>0$ output probability distributions of these models cannot be classically sampled within a constant multiplicative error and in $2^{(1-a)N+o(N)}$ time, where $N$ is the number of qubits. Next, we consider universal quantum computing. For example, we consider quantum computing over Clifford and $T$ gates, and show that under another fine-grained complexity conjecture, output probability distributions of Clifford-$T$ quantum computing cannot be classically sampled in $2^{o(t)}$ time within a constant multiplicative error, where $t$ is the number of $T$ gates.

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

[2]  David Poulin,et al.  Testing integrability with a single bit of quantum information , 2003 .

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

[4]  Tomoyuki Morimae,et al.  Hardness of classically sampling one clean qubit model with constant total variation distance error , 2017, ArXiv.

[5]  Ramis Movassagh,et al.  Cayley path and quantum computational supremacy: A proof of average-case #P-hardness of Random Circuit Sampling with quantified robustness , 2019, ArXiv.

[6]  Avi Wigderson,et al.  Quantum vs. classical communication and computation , 1998, STOC '98.

[7]  Keisuke Fujii,et al.  Power of one non-clean qubit , 2016, ArXiv.

[8]  A. Datta,et al.  Entanglement and the power of one qubit , 2005, quant-ph/0505213.

[9]  Gorjan Alagic,et al.  Approximating the Turaev-Viro Invariant of Mapping Tori is Complete for One Clean Qubit , 2011, TQC.

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

[11]  Pawel Wocjan,et al.  Estimating Jones and Homfly polynomials with one clean qubit , 2008, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[12]  Ryan Williams Guest column: a casual tour around a circuit complexity bound , 2011, SIGA.

[13]  D. Gottesman The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers , 1998, quant-ph/9807006.

[14]  R Laflamme,et al.  Experimental approximation of the Jones polynomial with one quantum bit. , 2009, Physical review letters.

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

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

[17]  Yoshio Okamoto,et al.  On Problems as Hard as CNF-SAT , 2011, 2012 IEEE 27th Conference on Computational Complexity.

[18]  Robin Kothari,et al.  Dequantizing read-once quantum formulas , 2013, TQC.

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

[20]  R. Cleve,et al.  Quantum fingerprinting. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[21]  Mark H. Overmars,et al.  On a Class of O(n2) Problems in Computational Geometry , 1995, Comput. Geom..

[22]  Ran Raz,et al.  Exponential separation of quantum and classical communication complexity , 1999, STOC '99.

[23]  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.

[24]  F. Nori,et al.  Quantum Simulation , 2013, Quantum Atom Optics.

[25]  Ramis Movassagh,et al.  Efficient unitary paths and quantum computational supremacy: A proof of average-case hardness of Random Circuit Sampling , 2018, 1810.04681.

[26]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? , 1998, Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No.98CB36280).

[27]  Mario Szegedy,et al.  Explicit lower bounds on strong simulation of quantum circuits in terms of $T$-gate count , 2019, ArXiv.

[28]  David Gosset,et al.  Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[29]  Richard Beigel,et al.  Relativized Counting Classes: Relations among Thresholds, Parity, and Mods , 1991, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[30]  Uzi Vishkin,et al.  Constant Depth Reducibility , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[31]  R. Cleve,et al.  Nonlocality and communication complexity , 2009, 0907.3584.

[32]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

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

[34]  Mario Szegedy,et al.  Explicit Lower Bounds on Strong Quantum Simulation , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[35]  Uri Zwick,et al.  On Dynamic Shortest Paths Problems , 2004, Algorithmica.

[36]  Prashant Nalini Vasudevan,et al.  Average-case fine-grained hardness , 2017, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[37]  Timothy M. Chan,et al.  Deterministic APSP, Orthogonal Vectors, and More: Quickly Derandomizing Razborov-Smolensky , 2016, SODA.

[38]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Quantum computers that can be simulated classically in polynomial time , 2001, STOC '01.

[39]  Virginia Vassilevska Williams,et al.  Hardness of Easy Problems: Basing Hardness on Popular Conjectures such as the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (Invited Talk) , 2015, IPEC.

[40]  Tomoyuki Morimae,et al.  Merlin-Arthur with efficient quantum Merlin and quantum supremacy for the second level of the Fourier hierarchy , 2017, Quantum.

[41]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Complexity of k-SAT , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[42]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Estimating Jones polynomials is a complete problem for one clean qubit , 2007, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[43]  R. Laflamme,et al.  Exponential speedup with a single bit of quantum information: measuring the average fidelity decay. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[44]  Daniel R. Simon,et al.  On the power of quantum computation , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[45]  Lov K. Grover Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack , 1997, quant-ph/9706033.

[46]  J. Smolin,et al.  Trading Classical and Quantum Computational Resources , 2015, 1506.01396.

[47]  Keisuke Fujii,et al.  Power of Quantum Computation with Few Clean Qubits , 2015, ICALP.

[48]  Huacheng Yu,et al.  Beating Brute Force for Systems of Polynomial Equations over Finite Fields , 2017, SODA.

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

[50]  Yaoyun Shi Quantum and classical tradeoffs , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[51]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Introduction to the Tenth Anniversary Edition , 2010 .

[52]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Nondeterministic Extensions of the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis and Consequences for Non-reducibility , 2016, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[53]  E. Knill,et al.  Power of One Bit of Quantum Information , 1998, quant-ph/9802037.

[54]  Ryan Williams,et al.  Simulating branching programs with edit distance and friends: or: a polylog shaved is a lower bound made , 2015, STOC.

[55]  Barenco,et al.  Elementary gates for quantum computation. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.