Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c n time steps, where c ∈ { a , b } . A third conjecture poly3-ave-SBSETH( a ′ ) asserts a similar statement about average-case algorithms living in the exponential-time version of the complexity class S B P . We analyze evidence for these conjectures and argue that they are plausible when a = 1 / 2 , b = 0.999 and a ′ = 1 / 2 .Imposing poly3-NSETH(1/2) and per-int-NSETH(0.999), and assuming that the runtime of a hypothetical quantum circuit simulation algorithm would scale linearly with the number of gates/constraints/optical elements, we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits and 500 gates, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and 500 constraints and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons and 500 optical elements are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. Imposing poly3-ave-SBSETH(1/2), we additionally rule out simulations with constant additive error for IQP and QAOA circuits of the same size. Without the assumption of linearly increasing simulation time, we can make analogous statements for circuits with slightly fewer qubits but requiring 10 4 to 10 7 gates.
Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c n time steps, where c ∈ { a , b } . A third conjecture poly3-ave-SBSETH( a ′ ) asserts a similar statement about average-case algorithms living in the exponential-time version of the complexity class S B P . We analyze evidence for these conjectures and argue that they are plausible when a = 1 / 2 , b = 0.999 and a ′ = 1 / 2 .Imposing poly3-NSETH(1/2) and per-int-NSETH(0.999), and assuming that the runtime of a hypothetical quantum circuit simulation algorithm would scale linearly with the number of gates/constraints/optical elements, we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits and 500 gates, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and 500 constraints and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons and 500 optical elements are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. Imposing poly3-ave-SBSETH(1/2), we additionally rule out simulations with constant additive error for IQP and QAOA circuits of the same size. Without the assumption of linearly increasing simulation time, we can make analogous statements for circuits with slightly fewer qubits but requiring 10 4 to 10 7 gates.
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!
It is known that several sub-universal quantum computing models, such as the IQP model, the Boson sampling model, the one-clean qubit model, and the random circuit model, cannot be classically simulated in polynomial time under certain conjectures in classical complexity theory. Recently, these results have been improved to ``fine-grained" versions where even exponential-time classical simulations are excluded assuming certain classical fine-grained complexity conjectures. All these fine-grained results are, however, about the hardness of strong simulations or multiplicative-error sampling. It was open whether any fine-grained quantum supremacy result can be shown for a more realistic setup, namely, additive-error sampling. In this paper, we show the additive-error fine-grained quantum supremacy (under certain complexity assumptions). As examples, we consider the IQP model, a mixture of the IQP model and log-depth Boolean circuits, and Clifford+ T circuits. Similar results should hold for other sub-universal models.
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.
The class of commuting quantum circuits known as IQP (instantaneous quantum polynomial-time) has been shown to be hard to simulate classically, assuming certain complexity-theoretic conjectures. Here we study the power of IQP circuits in the presence of physically motivated constraints. First, we show that there is a family of sparse IQP circuits that can be implemented on a square lattice of n qubits in depth O(sqrt(n) log n), and which is likely hard to simulate classically. Next, we show that, if an arbitrarily small constant amount of noise is applied to each qubit at the end of any IQP circuit whose output probability distribution is sufficiently anticoncentrated, there is a polynomial-time classical algorithm that simulates sampling from the resulting distribution, up to constant accuracy in total variation distance. However, we show that purely classical error-correction techniques can be used to design IQP circuits which remain hard to simulate classically, even in the presence of arbitrary amounts of noise of this form. These results demonstrate the challenges faced by experiments designed to demonstrate quantum supremacy over classical computation, and how these challenges can be overcome.
Sampling from the output distributions of quantum computations comprising only commuting gates, known as instantaneous quantum polynomial (IQP) computations, is believed to be intractable for classical computers, and hence this task has become a leading candidate for testing the capabilities of quantum devices. Here we demonstrate that for an arbitrary IQP circuit undergoing dephasing or depolarizing noise, whose depth is greater than a critical O (1) threshold, the output distribution can be efficiently sampled by a classical computer. Unlike other simulation algorithms for quantum supremacy tasks, we do not require assumptions on the circuit’s architecture, on anti-concentration properties, nor do we require Ω(log (n )) circuit depth. We take advantage of the fact that IQP circuits have deep sections of diagonal gates, which allows the noise to build up predictably and induce a large-scale breakdown of entanglement within the circuit. Our results suggest that quantum supremacy experiments based on IQP circuits may be more susceptible to classical simulation than previously thought. Furthermore, we show that the critical depth threshold of our algorithm is tight, and below this threshold there are noisy IQP circuits which are hard to sample from. Thus we demonstrate that noisy IQP circuits exhibit a phase transition in the computational complexity of sampling, as circuit depth is increased.