A challenging question in the overlap of computer science, mathematics, and physics, is the exploration of potential capabilities of quantum computers. Milestones were the factoring algorithm of Shor (1994) and the search algorithm of Grover (1996). So far, major research was concentrated on discrete and algebraic problems. Much less was known about computational problems of analysis, including such a prominent example as high dimensional numerical integration, which is well-studied in the classical settings. We seek to understand how efficiently this and related problems can be solved in the quantum model of computation (i.e., on a quantum computer) and how the outcome compares to the efficiency of deterministic or randomized algorithms on a classical (i.e. non-quantum) computer. In this paper we give a survey of the state of the art in this field, including also a brief introduction to the general ideas of quantum computing. Introduction A quantum computer is a computing device based on quantum mechanical laws of the (sub)atomic world. The idea of such a computer was developed by Feynman [8] in 1982. He emphasized that simulating quantum mechanics on a classical computer is extremely hard, probably infeasible. So why not try to simulate quantum mechanics using quantum devices themselves. (Thoughts in this direction were also expressed by Manin [21] in 1980, see also [22].) In 1985 Deutsch [6] presented a formal model of computation for quantum computing.
A challenging question in the overlap of computer science, mathematics, and physics, is the exploration of potential capabilities of quantum computers. Milestones were the factoring algorithm of Shor (1994) and the search algorithm of Grover (1996). So far, major research was concentrated on discrete and algebraic problems. Much less was known about computational problems of analysis, including such a prominent example as high dimensional numerical integration, which is well-studied in the classical settings. We seek to understand how efficiently this and related problems can be solved in the quantum model of computation (i.e., on a quantum computer) and how the outcome compares to the efficiency of deterministic or randomized algorithms on a classical (i.e. non-quantum) computer. In this paper we give a survey of the state of the art in this field, including also a brief introduction to the general ideas of quantum computing. Introduction A quantum computer is a computing device based on quantum mechanical laws of the (sub)atomic world. The idea of such a computer was developed by Feynman [8] in 1982. He emphasized that simulating quantum mechanics on a classical computer is extremely hard, probably infeasible. So why not try to simulate quantum mechanics using quantum devices themselves. (Thoughts in this direction were also expressed by Manin [21] in 1980, see also [22].) In 1985 Deutsch [6] presented a formal model of computation for quantum computing.
We give a short introduction to quantum computing and its relation to numerical analysis. We survey recent research on quantum algorithms and quantum complexity theory for two basic numerical problems – high dimensional integration and approximation. Having matching upper and lower complexity bounds for the quantum setting, we are in a position to compare them with those for the classical deterministic and randomized setting, previously obtained in information-based complexity theory. This enables us to assess the possible speedups quantum computation could provide over classical deterministic or randomized algorithms for these numerical problems.
The rapid evolution of computers in the half century since their invention has resulted in dramatically smaller and faster computers. However, from a computational point of view, all these computers look alike; for example, they are built out of simple logic gates. A fundamental thesis of computer science---the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis---asserts that this is inevitable in a deep sense. Any computer can be simulated with at most a polynomial factor slowdown by a probabilistic Turing machine. Quantum computation poses the first credible challenge to this thesis. It goes back to a suggestion by Feynman [4], who pointed out that there appears to be no efficient way of simulating a quantum mechanical system on a computer, and suggested that, perhaps, a computer based on quantum physical principles might be able to carry out the simulation efficiently. Two formal models for quantum computers---the quantum Turing machine [2] and quantum computational networks [3]---were defined by Deutsch. The first three papers in this issue describe efficient quantum algorithms for computational tasks that we do not know how to solve classically. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani give the first formal evidence that quantum computers violate the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis. They show that a certain problem---the recursive Fourier sampling problem---can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but relative to an oracle, requires superpolynomial time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. Simon, in the paper "On the Power of Quantum Computation" introduces a fundamental projection technique and uses it to design an efficient quantum algorithm to determine whether a certain type of function is 2-1 or 1-1. He further shows that, relative to an oracle, this problem requires exponential time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. In the paper "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer," Shor gives remarkable polynomial time quantum algorithms for two of the most famous problems in computer science: factoring and discrete log. Since the computational hardness of these problems is the basis of several famous cryptosystems, Shor's paper very dramatically underlines the power of quantum computers. To understand the computational power of quantum computers, it is helpful to consider a quantum mechanical system of n particles, each of which can be in one of two states, labeled ∣0⟩ and ∣1⟩. If this were a classical system, then its instantaneous state could be described by n bits. However, in quantum physics, the system is allowed to be in a linear superposition of configurations, and indeed the instantaneous state of the system is described by a unit vector in the 2n dimensional vector space, whose basis vectors correspond to all the2n classical configurations. Therefore, to describe the instantaneous state of the system, we must specify 2n complex numbers. Nature must update 2n complex numbers at each instant to evolve the system in time. This is an extraordinary amount of effort, since even for n = 200, 2n is larger than estimates of the number of elementary particles in the visible universe. Nonetheless, there are limits to the power of quantum computers. In "Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing," Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani show that, relative to a random oracle, with probability 1, the class NP cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine in time o(2n/2). This bound is tight, since recent work of Grover [5] has shown how to accept any language in NP in time O(2n/2) on a quantum Turing machine. Quantum computers are necessarily time reversible. Indeed, Bennett's work [1] on reversible computation inspired early work on quantum computation that preceded Feynman's paper [4]. The reversibility requirement makes it quite complex to implement even basic computational primitives such as looping or composition. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani show how to implement quantum programming primitives and give a construction for an efficient universal quantum Turing machine. The structure of the universal quantum Turing machine is quite simple: it consists of a deterministic Turing machine with a single "quantum coin flip." In "Quantum Computability," Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang greatly simplify this further by showing that a very simple type of coin flip is sufficient---a rotation by an angle θ such that sinθ=3/5. Making quantum computers robust against noise and decoherence is an important and challenging problem. In "Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization," Barenco, Berthiaume, Deutsch, Ekert, Jozsa, and Macchiavello show how to use the quantum watchdog effect to stabilize a quantum computation against noise. Their method is based on running several copies of the quantum computer in parallel and projecting its state into the symmetric subspace at frequent intervals. They show that the quantum watchdog effect results in the suppression of errors that lie outside the symmetric subspace. Quantum computation touches upon the foundations of both computer science and quantum physics. It is not unlikely that the issues raised by quantum computation will stimulate further research into the foundations of quantum physics. I wish to express my gratitude to several people who made this special section possible. Oded Goldreich acted as editor for two of the papers in the issue and dealt with them with his characteristic efficiency and judgment. The editorial staff at SIAM, most notably Lisa Dougherty, Beth Gallagher, Deidre Wunderlich, and Sam Young, were extremely helpful, patient, and resourceful. Finally, I would like to thank a number of referees whose careful and timely reviews were critical to putting together this issue. Umesh Vazirani
Why quantum computing? As we all know very well, conventional (electronic) computers have enormous power which, moreover, is constantly increasing. With their help gigantic quantities of data can be handled and evaluated. This is of crucial importance, for instance, in modern high energy physics experiments. On the other hand, computers can be used to model very complex systems with the aim of predicting, for example, future developments in our environment, notably climatic changes. Thanks to their incredible speed computers are, of course, destined to treat mathematical problems for which specific algorithms exist very efficiently. To mention a simple example, the digits of π are readily evaluated up to a very high order. Last, but not least, their potential to solve differential equations numerically, even when they are nonlinear, makes computers indispensable in modern research. So, one might ask, is there any reason to look for fundamentally new ways of computing as they are seemingly offered by quantum processes? What advantages can be expected when the laws of quantum mechanics, rather than those of classical physics, are exploited for computation? Two answers were given: first, the simulation of complex quantum systems on classical computers meets serious difficulties that might be overcome with the help of quantum computers. This idea was suggested in 1982 by R. Feynman, and in the 1990s it was indeed shown by several groups of researchers that quantum mechanical systems for which no efficient simulation on a classical computer is known can be efficiently simulated on a quantum computer.
Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Science seem very promising and developing rapidly since its inception in early 1980s by Paul Benioff with the proposal of quantum mechanical model of the Turing machine and later By Richard Feynman and Yuri Manin for the proposal of a quantum computers for simulating various problems that classical computer could not. Quantum computers have a computational advantage for some problems, over classical computers and most applications are trying to use an efficient combination of classical and quantum computers like Shor’s factoring algorithm. Other areas that are expected to be benefitted from quantum computing are Machine Learning and deep learning, molecular biology, genomics and cancer research, space exploration, atomic and nuclear research and macro-economic forecasting. This paper represents a brief overview of the state of art of quantum computing and quantum information science with discussions of various theoretical and experimental aspects adopted by the researchers.
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!
We are now ready to assemble quantum subroutines into quantum algorithms. A reasonable first question is: Are there problems which can be solved efficiently on a quantum computer? In his analysis of a universal quantum computer [25], Deutsch illustrated quantum parallelism by constructing a procedure to compute the parity f (0) ⊕ f (1) of a function on one bit. In a generalization of this context, Deutsch and Jozsa [27] defined a quantum algorithm that could solve a problem more efficiently than is possible on a classical computer. This problem helped motivate the search for algorithms that could solve “real” problems, and Simon [67] provided an example that inspired Shor’s subsequent work on the factoring problem and on the discrete logarithm problem. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.