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:2509.07255

Demonstrating an unconditional separation between quantum and classical information resources

William Kretschmer, Sabee Grewal, Matthew P. DeCross, Justin A. Gerber, Kevin Gilmore, Dan Gresh, Nicholas Hunter-Jones, Karl Ulrich Mayer, Brian Neyenhuis, David Hayes, Scott Aaronson

Published Sep 8, 2025• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A longstanding goal in quantum information science is to demonstrate quantum computations that cannot be feasibly reproduced on a classical computer. Such demonstrations mark major milestones: they showcase fine control over quantum systems and are prerequisites for useful quantum computation. To date, quantum advantage has been demonstrated, for example, through violations of Bell inequalities and sampling-based quantum supremacy experiments. However, both forms of advantage come with important caveats: Bell tests are not computationally difficult tasks, and the classical hardness of sampling experiments relies on unproven complexity-theoretic assumptions. Here we demonstrate an unconditional quantum advantage in information resources required for a computational task, realized on Quantinuum's H1-1 trapped-ion quantum computer operating at a median two-qubit partial-entangler fidelity of 99.941(7)%. We construct a task for which the most space-efficient classical algorithm provably requires between 62 and 382 bits of memory, and solve it using only 12 qubits. Our result provides the most direct evidence yet that currently existing quantum processors can generate and manipulate entangled states of sufficient complexity to access the exponentiality of Hilbert space. This form of quantum advantage -- which we call quantum information supremacy -- represents a new benchmark in quantum computing, one that does not rely on unproven conjectures.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2509.07255

Related papers

Entanglement-induced provable and robust quantum learning advantages

Haimeng Zhao, Dong-Ling Deng

Quantum computing holds unparalleled potentials to enhance machine learning. However, a demonstration of quantum learning advantage has not been achieved so far. We make a step forward by rigorously establishing a noise-robust, unconditional quantum learning advantage in expressivity, inference speed, and training efficiency, compared to commonly-used classical models. Our proof is information-theoretic and pinpoints the origin of this advantage: entanglement can be used to reduce the communication required by non-local tasks. In particular, we design a task that can be solved with certainty by quantum models with a constant number of parameters using entanglement, whereas commonly-used classical models must scale linearly to achieve a larger-than-exponentially-small accuracy. We show that the quantum model is trainable with constant resources and robust against constant noise. Through numerical and trapped-ion experiments on IonQ Aria, we demonstrate the desired advantage. Our results provide valuable guidance for demonstrating quantum learning advantages with current noisy intermediate-scale devices.

arXiv:2410.03094•npj Quantum Information•Jul 29, 2025•11 citations

Quantum Advantage in Resource Estimation

William A. Simon, Peter J. Love

Quantum computing promises the ability to compute properties of quantum systems exponentially faster than classical computers. Quantum advantage is achieved when a practical problem is solved more efficiently on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. Demonstrating quantum advantage requires a powerful quantum computer with low error rates and an efficient quantum algorithm that has a useful application. Despite rapid progress in hardware development, we still lack useful applications that are feasible for the next generation of quantum computers. Here we argue that an exponential quantum advantage exists in producing numerical resource estimates of larger quantum algorithms by accurately measuring simulation errors. We provide a quantum algorithm for measuring simulation errors of Trotter-based algorithms. Our results indicate that this method will reduce runtimes of quantum algorithms by approximately three orders of magnitude for one-hundred qubit systems. We also predict that these reductions will increase with system size. The methods we propose require relatively few qubits and operations, meaning the next generation of quantum computers could compute simulation errors for classically intractable systems. Since the underlying computations that lead to reduced resource estimates are infeasible for classical computers, this task is a candidate for demonstrating practical quantum advantage.

quant-pharXiv:2512.02131•Dec 3, 2025•0 citations

Quantum supremacy: some fundamental concepts

Man‐Hong Yung

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!

National Science Review•Jul 4, 2018•22 citations

Exploring Quantum Computing: Potential Applications and Current Challenges in Algorithm Design

Amjed Abbas Ahmed, Mohammad Kamrul Hasan

Quantum supremacy refers to the experimental demonstration that a quantum computing device performs a calculation that no classical computer can match in a reasonable time. Such machines would not be useful for solving problems of practical interest, but they would provide a proof of principle that larger and more useful machines could be built. The gap between classical and quantum computing is potentially enormous, and the apparent ease with which quantum states can be prepared, manipulated, and measured has led many to believe that quantum devices might one day outperform classical hardware at solving a broad range of computational tasks. The most immediate goal of progress in quantum engineering is the construction of a device that passes the proofs of principle of quantum supremacy experiments. They would transform a state that can be initialized neutrally, evolve it under a controlled Hamiltonian, then sample from the output distribution. Such devices must possess sufficient connectivity and low noise but can be cared for by classical software. Their demonstration would mark a historic milestone in the development of quantum technology, providing intrigue and awe but little societal benefit. However, if they can be produced with sufficient fidelity and scale, there is hope that more generally applicable quantum engines might be constructed that could exploit the exponential speedup to outperform classical computers for problems of deep societal importance.

CyberSystem journal.•Jun 30, 2024•5 citations

Quantum supremacy and random circuits

Ramis Movassagh

As Moore's law reaches its limits, quantum computers are emerging with the promise of dramatically outperforming classical computers. We have witnessed the advent of quantum processors with over $50$ quantum bits (qubits), which are expected to be beyond the reach of classical simulation. Quantum supremacy is the event at which the old Extended Church-Turing Thesis is overturned: A quantum computer performs a task that is practically impossible for any classical (super)computer. The demonstration requires both a solid theoretical guarantee and an experimental realization. The lead candidate is Random Circuit Sampling (RCS), which is the task of sampling from the output distribution of random quantum circuits. Google recently announced a $53-$qubit experimental demonstration of RCS. Soon after, classical algorithms appeared that challenge the supremacy of random circuits by estimating their outputs. How hard is it to classically simulate the output of random quantum circuits? We prove that estimating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits is formidably hard ($\#P$-Hard) for any classical computer. This makes RCS the strongest candidate for demonstrating quantum supremacy relative to all other proposals. The robustness to the estimation error that we prove may serve as a new hardness criterion for the performance of classical algorithms. To achieve this, we introduce the Cayley path interpolation between any two gates of a quantum computation and convolve recent advances in quantum complexity and information with probability and random matrices. Furthermore, we apply algebraic geometry to generalize the well-known Berlekamp-Welch algorithm that is widely used in coding theory and cryptography. Our results imply that there is an exponential hardness barrier for the classical simulation of most quantum circuits.

arXiv:1909.06210•Sep 11, 2019•23 citations

Provable and Verifiable Quantum Advantage in Sample Complexity

Marcello Benedetti, Harry Buhrman, Jordi R. Weggemans

Consider a fixed universe of N=2^{n} elements and the uniform distribution over elements of some subset of size K. Given samples from this distribution, the task of complement sampling is to provide a sample from the complementary subset. We give a simple quantum algorithm that uses only a single quantum sample-a single copy of the uniform superposition over elements of the subset. When K=N/2, we show that the quantum algorithm succeeds with probability 1, whereas any classical algorithm that succeeds with bounded probability of error requires a number of samples of the order of N. This shows that in a sample-to-sample setting, quantum computation can achieve the largest possible separation over classical computation. We show that the same bound can be lifted to prove average-case hardness, paving the way for demonstrations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers. It follows that under the assumption of the existence of one-way functions, complement sampling gives provable, verifiable and NISQable quantum advantage in a sample complexity setting.

arXiv:2502.08721•Physical Review Letters•Dec 9, 2025•2 citations
A longstanding goal in quantum information science is to demonstrate quantum computations that cannot be feasibly reproduced on a classical computer. Such demonstrations mark major milestones: they showcase fine control over quantum systems and are prerequisites for useful quantum computation. To date, quantum advantage has been demonstrated, for example, through violations of Bell inequalities and sampling-based quantum supremacy experiments. However, both forms of advantage come with important caveats: Bell tests are not computationally difficult tasks, and the classical hardness of sampling experiments relies on unproven complexity-theoretic assumptions. Here we demonstrate an unconditional quantum advantage in information resources required for a computational task, realized on Quantinuum's H1-1 trapped-ion quantum computer operating at a median two-qubit partial-entangler fidelity of 99.941(7)%. We construct a task for which the most space-efficient classical algorithm provably requires between 62 and 382 bits of memory, and solve it using only 12 qubits. Our result provides the most direct evidence yet that currently existing quantum processors can generate and manipulate entangled states of sufficient complexity to access the exponentiality of Hilbert space. This form of quantum advantage -- which we call quantum information supremacy -- represents a new benchmark in quantum computing, one that does not rely on unproven conjectures.
Quantum computing holds unparalleled potentials to enhance machine learning. However, a demonstration of quantum learning advantage has not been achieved so far. We make a step forward by rigorously establishing a noise-robust, unconditional quantum learning advantage in expressivity, inference speed, and training efficiency, compared to commonly-used classical models. Our proof is information-theoretic and pinpoints the origin of this advantage: entanglement can be used to reduce the communication required by non-local tasks. In particular, we design a task that can be solved with certainty by quantum models with a constant number of parameters using entanglement, whereas commonly-used classical models must scale linearly to achieve a larger-than-exponentially-small accuracy. We show that the quantum model is trainable with constant resources and robust against constant noise. Through numerical and trapped-ion experiments on IonQ Aria, we demonstrate the desired advantage. Our results provide valuable guidance for demonstrating quantum learning advantages with current noisy intermediate-scale devices.
Quantum computing promises the ability to compute properties of quantum systems exponentially faster than classical computers. Quantum advantage is achieved when a practical problem is solved more efficiently on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. Demonstrating quantum advantage requires a powerful quantum computer with low error rates and an efficient quantum algorithm that has a useful application. Despite rapid progress in hardware development, we still lack useful applications that are feasible for the next generation of quantum computers. Here we argue that an exponential quantum advantage exists in producing numerical resource estimates of larger quantum algorithms by accurately measuring simulation errors. We provide a quantum algorithm for measuring simulation errors of Trotter-based algorithms. Our results indicate that this method will reduce runtimes of quantum algorithms by approximately three orders of magnitude for one-hundred qubit systems. We also predict that these reductions will increase with system size. The methods we propose require relatively few qubits and operations, meaning the next generation of quantum computers could compute simulation errors for classically intractable systems. Since the underlying computations that lead to reduced resource estimates are infeasible for classical computers, this task is a candidate for demonstrating practical quantum advantage.
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!
Quantum supremacy refers to the experimental demonstration that a quantum computing device performs a calculation that no classical computer can match in a reasonable time. Such machines would not be useful for solving problems of practical interest, but they would provide a proof of principle that larger and more useful machines could be built. The gap between classical and quantum computing is potentially enormous, and the apparent ease with which quantum states can be prepared, manipulated, and measured has led many to believe that quantum devices might one day outperform classical hardware at solving a broad range of computational tasks. The most immediate goal of progress in quantum engineering is the construction of a device that passes the proofs of principle of quantum supremacy experiments. They would transform a state that can be initialized neutrally, evolve it under a controlled Hamiltonian, then sample from the output distribution. Such devices must possess sufficient connectivity and low noise but can be cared for by classical software. Their demonstration would mark a historic milestone in the development of quantum technology, providing intrigue and awe but little societal benefit. However, if they can be produced with sufficient fidelity and scale, there is hope that more generally applicable quantum engines might be constructed that could exploit the exponential speedup to outperform classical computers for problems of deep societal importance.
As Moore's law reaches its limits, quantum computers are emerging with the promise of dramatically outperforming classical computers. We have witnessed the advent of quantum processors with over 505050 quantum bits (qubits), which are expected to be beyond the reach of classical simulation. Quantum supremacy is the event at which the old Extended Church-Turing Thesis is overturned: A quantum computer performs a task that is practically impossible for any classical (super)computer. The demonstration requires both a solid theoretical guarantee and an experimental realization. The lead candidate is Random Circuit Sampling (RCS), which is the task of sampling from the output distribution of random quantum circuits. Google recently announced a 53−53-53−qubit experimental demonstration of RCS. Soon after, classical algorithms appeared that challenge the supremacy of random circuits by estimating their outputs. How hard is it to classically simulate the output of random quantum circuits? We prove that estimating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits is formidably hard (#P\#P#P-Hard) for any classical computer. This makes RCS the strongest candidate for demonstrating quantum supremacy relative to all other proposals. The robustness to the estimation error that we prove may serve as a new hardness criterion for the performance of classical algorithms. To achieve this, we introduce the Cayley path interpolation between any two gates of a quantum computation and convolve recent advances in quantum complexity and information with probability and random matrices. Furthermore, we apply algebraic geometry to generalize the well-known Berlekamp-Welch algorithm that is widely used in coding theory and cryptography. Our results imply that there is an exponential hardness barrier for the classical simulation of most quantum circuits.
Consider a fixed universe of N=2^{n} elements and the uniform distribution over elements of some subset of size K. Given samples from this distribution, the task of complement sampling is to provide a sample from the complementary subset. We give a simple quantum algorithm that uses only a single quantum sample-a single copy of the uniform superposition over elements of the subset. When K=N/2, we show that the quantum algorithm succeeds with probability 1, whereas any classical algorithm that succeeds with bounded probability of error requires a number of samples of the order of N. This shows that in a sample-to-sample setting, quantum computation can achieve the largest possible separation over classical computation. We show that the same bound can be lifted to prove average-case hardness, paving the way for demonstrations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers. It follows that under the assumption of the existence of one-way functions, complement sampling gives provable, verifiable and NISQable quantum advantage in a sample complexity setting.