On Counterfactual Computation

Onur Hosten, Matthew T. Rakher, Julio T. Barreiro +2 more

Mitchison and Jozsa recently suggested that the "chained-Zeno" counterfactual computation protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual for only one output of the computer. This claim was based on the existing abstract algebraic definition of counterfactual computation, and indeed according to this definition, their argument is correct. However, a more general definition (physically adequate) for counterfactual computation is implicitly assumed by Hosten et. al. Here we explain in detail why the protocol is counterfactual and how the "history tracking" method of the existing description inadequately represents the physics underlying the protocol. Consequently, we propose a modified definition of counterfactual computation. Finally, we comment on one of the most interesting aspects of the error-correcting protocol.

Fei Kong, Chenyong Ju, Pu Huang +5 more

Counterfactual computation (CFC) exemplifies the fascinating quantum process by which the result of a computation may be learned without actually running the computer. In previous experimental studies, the counterfactual efficiency is limited to below 50%. Here we report an experimental realization of the generalized CFC protocol, in which the counterfactual efficiency can break the 50% limit and even approach unity in principle. The experiment is performed with the spins of a negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy color center in diamond. Taking advantage of the quantum Zeno effect, the computer can remain in the not-running subspace due to the frequent projection by the environment, while the computation result can be revealed by final detection. The counterfactual efficiency up to 85% has been demonstrated in our experiment, which opens the possibility of many exciting applications of CFC, such as high-efficiency quantum integration and imaging.

Gregory J. Chaitin

Sven Laur, Helger Lipmaa

Graeme Mitchison, Richard Jozsa

We show that the protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. does not allow all possible results of a computation to be obtained counterfactually, as was claimed. It only gives a counterfactual outcome for one of the computer outputs. However, we confirm the observation that the protocol gives some protection against decoherence. In some situations, though, it may be more effective simply to run the computer several times.