Recently, a team of scientists from Google claims to have carried a computation on their noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computer which no regular computer can achieve. A feat that is sometimes referred as quantum supremacy. In the first part of this work, we explain their approach, their randomised circuit construction and the consequences of their work. Having achieved this milestone, the natural question becomes: what else can we do with a quantum computer? We answer this question in the second part of this work and give an overview of the most widely used quantum primitives. We will see how one can implement them using quantum circuits and how these primitive circuits are composed to create fast algorithms capable of solving commercially relevant problems like simulation of complicated quantum systems for chemistry and material science, Monte Carlo simulation, solving large systems of linear equations, or breaking widely used cryptography like RSA.
Recently, a team of scientists from Google claims to have carried a computation on their noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computer which no regular computer can achieve. A feat that is sometimes referred as quantum supremacy. In the first part of this work, we explain their approach, their randomised circuit construction and the consequences of their work. Having achieved this milestone, the natural question becomes: what else can we do with a quantum computer? We answer this question in the second part of this work and give an overview of the most widely used quantum primitives. We will see how one can implement them using quantum circuits and how these primitive circuits are composed to create fast algorithms capable of solving commercially relevant problems like simulation of complicated quantum systems for chemistry and material science, Monte Carlo simulation, solving large systems of linear equations, or breaking widely used cryptography like RSA.
In this research, we investigate the relationships between classical and quantum computing, and the superior time complexity and memory allocation proposed theoretically for quantum algorithms. This is accomplished by building quantum circuits to represent algorithms and test in a quantum computer simulation. Classical circuit components have been continually reducing in size to the point where they are now being impacted by quantum properties, resulting in the need to investigate quantum computing. The inherent parallelism of quantum computing also allows us to solve problems for which classical computers are inept. The class of intractable problems in computing where the solution can only be found through exhaustive search is where we observe quantum computing supremacy. It is important to explore and advance our knowledge of quantum computing so we are prepared for when it becomes a reality, and so that in the future our understanding of encryption is deepened and new quantum-proof methods can be developed. Although Google and IBM have developed physical quantum computers, there is still a large deficit in knowledge of how they may be utilized. There is also a gap between proposed superior quantum solutions and problems demonstrably solved using quantum algorithms. Among the problems classically considered intractable is one extremely relevant to cybersecurity, known as Shor’s algorithm, that being an efficient algorithm for integer factorization, breaks down our well-established methods of cryptography. The aim of this research is to show the differences and advantages of quantum computing, and to specifically demonstrate how we can use Shor’s algorithm in a quantum system.
This review paper provides an in-depth exploration of quantum computing and the algorithms that drive its potential. It begins by introducing quantum computers and explores various types of quantum computers, focusing on the most prominent architectures. This paper also explains the concept of qubits, highlighting their unique properties such as superposition and entanglement, which differentiate quantum systems from classical computing. It discusses the specific properties of quantum computers that make them particularly suited to solving certain classes of problems, such as optimization, cryptography, and simulation. Additionally, the paper provides a detailed overview of key quantum algorithms, including Shor’s algorithm for integer factorization, Grover’s algorithm for unstructured search, and the use of quantum simulation in modelling complex physical systems. Through this review, we aim to showcase the evolving landscape of quantum computing, its capabilities, and the algorithms driving its future impact across various fields.
The last five years have seen a dramatic evolution of platforms for quantum computing, taking the field from physics experiments to quantum hardware and software engineering. Nevertheless, despite this progress of quantum processors, the field is still in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) regime, seriously limiting the performance of software applications. Key issues involve how to achieve quantum advantage in useful applications for quantum optimization and materials science, connected to the concept of quantum supremacy first demonstrated by Google in 2019. In this article we will describe recent work to establish relevant benchmarks for quantum supremacy and quantum advantage, present recent work on applications of variational quantum algorithms for optimization and electronic structure determination, discuss how to achieve practical quantum advantage, and finally outline current work and ideas about how to scale up to competitive quantum systems.
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!
A paradigm shift in computation is being brought about by quantum computing, which uses the concepts of quantum mechanics to tackle problems that even the most powerful conventional supercomputers cannot solve. This review provides an in-depth overview of the field, covering everything from basic concepts to the cutting edge. The three fundamental building blocks of quantum processing—the qubit, superposition, and entanglement—are first described.These ideas enable quantum computers to concurrently explore large computational domains. After that, the paper examines the various physical implementations, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the top hardware platforms, such as neutral atoms, trapped ions, photonic systems, and superconducting circuits, in terms of coherence and scalability. Shor's method for integer factorization and Grover's algorithm for unstructured search are two examples of groundbreaking quantum algorithms that are highlighted for their potential to achieve exponential and quadratic speedups over their classical counterparts. We also examine how programming languages that bridge the gap between abstract algorithms and physical hardware are being developed, as well as the new quantum software stack. The paper also explores how quantum computing can revolutionize a number of fields, such as machine learning, materials research, medication development, and cryptography. subsequently, we discuss two of the biggest challenges impeding the development of large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers: the requirement for robust quantum error correction and decoherence. In the end, a view of the current period of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) and the path towards quantum advantage is presented. Researchers, students, and professionals looking for a comprehensive grasp of this quickly developing and revolutionary topic are expected to find this review to be an invaluable asset.
A universal fault-tolerant quantum computer that can solve efficiently problems such as integer factorization and unstructured database search requires millions of qubits with low error rates and long coherence times. While the experimental advancement towards realizing such devices will potentially take decades of research, noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers already exist. These computers are composed of hundreds of noisy qubits, i.e. qubits that are not error-corrected, and therefore perform imperfect operations in a limited coherence time. In the search for quantum advantage with these devices, algorithms have been proposed for applications in various disciplines spanning physics, machine learning, quantum chemistry and combinatorial optimization. The goal of such algorithms is to leverage the limited available resources to perform classically challenging tasks. In this review, we provide a thorough summary of NISQ computational paradigms and algorithms. We discuss the key structure of these algorithms, their limitations, and advantages. We additionally provide a comprehensive overview of various benchmarking and software tools useful for programming and testing NISQ devices.