We first show that under SETH and its variant, strong and weak classical simulations of quantum computing are impossible in certain double-exponential time of the circuit depth. We next show that under Orthogonal Vectors, 3-SUM, and their variants, strong and weak classical simulations of quantum computing are impossible in certain exponential time of the number of qubits.
We first show that under SETH and its variant, strong and weak classical simulations of quantum computing are impossible in certain double-exponential time of the circuit depth. We next show that under Orthogonal Vectors, 3-SUM, and their variants, strong and weak classical simulations of quantum computing are impossible in certain exponential time of the number of qubits.
Fine-grained quantum supremacy is a study of proving (nearly) tight time lower bounds for classical simulations of quantum computing under "fine-grained complexity" assumptions. We show that under conjectures on Orthogonal Vectors (OV), 3-SUM, All-Pairs Shortest Paths (APSP) and their variants, strong and weak classical simulations of quantum computing are impossible in certain exponential time with respect to the number of qubits. Those conjectures are widely used in classical fine-grained complexity theory in which polynomial time hardness is conjectured. All previous results of fine-grained quantum supremacy are based on ETH, SETH, or their variants that are conjectures for SAT in which exponential time hardness is conjectured. We show that there exist quantum circuits which cannot be classically simulated in certain exponential time with respect to the number of qubits first by considering a Quantum Random Access Memory (QRAM) based quantum computing model and next by considering a non-QRAM model quantum computation. In the case of the QRAM model, the size of quantum circuits is linear with respect to the number of qubits and in the case of the non-QRAM model, the size of the quantum circuits is exponential with respect to the number of qubits but the results are still non-trivial.
The local Hamiltonian (LH) problem is the canonical QMA-complete problem introduced by Kitaev. In this paper, we show its hardness in a very strong sense: we show that the 3-local Hamiltonian problem on n qubits cannot be solved classically in time O(2(1−ε)n) for any ε>0 under the Strong Exponential-Time Hypothesis (SETH), and cannot be solved quantumly in time O(2(1−ε)n/2) for any ε>0 under the Quantum Strong Exponential-Time Hypothesis (QSETH). These lower bounds give evidence that the currently known classical and quantum algorithms for LH cannot be significantly improved.
Furthermore, we are able to demonstrate fine-grained complexity lower bounds for approximating the quantum partition function (QPF) with an arbitrary constant relative error. Approximating QPF with relative error is known to be equivalent to approximately counting the dimension of the solution subspace of QMA problems. We show the SETH and QSETH hardness to estimate QPF with constant relative error. We then provide a quantum algorithm that runs in O(2n) time for an arbitrary 1/poly(n) relative error, matching our lower bounds and improving the state-of-the-art algorithm by Bravyi, Chowdhury, Gosset, and Wocjan (Nature Physics 2022) in the low-temperature regime.
To prove our fine-grained lower bounds, we introduce the first size-preserving circuit-to-Hamiltonian construction that encodes the computation of a T-time quantum circuit acting on N qubits into a (d+1)-local Hamiltonian acting on N+O(T1/d) qubits. This improves the standard construction based on the unary clock, which uses N+O(T) qubits.
It is known that several sub-universal quantum computing models, such as the IQP model, the Boson sampling model, the one-clean qubit model, and the random circuit model, cannot be classically simulated in polynomial time under certain conjectures in classical complexity theory. Recently, these results have been improved to ``fine-grained" versions where even exponential-time classical simulations are excluded assuming certain classical fine-grained complexity conjectures. All these fine-grained results are, however, about the hardness of strong simulations or multiplicative-error sampling. It was open whether any fine-grained quantum supremacy result can be shown for a more realistic setup, namely, additive-error sampling. In this paper, we show the additive-error fine-grained quantum supremacy (under certain complexity assumptions). As examples, we consider the IQP model, a mixture of the IQP model and log-depth Boolean circuits, and Clifford+ T circuits. Similar results should hold for other sub-universal models.
Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c n time steps, where c ∈ { a , b } . A third conjecture poly3-ave-SBSETH( a ′ ) asserts a similar statement about average-case algorithms living in the exponential-time version of the complexity class S B P . We analyze evidence for these conjectures and argue that they are plausible when a = 1 / 2 , b = 0.999 and a ′ = 1 / 2 .Imposing poly3-NSETH(1/2) and per-int-NSETH(0.999), and assuming that the runtime of a hypothetical quantum circuit simulation algorithm would scale linearly with the number of gates/constraints/optical elements, we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits and 500 gates, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and 500 constraints and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons and 500 optical elements are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. Imposing poly3-ave-SBSETH(1/2), we additionally rule out simulations with constant additive error for IQP and QAOA circuits of the same size. Without the assumption of linearly increasing simulation time, we can make analogous statements for circuits with slightly fewer qubits but requiring 10 4 to 10 7 gates.
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!
With the rapid progress made by industry and academia, quantum computers with dozens of qubits or even larger size are being realized. However, the fidelity of existing quantum computers often sharply decreases as the circuit depth increases. Thus, an ideal quantum circuit simulator on classical computers, especially on high-performance computers, is needed for benchmarking and validation. We design a large-scale simulator of universal random quantum circuits, often called “quantum supremacy circuits”, and implement it on Sunway TaihuLight. The simulator can be used to accomplish the following two tasks: 1) Computing a complete output state-vector; 2) Calculating one or a few amplitudes. We target the simulation of 49-qubit circuits. For task 1), we successfully simulate such a circuit of depth 39, and for task 2) we reach the 55-depth level. To the best of our knowledge, both of the simulation results reach the largest depth for 49-qubit quantum supremacy circuits.