We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.
We have seen in the previous chapters that quantum computers seem to be more powerful than classical computers for certain problems. There are limits on the power of quantum computers, however. Since a classical computer can simulate a quantum computer, a quantum computer can only compute the same set of functions that a classical computer can. The advantage of using a quantum computer is that the amount of resources needed by a quantum algorithm might be much less than what is needed by the best classical algorithm. In Section 9.1 we briefly define some classical and quantum complexity classes and give some relationships between them. Most of the interesting questions relating classical and quantum complexity classes remain open. For example, we do not yet know if a quantum computer is capable of efficiently solving an NP-complete problem (defined later). One can prove upper bounds on the difficulty of a problem by providing an algorithm that solves that problem, and proving that it will work within in a given running time. But how does one prove a lower bound on the computational complexity of a problem? For example, if we wish to find the product of two n-bit numbers, computing the answer requires outputting roughly 2n bits and that requires Ω(n) steps (in any computing model with finite-sized gates). The best-known upper bound for integer multiplication is O(n log n log log n) steps. It has proved extremely difficult to derive non-trivial lower bounds on the computational complexity of a problem. Most of the known non-trivial lower bounds are in the ‘black-box’ model (for both classical and quantum computing), where we only query the input via a ‘black-box’ of a specific form. We discuss the black-box model in more detail in Section 9.2. We then sketch several approaches for proving black-box lower bounds. The first technique has been called the ‘hybrid method’ and was used to prove that quantum searching requires Ω(√n) queries to succeed with constant probability. The second technique is called the ‘polynomial method’. We then describe a technique based on ‘block sensitivity’, and conclude with a technique known as the ‘adversary method’.
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!
Quantum computation was proposed as an alternate computing process in the late-20th century, when classical computing models faced limitation in solving quantum mechanical problems. Major breakthroughs came in the 1990s, when quantum algorithms for integer factoring and black-box searching were invented that are faster than the best classical algorithms known even today. In this thesis, we look at quantum circuits with limited depth and size and analyse their power and limitations.
Computer Science is about the study of computational problems, many of which are motivated by real-world applications. We are interested as much in an actual method to solve a problem as in its unsolvability. In computational complexity theory we separate out the actual problem from the computing apparatus (e.g. a Turing machine, an AND-OR circuit) and analyse the hardness of the computation, due both to the intrinsic complexity of the problem and to the underlying model.
In this thesis, we consider quantum circuits built with a universal set of gates and show that non-constant depth is required to compute a particular function (parity) and other similar functions. The parity function, extensively studied previously, was shown to take non-constant depth for classical circuits too, thus providing an evidence of an inherent hardness in the function itself. On the other hand we show that the quantum circuit model is rich enough to build a universal circuit (one circuit that can simulate all circuits) that has roughly the same depth or size as the simulated circuit. We also consider a fault model in which some of the inputs to a gate might not be connected to the gate's output. We ask if we can detect the faulty inputs by testing the gate on different inputs. Our goal is to minimise the number of tests. We show that this is very hard for general gates but for certain gates it can be provably easier to detect faulty inputs. We even show that quantum algorithms can provably outperform classical algorithms for these gates. These results give us a sense of wherein lies the power of quantum computation and quantum circuits in particular.
The last decade witnessed a great surge of fruitful studies in the new paradigm of quantum computing. Remarkable progress has been made in all the areas including quantum algorithms, quantum complexity theory, quantum error-correcting code, quantum information theory, quantum cryptography and physical implementations of quantum computers. However, quantum algorithm design, probably the most important task in quantum computing, did not make as much progress as people expected. This thesis aims at both designing new quantum algorithms and studying why efficient quantum algorithms are so hard to design by proving many lower bounds on quantum query complexity for various problems.
We first review (and generalize) known techniques for designing quantum algorithms and for proving quantum lower bounds. Using these techniques, we then study the quantum query complexity for many problems, including some specific problems such as Graph Matching and other natural graph properties, the general tuple search, and local search. We also study the lowest possible quantum query complexity for a class of functions as a whole, such as graph properties, circular functions, and functions invariant of a transitive permutation group, where tight results are given in all these cases.
Finally for the quantum lower bounds techniques themselves, we study the main two techniques and show that they are incomparable in power. For the most widely used one, which has a lot of parameters to choose, we show limitations for it in terms of certificate complexity. This implies that we cannot use the method to prove better lower bounds for almost all known open problems in this area.
We examine the number of queries to input variables that a quantum algorithm requires to compute Boolean functions on {0,1} N in the black-box model. We show that the exponential quantum speed-up obtained for partial functions (i.e., problems involving a promise on the input) by Deutsch and Jozsa, Simon, and Shor cannot be obtained for any total function: if a quantum algorithm computes some total Boolean function f with small error probability using T black-box queries, then there is a classical deterministic algorithm that computes f exactly with O ( Ts 6 ) queries. We also give asymptotically tight characterizations of T for all symmetric f in the exact, zero-error, and bounded-error settings. Finally, we give new precise bounds for AND, OR, and PARITY. Our results are a quantum extension of the so-called polynomial method, which has been successfully applied in classical complexity theory, and also a quantum extension of results by Nisan about a polynomial relationship between randomized and deterministic decision tree complexity.
Classical computer simulations of quantum systems are not efficient-well-known examples range from the Hubbard model to lattice QCD-and Feynman argued that quantum simulations would do far better [1].The essence of the argument is that quantum simulations sum multiple evolutionary paths (in superposition) contributing to a quantum process at one go, while classical simulations evaluate these paths one by one.Formalisation of this advantage for simulating physical Hamiltonians, in terms of computational complexity, has improved over the years step by step [2,3,4,5,6].Here, treating Grover's quantum search algorithm as a Hamiltonian evolution problem, we expose the physical reasons behind the improvement in computational complexity.Computational complexity of a problem is a measure of the resources needed to solve it.Conventionally, the computational complexity of a decision problem is specified in terms of the size of its input, noting that the size of its output is only one bit.Problems with different output requirements are reduced to a sequence of decision problems, with gradually narrowing bounds on the output adding one bit of precision for every decision made.In such a scenario, the number of decision problems solved equals the number of output bits, and it is appropriate to specify the complexity of the original problem in terms of the size of its input as well as its output.Generalising the conventional classification, the computational algorithm then can be labeled efficient if the required resources are polynomial in terms of the size of both its input and its output.Popular importance sampling methods are not efficient according to our criterion, because the number of iterations needed in the computational effort has a negative power-law dependence on the precision ε (i.e.N iter ∝ ε -2 as per the central limit theorem).On the other hand, finding zeroes of a function by bisection is efficient (i.e.N iter ∝ log ε), and finding them by Newton's method is super-efficient (i.e.N iter ∝ log log ε). PoS(LATTICE2014)324 Optimisation of Quantum Evolution AlgorithmsApoorva Patel