Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2111.10409 · Leibniz international proceedings in informatics

The Acrobatics of BQP

Scott Aaronson, DeVon Ingram, William Kretschmer

Published Nov 19, 2021• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

One can fix the randomness used by a randomized algorithm, but there is no analogous notion of fixing the quantumness used by a quantum algorithm. Underscoring this fundamental difference, we show that, in the black-box setting, the behavior of quantum polynomial-time ($\mathsf{BQP}$) can be remarkably decoupled from that of classical complexity classes like $\mathsf{NP}$. Specifically: -There exists an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{NP^{BQP}}\not\subset\mathsf{BQP^{PH}}$, resolving a 2005 problem of Fortnow. As a corollary, there exists an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}$ but $\mathsf{BQP}\neq\mathsf{QCMA}$. -Conversely, there exists an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{BQP^{NP}}\not\subset\mathsf{PH^{BQP}}$. -Relative to a random oracle, $\mathsf{PP}=\mathsf{PostBQP}$ is not contained in the "$\mathsf{QMA}$ hierarchy" $\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathsf{QMA}^{\cdots}}}$. -Relative to a random oracle, $\mathsfΣ_{k+1}^\mathsf{P}\not\subset\mathsf{BQP}^{\mathsfΣ_{k}^\mathsf{P}}$ for every $k$. -There exists an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{BQP}=\mathsf{P^{\# P}}$ and yet $\mathsf{PH}$ is infinite. -There exists an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}\neq\mathsf{BQP}=\mathsf{P^{\# P}}$. To achieve these results, we build on the 2018 achievement by Raz and Tal of an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{BQP}\not \subset \mathsf{PH}$, and associated results about the Forrelation problem. We also introduce new tools that might be of independent interest. These include a "quantum-aware" version of the random restriction method, a concentration theorem for the block sensitivity of $\mathsf{AC^0}$ circuits, and a (provable) analogue of the Aaronson-Ambainis Conjecture for sparse oracles.

DOI
10.4230/lipics.ccc.2022.20

Related papers

BQP After 28 Years (Invited Talk)

Scott Aaronson

I will discuss the now-ancient question of where BQP, Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time, fits in among classical complexity classes. After reviewing some basics from the 90s, I will discuss the Forrelation problem that I introduced in 2009 to yield an oracle separation between BQP and PH, and the dramatic completion of that program by Ran Raz and Avishay Tal in 2018. I will then discuss very recent work, with William Kretschmer and DeVon Ingram, which leverages the Raz-Tal theorem, along with a new "quantum-aware" random restriction method, to obtain results that illustrate just how differently BQP can behave from BPP. These include oracles relative to which NP^{BQP} ̸ ⊂ BQP^{PH} - solving a 2005 open problem of Lance Fortnow - and conversely, relative to which BQP^{NP} ̸ ⊂ PH^{BQP}; an oracle relative to which 𝖯 = NP and yet BQP ≠ QCMA; an oracle relative to which NP ⊆ BQP yet PH is infinite; an oracle relative to which 𝖯 = NP≠ BQP = PP; and an oracle relative to which PP = PostBQP ̸ ⊂ QMA^{QMA^{…}}. By popular demand, I will also speculate about the status of BQP in the unrelativized world.

Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Jan 1, 2021•0 citations

BQP and the Polynomial Hierarchy

Scott Aaronson

The relationship between BQP and PH has been an open problem since the earliest days of quantum computing. We present evidence that quantum computers can solve problems outside the entire polynomial hierarchy, by relating this question to topics in circuit complexity, pseudorandomness, and Fourier analysis. First, we show that there exists an oracle relation problem (i.e., a problem with many valid outputs) that is solvable in BQP, but not in PH. This also yields a non-oracle relation problem that is solvable in quantum logarithmic time, but not in AC0. Second, we show that an oracle decision problem separating BQP from PH would follow from the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture, which we formulate here and which is likely of independent interest. The original Linial-Nisan Conjecture (about pseudorandomness against constant-depth circuits) was recently proved by Braverman, after being open for twenty years.

arXiv:0910.4698•Oct 25, 2009•2 citations

BQP and the Polynomial Hierarchy

Scott Aaronson

The relationship between BQP and PH has been an open problem since the earliest days of quantum computing. We present evidence that quantum computers can solve problems outside the entire polynomial hierarchy, by relating this question to topics in circuit complexity, pseudorandomness, and Fourier analysis. First, we show that there exists an oracle relation problem (i.e., a problem with many valid outputs) that is solvable in BQP, but not in PH. This also yields a non-oracle relation problem that is solvable in quantum logarithmic time, but not in AC[superscript 0]. Second, we show that an oracle decision problem separating BQP from PH would follow from the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture, which we formulate here and which is likely of independent interest. The original Linial-Nisan Conjecture (about pseudorandomness against constant-depth circuits) was recently proved by Braverman, after being open for twenty years.

•Jan 1, 2010•10 citations

Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments

Scott Aaronson, Lijie Chen

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)

arXiv:1612.05903•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Dec 18, 2016•218 citations

Oracle separations of hybrid quantum-classical circuits

Atul Singh Arora, Alexandru Gheorghiu, Singh, Uttam

An important theoretical problem in the study of quantum computation, that is also practically relevant in the context of near-term quantum devices, is to understand the computational power of hybrid models, that combine poly-time classical computation with short-depth quantum computation. Here, we consider two such models: CQ_d which captures the scenario of a polynomial-time classical algorithm that queries a d-depth quantum computer many times; and QC_d which is more analogous to measurement-based quantum computation and captures the scenario of a d-depth quantum computer with the ability to change the sequence of gates being applied depending on measurement outcomes processed by a classical computation. Chia, Chung & Lai (STOC 2020) and Coudron & Menda (STOC 2020) showed that these models (with d=log^O(1) (n)) are strictly weaker than BQP (the class of problems solvable by poly-time quantum computation), relative to an oracle, disproving a conjecture of Jozsa in the relativised world. We show that, despite the similarities between CQ_d and QC_d, the two models are incomparable, i.e. CQ_d $\nsubseteq$ QC_d and QC_d $\nsubseteq$ CQ_d relative to an oracle. In other words, there exist problems that one model can solve but not the other and vice versa. We do this by considering new oracle problems that capture the distinctions between the two models and by introducing the notion of an intrinsically stochastic oracle, an oracle whose responses are inherently randomised, which is used for our second result. While we leave showing the second separation relative to a standard oracle as an open problem, we believe the notion of stochastic oracles could be of independent interest for studying complexity classes which have resisted separation in the standard oracle model. Our constructions also yield simpler oracle separations between the hybrid models and BQP, compared to earlier works.

arXiv:2201.01904•Jan 6, 2022•3 citations

Combinatorial Problems Arising from Quantum Computing

DeVon Ingram

This thesis studies certain combinatorial problems that arise in the study of quantum computation. More precisely, we establish oracle results that exemplify ways in which the behavior of quantum polynomial time ($\mathsf{BQP}$) can be remarkably decoupled from that of classical complexity classes like $\mathsf{NP}$ and $\mathsf{BPP}$. We also study a problem related to a conjecture which would imply quantum supremacy results: bounding the cardinality of the range of the permanent.

•Mar 1, 2026•0 citations
One can fix the randomness used by a randomized algorithm, but there is no analogous notion of fixing the quantumness used by a quantum algorithm. Underscoring this fundamental difference, we show that, in the black-box setting, the behavior of quantum polynomial-time (BQP\mathsf{BQP}BQP) can be remarkably decoupled from that of classical complexity classes like NP\mathsf{NP}NP. Specifically: -There exists an oracle relative to which NPBQP⊄BQPPH\mathsf{NP^{BQP}}\not\subset\mathsf{BQP^{PH}}NPBQP⊂BQPPH, resolving a 2005 problem of Fortnow. As a corollary, there exists an oracle relative to which P=NP\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}P=NP but BQP≠QCMA\mathsf{BQP}\neq\mathsf{QCMA}BQP=QCMA. -Conversely, there exists an oracle relative to which BQPNP⊄PHBQP\mathsf{BQP^{NP}}\not\subset\mathsf{PH^{BQP}}BQPNP⊂PHBQP. -Relative to a random oracle, PP=PostBQP\mathsf{PP}=\mathsf{PostBQP}PP=PostBQP is not contained in the "QMA\mathsf{QMA}QMA hierarchy" QMAQMAQMA⋯\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathsf{QMA}^{\mathsf{QMA}^{\cdots}}}QMAQMAQMA⋯. -Relative to a random oracle, Σk+1P⊄BQPΣkP\mathsfΣ_{k+1}^\mathsf{P}\not\subset\mathsf{BQP}^{\mathsfΣ_{k}^\mathsf{P}}Σk+1P​⊂BQPΣkP​ for every kkk. -There exists an oracle relative to which BQP=P#P\mathsf{BQP}=\mathsf{P^{\# P}}BQP=P#P and yet PH\mathsf{PH}PH is infinite. -There exists an oracle relative to which P=NP≠BQP=P#P\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}\neq\mathsf{BQP}=\mathsf{P^{\# P}}P=NP=BQP=P#P. To achieve these results, we build on the 2018 achievement by Raz and Tal of an oracle relative to which BQP⊄PH\mathsf{BQP}\not \subset \mathsf{PH}BQP⊂PH, and associated results about the Forrelation problem. We also introduce new tools that might be of independent interest. These include a "quantum-aware" version of the random restriction method, a concentration theorem for the block sensitivity of AC0\mathsf{AC^0}AC0 circuits, and a (provable) analogue of the Aaronson-Ambainis Conjecture for sparse oracles.
I will discuss the now-ancient question of where BQP, Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time, fits in among classical complexity classes. After reviewing some basics from the 90s, I will discuss the Forrelation problem that I introduced in 2009 to yield an oracle separation between BQP and PH, and the dramatic completion of that program by Ran Raz and Avishay Tal in 2018. I will then discuss very recent work, with William Kretschmer and DeVon Ingram, which leverages the Raz-Tal theorem, along with a new "quantum-aware" random restriction method, to obtain results that illustrate just how differently BQP can behave from BPP. These include oracles relative to which NP^{BQP} ̸ ⊂ BQP^{PH} - solving a 2005 open problem of Lance Fortnow - and conversely, relative to which BQP^{NP} ̸ ⊂ PH^{BQP}; an oracle relative to which 𝖯 = NP and yet BQP ≠ QCMA; an oracle relative to which NP ⊆ BQP yet PH is infinite; an oracle relative to which 𝖯 = NP≠ BQP = PP; and an oracle relative to which PP = PostBQP ̸ ⊂ QMA^{QMA^{…}}. By popular demand, I will also speculate about the status of BQP in the unrelativized world.
The relationship between BQP and PH has been an open problem since the earliest days of quantum computing. We present evidence that quantum computers can solve problems outside the entire polynomial hierarchy, by relating this question to topics in circuit complexity, pseudorandomness, and Fourier analysis. First, we show that there exists an oracle relation problem (i.e., a problem with many valid outputs) that is solvable in BQP, but not in PH. This also yields a non-oracle relation problem that is solvable in quantum logarithmic time, but not in AC0. Second, we show that an oracle decision problem separating BQP from PH would follow from the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture, which we formulate here and which is likely of independent interest. The original Linial-Nisan Conjecture (about pseudorandomness against constant-depth circuits) was recently proved by Braverman, after being open for twenty years.
The relationship between BQP and PH has been an open problem since the earliest days of quantum computing. We present evidence that quantum computers can solve problems outside the entire polynomial hierarchy, by relating this question to topics in circuit complexity, pseudorandomness, and Fourier analysis. First, we show that there exists an oracle relation problem (i.e., a problem with many valid outputs) that is solvable in BQP, but not in PH. This also yields a non-oracle relation problem that is solvable in quantum logarithmic time, but not in AC[superscript 0]. Second, we show that an oracle decision problem separating BQP from PH would follow from the Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture, which we formulate here and which is likely of independent interest. The original Linial-Nisan Conjecture (about pseudorandomness against constant-depth circuits) was recently proved by Braverman, after being open for twenty years.
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)
An important theoretical problem in the study of quantum computation, that is also practically relevant in the context of near-term quantum devices, is to understand the computational power of hybrid models, that combine poly-time classical computation with short-depth quantum computation. Here, we consider two such models: CQ_d which captures the scenario of a polynomial-time classical algorithm that queries a d-depth quantum computer many times; and QC_d which is more analogous to measurement-based quantum computation and captures the scenario of a d-depth quantum computer with the ability to change the sequence of gates being applied depending on measurement outcomes processed by a classical computation. Chia, Chung & Lai (STOC 2020) and Coudron & Menda (STOC 2020) showed that these models (with d=log^O(1) (n)) are strictly weaker than BQP (the class of problems solvable by poly-time quantum computation), relative to an oracle, disproving a conjecture of Jozsa in the relativised world. We show that, despite the similarities between CQ_d and QC_d, the two models are incomparable, i.e. CQ_d ⊈\nsubseteq⊈ QC_d and QC_d ⊈\nsubseteq⊈ CQ_d relative to an oracle. In other words, there exist problems that one model can solve but not the other and vice versa. We do this by considering new oracle problems that capture the distinctions between the two models and by introducing the notion of an intrinsically stochastic oracle, an oracle whose responses are inherently randomised, which is used for our second result. While we leave showing the second separation relative to a standard oracle as an open problem, we believe the notion of stochastic oracles could be of independent interest for studying complexity classes which have resisted separation in the standard oracle model. Our constructions also yield simpler oracle separations between the hybrid models and BQP, compared to earlier works.
This thesis studies certain combinatorial problems that arise in the study of quantum computation. More precisely, we establish oracle results that exemplify ways in which the behavior of quantum polynomial time (BQP\mathsf{BQP}BQP) can be remarkably decoupled from that of classical complexity classes like NP\mathsf{NP}NP and BPP\mathsf{BPP}BPP. We also study a problem related to a conjecture which would imply quantum supremacy results: bounding the cardinality of the range of the permanent.