Depending on time, I'll discuss some subset of the following results. (1) There exists an oracle relative to which classical and quantum computers can solve the same approximate sampling problems in polynomial time, and yet the polynomial hierarchy is infinite. This means that any "BosonSampling-type theorem" will need to be non-relativizing. (2) Can P be separated from BQP by an efficiently-computable oracle (one in P/poly)? Yes if quantum-resistant one-way functions exist; no if P=PSPACE. The latter builds on recent results in quantum query complexity by myself and Shalev Ben-David. (3) How hard is it to approximately sample the output distribution of a random quantum circuit? One can do it (and even calculate the probabilities) in polynomial space and m^O(n) time, where m is the number of gates and n is the number of qubits. But if that's essentially optimal for estimating probabilities, then approximate sampling also requires exponential time. Joint work with Lijie Chen (Tsinghua University)
Depending on time, I'll discuss some subset of the following results. (1) There exists an oracle relative to which classical and quantum computers can solve the same approximate sampling problems in polynomial time, and yet the polynomial hierarchy is infinite. This means that any "BosonSampling-type theorem" will need to be non-relativizing. (2) Can P be separated from BQP by an efficiently-computable oracle (one in P/poly)? Yes if quantum-resistant one-way functions exist; no if P=PSPACE. The latter builds on recent results in quantum query complexity by myself and Shalev Ben-David. (3) How hard is it to approximately sample the output distribution of a random quantum circuit? One can do it (and even calculate the probabilities) in polynomial space and m^O(n) time, where m is the number of gates and n is the number of qubits. But if that's essentially optimal for estimating probabilities, then approximate sampling also requires exponential time. Joint work with Lijie Chen (Tsinghua University)
Motivated by the recent experimental demonstrations of quantum supremacy, proving the hardness of the output of random quantum circuits is an imperative near term goal. We prove under the complexity theoretical assumption of the non-collapse of the polynomial hierarchy that approximating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits to within exp(−Ω(mlogm)) additive error is hard for any classical computer, where m is the number of gates in the quantum computation. More precisely, we show that the above problem is #P-hard under BPPNP reduction. In the recent experiments, the quantum circuit has n-qubits and the architecture is a two-dimensional grid of size n×n. Indeed for constant depth circuits approximating the output probabilities to within 2−Ω(nlogn) is hard. For circuits of depth logn or n for which the anti-concentration property holds, approximating the output probabilities to within 2−Ω(nlog2n) and 2−Ω(n3/2logn) is hard respectively. We made an effort to find the best proofs and proved these results from first principles, which do not use the standard techniques such as the Berlekamp--Welch algorithm, the usual Paturi's lemma, and Rakhmanov's result.
Quantum computation was envisioned by Feynman as a valuable means of solving quantum problems [1]. The question is, how do we prove the superiority of quantum computing over classical devices? A common misconception in describing the power of a quantum computer over a classical computer is that quantum bits can be prepared in a superposition of an exponential number of states, which cannot be achieved with classical bits. This statement is certainly true, but it does not tell us, specifically, what problems quantum computers can efficiently solve while classical computers fail to do so. In fact, based exactly on the technique of Feynman's path integral, the output (i.e. transition amplitude) of any quantum circuit can be calculated classically with a polynomial amount of memory (although the temporal cost would be exponential). Therefore any quantum computation can be simulated classically; the key question is about the efficiency. Much effort has been made trying to pin down the power of quantum computers based on the machinery of the computational complexity theory. In particular, the class of computational (decision) problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer is called BQP (bounded-error quantum polynomial time); the counterpart for classical computers is called P (polynomial time). Of course, BQP cannot be less than P; in principle quantum computers can simulate classical computers efficiently. The point is that the foundation of quantum computation cannot be established without a proof showing that BQP is strictly larger than P (i.e. BQP ≠ P). In this sense, this question is as interesting as the famous challenge of proving P ≠ NP (non-deterministic polynomial time). A well known instance of an NP problem is the factoring problem; Shor's quantum algorithm is capable of solving the factoring problem in polynomial time, which is not achievable with the best classical algorithm discovered so far. However, we still cannot rigorously exclude the possibility of the existence of an efficient classical algorithm for factoring. Although again without a proof, it is commonly believed that quantum computers are unable to solve some of the NP problems. In fact, the proof of this statement (if true) provides a possible path to prove P ≠ NP. A potentially less demanding question would be, when do we expect a quantum computer to be able to perform some well defined tasks (not necessarily related to any practical problem) that cannot be simulated with any currently available classical device, within a reasonable time? Once achieved, the status is called ‘quantum supremacy' [2]. One may ask, what about Grover's search algorithm, which provides a quadratic speedup over the classical search? Can we say that we can already achieve quantum supremacy with Grover's algorithm? The problem is that, instead of taking the large-N limit, quantum supremacy requires us to determine the actual number of qubits and gates that can no longer be simulated by classical computers within a reasonable time. To elaborate further, we remark that there can be two notions of classical simulation, namely ‘strong simulation' versus ‘weak simulation'. Strong simulation refers to the cases of calculating the transition probabilities, or expectation values of observables, to a high accuracy in polynomial time. Weak simulation requires the probability distributions to be accurately reproduced, which involves ‘sampling' the different outcomes of the quantum devices. Some quantum circuits that cannot be strongly simulated with an efficient classical means may have efficient classical methods for weak simulation [3]. However, we should be careful about the accuracy requirement in the simulation tasks. For example, for many decision problems, it may be sufficient to determine the transition amplitudes to within an additive error, instead of multiplicative error. In other words, the classical simulability of quantum computational problems depends on the accuracy requirement. Currently, there are three popular approaches for achieving quantum supremacy (see Fig. 1), namely (i) boson sampling [4], (ii) sampling IQP (instantaneous quantum polynomial) circuits [5], and (iii) sampling chaotic quantum circuits [6]. In all of these approaches, distributions of different bit strings or photon numbers are sampled from the quantum devices. Furthermore, they all involve the assumption that classical computers are unable to efficiently determine the transition amplitudes, and/or reproduce (or approximate) the distributions of quantum devices performing these tasks, in the sense of both strong and weak simulations. Three different approaches for achieving quantum supremacy: (a) boson sampling; (b) IQP circuits; (c) chaotic quantum circuits. In boson sampling, single photons are injected into different modes of a linear optical network. The task is to determine the photon distributions at the output ports. The key feature of boson sampling is that the transition amplitudes are related to the permanents of complex matrices, which are in general very difficult to calculate exactly, or approximate to within an multiplicative error; these problems belong to the #P-hard complexity class. Moreover, efficient weak simulation of boson sampling is believed to be impossible, unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its third level. However, a recent numerical study suggests that, in order to achieve quantum supremacy with boson sampling, one needs to simultaneously generate at least 50 or more single photons, which is still highly technologically challenging. An interesting question is whether linear optics, in the setting of boson sampling, can be applied to solve decision problems. In this case, the transition amplitudes may need to be determined to an additive error. However, we found that a large class of decision problems associated with boson sampling can be simulated by a classical computer [7], settling an open problem [8] by Aaronson and Hance. IQP circuits represent a simplified quantum-circuit model. The initial state starts from the all-zero state, |000…0〉, followed by applying Hadamard gates to each qubit. Then, diagonal gates are applied to the qubits, followed by applying Hadamard gates to each qubit again. The argument of showing the complexity in simulating IQP circuits is similar to that of boson sampling. In fact, the complexity of boson sampling was inspired by the complexity results of IQP circuits. However, when subject to noise, IQP circuits may become classically simulable [9]. Lastly, chaotic quantum circuits refer to the class of quantum circuits where two-qubit gates are applied regularly, while single-qubit gates are applied randomly from a gate set. The output distributions of these circuits approach the so-called Porter–Thomas distribution, which is a characteristic feature of quantum chaos. Recently, there have been several numerical investigations aiming to explore the ultimate limit of classical computing in simulating low-depth quantum circuits. For the ideal cases, one needs to consider both the qubit number and circuit depth for benchmarking quantum supremacy. However, in the presence of noise, these chaotic circuits may also become classically simulable for high-depth circuits [10]. Finally, other than these three approaches, one should expect that quantum supremacy can be achieved for many practical applications, e.g. simulation of quantum chemistry or quantum machine learning. When will it happen? Only time will tell!
Motivated by the recent experimental demonstrations of quantum supremacy, proving the hardness of the output of random quantum circuits is an imperative near term goal. We prove under the complexity theoretical assumption of the non-collapse of the polynomial hierarchy that approximating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits to withinexp(−Ω(mlogm))additive error is hard for any classical computer, wheremis the number of gates in the quantum computation. More precisely, we show that the above problem is #P-hard under BPPNPreduction. In the recent experiments, the quantum circuit has n-qubits and the architecture is a two-dimensional grid of sizen×n[1]. Indeed for constant depth circuits approximating the output probabilities to within2−Ω(nlogn)is hard. For circuits of depthlognornfor which the anti-concentration property holds, approximating the output probabilities to within2−Ω(nlog2n)and2−Ω(n3/2logn)is hard respectively. We then show that the hardness results extend to any open neighborhood of an arbitrary (fixed) circuit including the trivial circuit with identity gates. We made an effort to find the best proofs and proved these results from first principles, which do not use the standard techniques such as the Berlekamp–Welch algorithm, the usual Paturi's lemma, and Rakhmanov's result.
This paper furthers existing evidence that quantum computers are capable of computations beyond classical computers. Specifically, we strengthen the collapse of the polynomial hierarchy to the second level if: (i) Quantum computers with postselection are as powerful as classical computers with postselection (PostBQP = PostBPP), (ii) any one of several quantum sampling experiments (BosonSampling, IQP, DQC1) can be approximately performed by a classical computer (contingent on existing assumptions). This last result implies that if any of these experiment’s hardness conjectures hold, then quantum computers can implement functions classical computers cannot (FBQP≠ FBPP) unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its 2nd level. These results are an improvement over previous work which either achieved a collapse to the third level or were concerned with exact sampling, a physically impractical case. The workhorse of these results is a new technical complexity-theoretic result which we believe could have value beyond quantum computation. In particular, we prove that if there exists an equivalence between problems solvable with an exact counting oracle and problems solvable with an approximate counting oracle, then the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its second level, indeed to ZPP^NP.
Founding Quantum Cryptography on Quantum Advantage, or, Towards Cryptography from #P-Hardness
Recent oracle separations [Kretschmer, TQC'21, Kretschmer et. al., STOC'23] have raised the tantalizing possibility of building quantum cryptography from sources of hardness that persist even if the polynomial hierarchy collapses. We realize this possibility by building quantum bit commitments and secure computation from unrelativized, well-studied mathematical problems that are conjectured to be hard for P#P -- such as approximating the permanents of complex Gaussian matrices, or approximating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits. Indeed, we show that as long as any one of the conjectures underlying sampling-based quantum advantage (e.g., BosonSampling, Random Circuit Sampling, IQP, etc.) is true, quantum cryptography can be based on the extremely mild assumption that P#P⊆(io)BQP/qpoly. We prove that the following hardness assumptions are equivalent. (1) The hardness of approximating the probability assigned to a randomly chosen string in the support of certain efficiently sampleable distributions (upto inverse polynomial multiplicative error).(2) The existence of one-way puzzles, where a quantum sampler outputs a pair of classical strings -- a puzzle and its key -- and where the hardness lies in finding the key corresponding to a random puzzle. These are known to imply quantum bit commitments [Khurana and Tomer, STOC'24]. (3) The existence of state puzzles, or one-way state synthesis, where it is hard to synthesize a secret quantum state given a public classical identifier. These capture the hardness of search problems with quantum inputs (secrets) and classical outputs (challenges). These are the first constructions of quantum cryptographic primitives (one-way puzzles, quantum bit commitments, state puzzles) from concrete, well-founded mathematical assumptions that do not imply the existence of classical cryptography.
This paper furthers existing evidence that quantum computers are capable of computations beyond classical computers. Specifically, we strengthen the collapse of the polynomial hierarchy to the second level if: (i) Quantum computers with postselection are as powerful as classical computers with postselection (PostBQP=PostBPP), (ii) any one of several quantum sampling experiments (BosonSampling, IQP, DQC1) can be approximately performed by a classical computer (contingent on existing assumptions). This last result implies that if any of these experiment's hardness conjectures hold, then quantum computers can implement functions classical computers cannot (FBQP=FBPP) unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its 2nd level. These results are an improvement over previous work which either achieved a collapse to the third level or were concerned with exact sampling, a physically impractical case. The workhorse of these results is a new technical complexity-theoretic result which we believe could have value beyond quantum computation. In particular, we prove that if there exists an equivalence between problems solvable with an exact counting oracle and problems solvable with an approximate counting oracle, then the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its second level, indeed to ZPPNP.