This work investigates the relationships between quantum state synthesis complexity classes (a recent concept in computational complexity that focuses on the complexity of preparing quantum states) and traditional decision complexity classes. We especially investigate the role of the synthesis error parameter, which characterizes the quality of the synthesis in quantum state synthesis complexity classes. We first show that in the high synthesis error regime, collapse of synthesis classes implies collapse of the equivalent decision classes. For more reasonable synthesis error, we then show a similar relationships for BQP and QCMA. Finally, we show that for quantum state synthesis classes it is in general impossible to improve the quality of the synthesis: unlike the completeness and soundness parameters (which can be improved via repetition), the synthesis error cannot be reduced, even with arbitrary computational power.
This work investigates the relationships between quantum state synthesis complexity classes (a recent concept in computational complexity that focuses on the complexity of preparing quantum states) and traditional decision complexity classes. We especially investigate the role of the synthesis error parameter, which characterizes the quality of the synthesis in quantum state synthesis complexity classes. We first show that in the high synthesis error regime, collapse of synthesis classes implies collapse of the equivalent decision classes. For more reasonable synthesis error, we then show a similar relationships for BQP and QCMA. Finally, we show that for quantum state synthesis classes it is in general impossible to improve the quality of the synthesis: unlike the completeness and soundness parameters (which can be improved via repetition), the synthesis error cannot be reduced, even with arbitrary computational power.
This work investigates the relationships between quantum state synthesis complexity classes (a recent concept in computational complexity that focuses on the complexity of preparing quantum states) and traditional decision complexity classes. We especially investigate the role of the \emph{synthesis error parameter}, which characterizes the quality of the synthesis in quantum state synthesis complexity classes.We first show that in the high synthesis error regime, collapse of synthesis classes implies collapse of the equivalent decision classes. For more reasonable synthesis error, we then show a similar relationships for $\BQP$ and $\QCMA$. Finally, we show that for quantum state synthesis classes it is in general impossible to improve the quality of the synthesis: unlike the completeness and soundness parameters (which can be improved via repetition), the synthesis error cannot be reduced, even with arbitrary computational power.
It is a useful fact in classical computer science that many search problems are reducible to decision problems; this has led to decision problems being regarded as the de facto computational task to study in complexity theory. In this work, we explore search-to-decision reductions for quantum search problems, wherein a quantum algorithm makes queries to a classical decision oracle to output a desired quantum state. In particular, we focus on search-to-decision reductions for QMA, and show that there exists a quantum polynomial-time algorithm that can generate a witness for a QMA problem up to inverse polynomial precision by making one query to a PP decision oracle. We complement this result by showing that QMA-search does not reduce to QMA-decision in polynomial-time, relative to a quantum oracle. We also explore the more general state synthesis problem, in which the goal is to efficiently synthesize a target state by making queries to a classical oracle encoding the state. We prove that there exists a classical oracle with which any quantum state can be synthesized to inverse polynomial precision using only one oracle query and to inverse exponential precision using two oracle queries. This answers an open question of Aaronson from 2016, who presented a state synthesis algorithm that makes O(n) queries to a classical oracle to prepare an n-qubit state, and asked if the query complexity could be made sublinear.
Unitary synthesis complexity studies the computational cost of applying a target unitary to an unknown quantum state, extending complexity theory beyond its traditional focus on problems with classical inputs and outputs. Rosenthal and Yuen (ITCS 2022) introduced two complexity classes for unitary synthesis: unitaryQIP and unitaryPSPACE for the unitary families implementable via interactive proofs and in polynomial space, respectively. In this work, we prove the equality unitaryQIP=unitaryPSPACE and thereby establish a unitary-complexity analogue of QIP=PSPACE (Jain, Ji, Upadhyay, and Watrous, J. ACM 2011) and stateQIP=statePSPACE (Rosenthal and Yuen, ITCS 2022; Metger and Yuen, FOCS 2023).
To prove unitaryQIP⊆unitaryPSPACE, we use an acceptance rigidity lemma derived from the soundness condition to show that the polynomial-space prover constructed for a fixed input in state synthesis (Metger and Yuen, FOCS 2023) implements the target unitary on every input, leading to a polynomial-space simulation of the protocol. For the reverse inclusion, we build on OpenAI's recently announced solution to the unitary synthesis problem (Aaronson and Kuperberg, Theory Comput. 2007), and show that unitaryPSPACE families can be synthesized in polynomial time with a PSPACE oracle. We then implement the oracle queries using auxiliary states prepared via the statePSPACE⊆stateQIP protocol (Rosenthal and Yuen, ITCS 2022).
Beyond the equality, we show that our protocol for unitaryPSPACE can be parallelized to constant rounds when the verifier receives polynomially many copies of the input, and we also obtain a complexity-theoretic barrier to proving the existence of EFI pairs.
In this note, I describe a quantum algorithm that prepares an arbitrary state ∣ψ⟩ to inverse exponential precision in polynomial time by making queries to an NP oracle, assuming one can directly query entries of the state vector corresponding to ∣ψ⟩. The previous best upper bound on the complexity class required by an oracle for this task was PP. I provide evidence that NP is the best possible upper bound by showing that any quantum algorithm using a P oracle, or even a P/poly oracle, requires exponentially many queries. I also discuss some implications of this result for the QMA search-to-decision problem and unitary synthesis.
Complexity theory typically focuses on the difficulty of solving computational problems using classical inputs and outputs, even with a quantum computer. In the quantum world, it is natural to apply a different notion of complexity, namely the complexity of synthesizing quantum states. We investigate a state-synthesizing counterpart of the class NP , referred to as stateQMA , which is concerned with preparing certain quantum states through a polynomial-time quantum verifier with the aid of a single quantum message from an all-powerful but untrusted prover. This is a subclass of the class stateQIP recently introduced by Rosenthal and Yuen (ITCS 2022) \cite{RY22}, which permits polynomially many interactions between the prover and the verifier. Our main result consists of error reduction of this class and its variants with an exponentially small gap or bounded space, as well as how this class relates to other fundamental state synthesizing classes, i.e., states generated by uniform polynomial-time quantum circuits ( stateBQP ) and space-uniform polynomial-space quantum circuits ( statePSPACE ). Furthermore, we establish that the family of UQMA witnesses, considered as one of the most natural candidates for stateQMA containments, is in stateQMA . Additionally, we demonstrate that stateQCMA achieves perfect completeness.
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!