Recent years have seen a flurry of activity in the fields of quantum computing and quantum complexity theory, which aim to understand the computational capabilities of quantum systems by applying the toolbox of computational complexity theory. This paper explores the conceptually rich and technologically useful connection between the dynamics of free quantum particles and complexity theory. I review results on the computational power of two simple quantum systems, built out of noninteracting bosons (linear optics) or noninteracting fermions. These rudimentary quantum computers display radically different capabilities—while free fermions are easy to simulate on a classical computer, and therefore devoid of nontrivial computational power, a free-boson computer can perform tasks expected to be classically intractable. To build the argument for these results, I introduce concepts from computational complexity theory. I describe some complexity classes, starting with P and NP and building up to the less common #P and polynomial hierarchy, and the relations between them. I identify how probabilities in free-bosonic and free-fermionic systems fit within this classification, which then underpins their difference in computational power. This paper is aimed at graduate or advanced undergraduate students with a Physics background, hopefully serving as a soft introduction to this exciting and highly evolving field.
Recent years have seen a flurry of activity in the fields of quantum computing and quantum complexity theory, which aim to understand the computational capabilities of quantum systems by applying the toolbox of computational complexity theory. This paper explores the conceptually rich and technologically useful connection between the dynamics of free quantum particles and complexity theory. I review results on the computational power of two simple quantum systems, built out of noninteracting bosons (linear optics) or noninteracting fermions. These rudimentary quantum computers display radically different capabilities—while free fermions are easy to simulate on a classical computer, and therefore devoid of nontrivial computational power, a free-boson computer can perform tasks expected to be classically intractable. To build the argument for these results, I introduce concepts from computational complexity theory. I describe some complexity classes, starting with P and NP and building up to the less common #P and polynomial hierarchy, and the relations between them. I identify how probabilities in free-bosonic and free-fermionic systems fit within this classification, which then underpins their difference in computational power. This paper is aimed at graduate or advanced undergraduate students with a Physics background, hopefully serving as a soft introduction to this exciting and highly evolving field.
We give new evidence that quantum computers -- moreover, rudimentary quantum computers built entirely out of linear-optical elements -- cannot be efficiently simulated by classical computers. In particular, we define a model of computation in which identical photons are generated, sent through a linear-optical network, then nonadaptively measured to count the number of photons in each mode. This model is not known or believed to be universal for quantum computation, and indeed, we discuss the prospects for realizing the model using current technology. On the other hand, we prove that the model is able to solve sampling problems and search problems that are classically intractable under plausible assumptions. Our first result says that, if there exists a polynomial-time classical algorithm that samples from the same probability distribution as a linear-optical network, then P^#P=BPP^NP, and hence the polynomial hierarchy collapses to the third level. Unfortunately, this result assumes an extremely accurate simulation. Our main result suggests that even an approximate or noisy classical simulation would already imply a collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. For this, we need two unproven conjectures: the "Permanent-of-Gaussians Conjecture", which says that it is #P-hard to approximate the permanent of a matrix A of independent N(0,1) Gaussian entries, with high probability over A; and the "Permanent Anti-Concentration Conjecture", which says that |Per(A)|>=sqrt(n!)/poly(n) with high probability over A. We present evidence for these conjectures, both of which seem interesting even apart from our application. This paper does not assume knowledge of quantum optics. Indeed, part of its goal is to develop the beautiful theory of noninteracting bosons underlying our model, and its connection to the permanent function, in a self-contained way accessible to theoretical computer scientists.
In the last few years, theoretical study of quantum systems serving as computational devices has achieved tremendous progress. We now have strong theoretical evidence that quantum computers, if built, might be used as a dramatically powerful computational tool. This review is about to tell the story of theoretical quantum computation. I left out the developing topic of experimental realizations of the model, and neglected other closely related topics which are quantum information and quantum communication. As a result of narrowing the scope of this paper, I hope it has gained the benefit of being an almost self contained introduction to the exciting field of quantum computation. The review begins with background on theoretical computer science, Turing machines and Boolean circuits. In light of these models, I define quantum computers, and discuss the issue of universal quantum gates. Quantum algorithms, including Shor's factorization algorithm and Grover's algorithm for searching databases, are explained. I will devote much attention to understanding what the origins of the quantum computational power are, and what the limits of this power are. Finally, I describe the recent theoretical results which show that quantum computers maintain their complexity power even in the presence of noise, inaccuracies and finite precision. I tried to put all results in their context, asking what the implications to other issues in computer science and physics are. In the end of this review I make these connections explicit, discussing the possible implications of quantum computation on fundamental physical questions, such as the transition from quantum to classical physics.
The central problem in computer science is the conjecture that two complexity classes, P (polynomial time) and NP (nondeterministic polynomial time-roughly those decision problems for which a proposed solution can be checked in polynomial time), are distinct in the standard Turing model of computation: P not equal NP. As a generality, we propose that each physical theory supports computational models whose power is limited by the physical theory. It is well known that classical physics supports a multitude of implementation of the Turing machine. Non-Abelian topological quantum field theories exhibit the mathematical features necessary to support a model capable of solving all #P problems, a computationally intractable class, in polynomial time. Specifically, Witten [Witten, E. (1989) Commun. Math. Phys. 121, 351-391] has identified expectation values in a certain SU(2)-field theory with values of the Jones polynomial [Jones, V. (1985) Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 12, 103-111] that are #P-hard [Jaeger, F., Vertigen, D. & Welsh, D. (1990) Math. Proc. Comb. Philos. Soc. 108, 35-53]. This suggests that some physical system whose effective Lagrangian contains a non-Abelian topological term might be manipulated to serve as an analog computer capable of solving NP or even #P-hard problems in polynomial time. Defining such a system and addressing the accuracy issues inherent in preparation and measurement is a major unsolved problem.
Abstract BosonSampling is a recent development in linear optics which has stimulated a number of new computational models and algorithms in quantum computing. Much of this interest follows from the computational complexity arguments which show that the particular quantum system in which BosonSampling resides is difficult to simulate with a classical computer (assuming highly plausible conjectures) Arkhipov and Aaronson (2011 Proc. ACM STOC (New York) , p 333). These arguments, however, require some understanding of both quantum optics and complexity theory—topics that are rarely seen together. This tutorial is intended to introduce a reader to the topic who has at least a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics or quantum information theory, but may be unfamiliar with either quantum optics or complexity theory. Included is some historic context as well as an outlook on the potential for BosonSampling to be the first experimental demonstration of quantum supremacy. The emphasis of the first section is to develop a general context for the subfields of quantum optics and computer science that intersect to form the BosonSampling problem. This begins with a historical introduction and a background of quantum optics. We then progress to the physical system—quantum optical networks—where BosonSampling is defined. Finally, we provide a short introduction to computational complexity theory to provide a structure where the essence behind the BosonSampling result can be discerned. The second section focuses on the BosonSampling result itself, seeking to understand the computational complexity aspects of passive linear optical networks, and what consequences this may have. Some effort is spent discussing a number of issues inherent in the BosonSampling problem that are roadblocks to limiting the scope of its applicability, but that have made progress recently and remain active topics of research. The third short section touches on the relationship between BosonSampling and other quantum computing protocols. Namely, other settings and architectures that inherit the same complexity as BosonSampling will be presented, as well as giving a summary of experimental efforts to implement BosonSampling . We discuss similarities between BosonSampling and other quantum algorithms. In the final section, some comments are presented considering future research related to the problems and protocols found in this tutorial. We suggest other unexplored directions of study which may have some bearing on the complexity of quantum optics. Also included is a glossary of complexity terms used throughout the tutorial.
Quantum computing involving physical systems with continuous degrees of freedom, such as the quantum states of light, has recently attracted significant interest. However, a well-defined quantum complexity theory for these bosonic computations over infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is missing. In this work, we lay foundations for such a research program. We introduce natural complexity classes and problems based on bosonic generalizations of BQP, the local Hamiltonian problem, and QMA. We uncover several relationships and subtle differences between standard Boolean classical and discrete variable quantum complexity classes and identify outstanding open problems. In particular: 1. We show that the power of quadratic (Gaussian) quantum dynamics is equivalent to the class BQL. More generally, we define classes of continuous-variable quantum polynomial time computations with a bounded probability of error based on higher-degree gates. Due to the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, it is not a priori clear whether a decidable upper bound can be obtained for these classes. We identify complete problems for these classes and demonstrate a BQP lower and EXPSPACE upper bound. We further show that the problem of computing expectation values of polynomial bosonic observables is in PSPACE. 2. We prove that the problem of deciding the boundedness of the spectrum of a bosonic Hamiltonian is co-NP-hard. Furthermore, we show that the problem of finding the minimum energy of a bosonic Hamiltonian critically depends on the non-Gaussian stellar rank of the family of energy-constrained states one optimizes over: for constant stellar rank, it is NP-complete; for polynomially-bounded rank, it is in QMA; for unbounded rank, it is undecidable.
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!