It is widely believed that quantum computation has the potential to offer an ex- ponential speedup over classical devices. However, there is currently no definitive proof of this separation in computational power. Such a separation would in turn imply that quantum circuits cannot be efficiently simulated classically. However, it is well known that certain classes of quantum computations nonetheless admit an efficient classical description. Recent work has also argued that efficient classical simulation of quantum circuits would imply the collapse of the Polynomial Hierarchy, something which is commonly invoked in clas- sical complexity theory as a no-go theorem. This suggests a route for studying this ‘quantum advantage’ through classical simulations. This project looks at the problem of classically simulating quantum circuits through decompositions into stabilizer circuits. These are a restricted class of quantum computation which can be efficiently simulated classically. In this picture, the rank of the decomposition determines the temporal and spatial complexity of the simulation. We approach the problem by considering classical simulations of stabilizer circuits, introducing two new representations with novel features compared to previous meth- ods. We then examine techniques for building these so-called ‘stabilizer rank’ decom- positions, both exact and approximate. Finally, we combine these two ingredients to introduce an improved method for classically simulating broad classes of circuits using the stabilizer rank method.
It is widely believed that quantum computation has the potential to offer an ex- ponential speedup over classical devices. However, there is currently no definitive proof of this separation in computational power. Such a separation would in turn imply that quantum circuits cannot be efficiently simulated classically. However, it is well known that certain classes of quantum computations nonetheless admit an efficient classical description. Recent work has also argued that efficient classical simulation of quantum circuits would imply the collapse of the Polynomial Hierarchy, something which is commonly invoked in clas- sical complexity theory as a no-go theorem. This suggests a route for studying this ‘quantum advantage’ through classical simulations. This project looks at the problem of classically simulating quantum circuits through decompositions into stabilizer circuits. These are a restricted class of quantum computation which can be efficiently simulated classically. In this picture, the rank of the decomposition determines the temporal and spatial complexity of the simulation. We approach the problem by considering classical simulations of stabilizer circuits, introducing two new representations with novel features compared to previous meth- ods. We then examine techniques for building these so-called ‘stabilizer rank’ decom- positions, both exact and approximate. Finally, we combine these two ingredients to introduce an improved method for classically simulating broad classes of circuits using the stabilizer rank method.
One of the state of the art techniques for classically simulating quantum circuits relies on approximating the output state of the circuit by a superposition of stabilizer states. \nIf the number of non-Clifford gates in the circuit is small, such simulations can be very effective. \nThis thesis provides various improvements in this framework. First, we describe an improved method of computing approximate stabilizer decompositions, which reduces the time cost of computing a single term in the decomposition from O(elln2) to O(mn2), where ell is the total number of gates in the circuit, and m is the number of non-Clifford gates. \nSince this subroutine has to be repeated exponentially many times, this improvement can be significant in practice whenever ellggm. \nOur method uses a certain re-writing of the circuit, which in some cases allows for a significant amelioration of the exponential scaling of the required classical resources. \n \nFurthermore, we describe a method of constructing exact, low-rank stabilizer decompositions of ketpsiotimesm, where ketpsi is either a magic state or an equatorial state. \nFor any single qubit magic state ketpsi, we find stabilizer decompositions of ketpsiotimesm with 2mlog2(3)/4 terms. This improves on the best known bound of 2mlog2(7)/6. \nSimilarly, for any single qubit equatorial state ketpsi, we give a stabilizer decomposition of ketpsiotimesm with 2m/2 terms. \nTo our knowledge no such decompositions were previously known. \nThese results translate to milder exponential scaling of the classical resources required for estimating probabilities of quantum circuits up to a polynomially small multiplicative error, as well as allowing more types of circuits to be simulated in this way. \n \nWe also consider certain obstructions to classical simulations. \nIt has been argued in various contexts that contextuality and non-locality hamper classical simulations of quantum circuits. \nLinear constraint systems (LCSs) are a generalization of the well-known Peres-Mermin magic square, which has been recently used to prove a separation between the power of constant depth classical and quantum circuits. \n \nWhile binary LCSs have been studied in detail, d-ary LCSs are less well-understood. In this thesis we consider linear constraint systems modulo d>2. We give a simple proof, of the previously known fact, that any linear constraint system which admits a quantum solution consisting of generalized Pauli observables in odd dimension must be classically satisfiable. We further prove that, for odd d, if a Pauli-like commutation relation between two variables in the LCS arises, then it has no quantum solutions in any dimensions, in stark contrast to the even d case. We apply this result to various examples, for instance showing that many generalizations of the Peres-Mermin magic square do not give rise to a quantum vs. classical satisfiability gap.
Recent work has explored using the stabilizer formalism to classically simulate quantum circuits containing a few non-Clifford gates. The computational cost of such methods is directly related to the notion of s t a b i l i z e r rank , which for a pure state ψ is defined to be the smallest integer χ such that ψ is a superposition of χ stabilizer states. Here we develop a comprehensive mathematical theory of the stabilizer rank and the related approximate stabilizer rank. We also present a suite of classical simulation algorithms with broader applicability and significantly improved performance over the previous state-of-the-art. A new feature is the capability to simulate circuits composed of Clifford gates and arbitrary diagonal gates, extending the reach of a previous algorithm specialized to the Clifford+T gate set. We implemented the new simulation methods and used them to simulate quantum algorithms with 40-50 qubits and over 60 non-Clifford gates, without resorting to high-performance computers. We report a simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm in which we process superpositions of χ ∼ 10 6 stabilizer states and sample from the full n -bit output distribution, improving on previous simulations which used ∼ 10 3 stabilizer states and sampled only from single-qubit marginals. We also simulated instances of the Hidden Shift algorithm with circuits including up to 64 T gates or 16 CCZ gates; these simulations showcase the performance gains available by optimizing the decomposition of a circuit's non-Clifford components.
Recent work has explored using the stabilizer formalism to classically simulate quantum circuits containing a few non-Clifford gates. The computational cost of such methods is directly related to the notion of \ns\nt\na\nb\ni\nl\ni\nz\ne\nr\n \nrank\n, which for a pure state \nψ\n is defined to be the smallest integer \nχ\n such that \nψ\n is a superposition of \nχ\n stabilizer states. Here we develop a comprehensive mathematical theory of the stabilizer rank and the related approximate stabilizer rank. We also present a suite of classical simulation algorithms with broader applicability and significantly improved performance over the previous state-of-the-art. A new feature is the capability to simulate circuits composed of Clifford gates and arbitrary diagonal gates, extending the reach of a previous algorithm specialized to the Clifford+T gate set. We implemented the new simulation methods and used them to simulate quantum algorithms with 40-50 qubits and over 60 non-Clifford gates, without resorting to high-performance computers. We report a simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm in which we process superpositions of \nχ\n∼\n10\n6\n stabilizer states and sample from the full \nn\n-bit output distribution, improving on previous simulations which used \n∼\n10\n3\n stabilizer states and sampled only from single-qubit marginals. We also simulated instances of the Hidden Shift algorithm with circuits including up to 64 \nT\n gates or 16 CCZ gates; these simulations showcase the performance gains available by optimizing the decomposition of a circuit's non-Clifford components.
One of the core research questions in the theory of quantum computing is to find out to what precise extent the classical simulation of a noisy quantum circuits is possible and where potential quantum advantages can set in. In this work, we introduce a unified framework for the classical simulation of quantum circuits based on frame theory, encompassing and generalizing a broad class of existing simulation strategies. Within this framework, the computational cost of a simulation algorithm is determined by the one-norm of an associated quasi-probability distribution, providing a common quantitative measure across different simulation approaches. This enables a comprehensive perspective on common methods for the simulation of noisy circuits based on different quantum resources, such as entanglement or non-stabilizerness. It further provides a clear scheme for generating novel classical simulation algorithms. Indeed, by exploring different choices of frames within this formalism and resorting to tools of convex optimization, we are able not only to obtain new insights and improved bounds for existing methods -- such as stabilizer state simulation or Pauli back-propagation -- but also to discover a new approach with an improved performance based on a generalization of the Pauli frame. We, thereby, show that classical simulation techniques can directly benefit from a perspective -- that of frames -- that goes beyond the traditional classification of quantum resources.
Extended Clifford circuits straddle the boundary between classical and quantum computational power. Whether such circuits are efficiently classically simulable seems to depend delicately on the ingredients of the circuits. While some combinations of ingredients lead to efficiently classically simulable circuits, other combinations, which might just be slightly different, lead to circuits which are likely not. We extend the results of Jozsa and Van den Nest [Quant. Info. Comput. 14, 633 (2014)] by studying two further extensions of Clifford circuits. First, we consider how the classical simulation complexity changes when we allow for more general measurements. Second, we investigate different notions of what it means to ‘classically simulate’ a quantum circuit. These further extensions give us 24 new combinations of ingredients compared to Jozsa and Van den Nest, and we give a complete classification of their classical simulation complexities. Our results provide more examples where seemingly modest changes to the ingredients of Clifford circuits lead to “large” changes in the classical simulation complexities of the circuits, and also include new examples of extended Clifford circuits that exhibit “quantum supremacy”, in the sense that it is not possible to efficiently classically sample from the output distributions of such circuits, unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses.
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!