In this thesis we address the question, what is the resource, or property, that enables the advantage of quantum computers?The theory of quantum computers dates back to the eighties, so one would think there already is an answer to this question.There are several proposed solutions, but to this date, there is no consensus on an answer.Primarily, the advantage of quantum computers is characterized by a speedup for certain computational problems.This speedup is measured by comparing quantum algorithms with the bestknown classical algorithms.For some algorithms we assume access to an object called oracle.The oracle computes a function, and the complexity of the oracle is of no concern.Instead, we count the number of queries to the oracle needed to solve the problem.Informally, the question we ask using an oracle is: if we can compute this function efficiently, what else could we then compute.However, using oracles while measuring a quantum speedup, we assume access to vastly different oracles residing in different models of computation.For our investigation of the speedup, we introduce a classical simulation framework that imitates quantum algorithms.The simulation suggests that the property enabling the potential quantum speedup is the ability to store, process, and retrieve information in an additional degree of freedom.We then theoretically verified that this is true for all problems that can be efficiently solved with a quantum computer.In parallel to this, we also see that quantum oracles sharply specify the information we can retrieve from the additional degree of freedom, while regular oracles do not.A regular oracle does not even allow for an extra degree of freedom.We conclude that comparing quantum with classical oracle query complexity bounds does not provide conclusive evidence for a quantum advantage.I want to thank Jan-Åke Larsson, without whom this research would not have been possible.If there is any magic in the world, it shows through Jan-Åke's ability to simultaneously be a good supervisor, colleague, and friend.I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Peter Jonsson, for many valuable discussions -not only restricted to theoretical computer science.To my friends and collogues that have challenged me to become better, especially Jonathan Jogenfors
In this thesis we address the question, what is the resource, or property, that enables the advantage of quantum computers?The theory of quantum computers dates back to the eighties, so one would think there already is an answer to this question.There are several proposed solutions, but to this date, there is no consensus on an answer.Primarily, the advantage of quantum computers is characterized by a speedup for certain computational problems.This speedup is measured by comparing quantum algorithms with the bestknown classical algorithms.For some algorithms we assume access to an object called oracle.The oracle computes a function, and the complexity of the oracle is of no concern.Instead, we count the number of queries to the oracle needed to solve the problem.Informally, the question we ask using an oracle is: if we can compute this function efficiently, what else could we then compute.However, using oracles while measuring a quantum speedup, we assume access to vastly different oracles residing in different models of computation.For our investigation of the speedup, we introduce a classical simulation framework that imitates quantum algorithms.The simulation suggests that the property enabling the potential quantum speedup is the ability to store, process, and retrieve information in an additional degree of freedom.We then theoretically verified that this is true for all problems that can be efficiently solved with a quantum computer.In parallel to this, we also see that quantum oracles sharply specify the information we can retrieve from the additional degree of freedom, while regular oracles do not.A regular oracle does not even allow for an extra degree of freedom.We conclude that comparing quantum with classical oracle query complexity bounds does not provide conclusive evidence for a quantum advantage.I want to thank Jan-Åke Larsson, without whom this research would not have been possible.If there is any magic in the world, it shows through Jan-Åke's ability to simultaneously be a good supervisor, colleague, and friend.I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Peter Jonsson, for many valuable discussions -not only restricted to theoretical computer science.To my friends and collogues that have challenged me to become better, especially Jonathan Jogenfors
Abstract This guide is based on the IBM Quantum course Fundamentals of Quantum Algorithms and explores the computational advantages enabled by quantum information. The focus is on what can be achieved using a single quantum computer, rather than distributed quantum systems. The primary objective of the course is to analyze how quantum computation can outperform classical computation in specific problem classes. In particular, the material examines quantum query algorithms, which provide a structured framework for understanding quantum speedups. Key themes include: The conceptual foundations of quantum computational advantage. The role of superposition, interference, and entanglement in algorithm design. Query complexity and how quantum algorithms reduce the number of required oracle calls compared to classical approaches. Foundational algorithms that demonstrate provable quantum speedups. The central guiding question is: What advantages can a quantum computer potentially offer over a classical computer? Through hands-on experimentation on IBM Q, the work connects theoretical analysis with practical implementation, enabling deeper insight into how quantum resources translate into measurable computational gains.
Query complexity is a common tool for comparing quantum and classical computation, and it has produced many examples of how quantum algorithms differ from classical ones. Here we investigate in detail the role that oracles play for the advantage of quantum algorithms. We do so by using a simulation framework, Quantum Simulation Logic (QSL), to construct oracles and algorithms that solve some problems with the same success probability and number of queries as the quantum algorithms. The framework can be simulated using only classical resources at a constant overhead as compared to the quantum resources used in quantum computation. Our results clarify the assumptions made and the conditions needed when using quantum oracles. Using the same assumptions on oracles within the simulation framework we show that for some specific algorithms, such as the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon's algorithms, there simply is no advantage in terms of query complexity. This does not detract from the fact that quantum query complexity provides examples of how a quantum computer can be expected to behave, which in turn has proved useful for finding new quantum algorithms outside of the oracle paradigm, where the most prominent example is Shor's algorithm for integer factorization.
Abstract This guide is based on the IBM Quantum course Quantum Algorithmic Foundations and addresses a central question in quantum computation: Do quantum algorithms offer provable advantages beyond the oracle (black-box) query model, in more standard computational settings where inputs are given explicitly? Answering this question requires building a rigorous theoretical foundation. The course begins with a detailed discussion of computational cost in both classical and quantum models, focusing on how complexity scales with input size rather than on absolute execution time. The emphasis is placed on algorithmic efficiency, independent of hardware improvements. To ground the discussion, the material draws heavily from computational number theory, including problems such as: Integer arithmetic Greatest common divisor (GCD) computation Integer factorization Although number theory represents a specific application domain, it provides a clear and powerful framework for analyzing computational complexity and illustrating the principles underlying quantum speedups. A key theme of the lesson is the distinction between algorithmic scalability and hardware performance. The primary concern is how the cost of an algorithm grows as problem instances become larger — a perspective that remains valid across technological generations. The course concludes by addressing a critically important concept: implementing classical computations on quantum computers. The significance of this idea is not to replace classical machines, but to use classical algorithms as subroutines within quantum procedures. This hybrid approach leverages decades of classical algorithmic research while opening new pathways toward quantum computational advantage. Through practical experimentation on IBM Q, this work connects theoretical foundations with hands-on quantum programming, reinforcing the structural principles that underlie advanced quantum algorithm design.
Quantum computing operates by manipulating the quantum state of a system to solve problems intractable for classical computing. These problems, previously considered limitations of classical algorithms, have solutions through quantum approaches. Therefore, quantum computing suggests that the complexity of such problems lies in the current epistemic state rather than the objective state of the problem. Computational complexity can be classified into objective and epistemic complexity. Some classical problems exhibiting exponential complexity fall into the epistemic category, as their solutions depend on the current state of human knowledge and available tools. Quantum computing suggests that even mathematics isn’t entirely objective, and mathematics, in one sense, is human-made and a kind of technology, which reflects our intention and planning. Computational complexity, therefore, bridges the objective and subjective. Overcoming classical complexity necessitates advancements in scientific theories, algorithms, and quantum technology, all of which rely on the development of human cognitive abilities. Quantum computing is not just a mathematical construct, but also has physical meaning. If it were purely mathematical, classical physics and systems could potentially achieve the same results. What makes the quantum world special is its empirical nature—the physical reality of quantum chips, quantum algorithms, and quantum evolution. Quantum supremacy, or quantum advantage, refers to the potential superiority of quantum computers over classical ones. Controllable quantum systems offer an overwhelming advantage in terms of manipulation and dominance compared to classical systems. Essentially, quantum computing has the potential to significantly outperform classical computing. Many experts, including Shor, have proposed that quantum computing’s power stems from its ability to perform multiple computations simultaneously—a concept often referred to as the Quantum parallelism thesis. Rather, some argue that the true source of quantum computing acceleration lies in the fundamental differences between classical and quantum logic. However, it’s important to note that quantum logic, while providing a new perspective, does not directly address the core principle of quantum parallelism. This dominance stems from quantum physics’ unique properties: Exponential storage capacity, parallel computing inherent to its nature (ontological), and the ability to perform calculations with exponential speedup through quantum algorithms.
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!
The 2-Forrelation problem provides an optimal separation between classical and quantum query complexity and is also the problem used for separating BQP and PH relative to an oracle. A natural question is therefore to ask what are the minimal quantum resources needed to solve this problem. We show that 2-Forrelation can be solved using Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-time (IQP) circuits, a restricted model of quantum computation in which all gates commute. Concretely, signed 2-Forrelation can be solved by a classical random choice between two one-query IQP circuits, while the absolute-value variant uses two independent executions of this randomized procedure. This answers a recent open question of Girish (STOC 2026) on the power of commuting quantum computations. For the Raz-Tal distribution, this randomization is unnecessary. We use this to show that there is an oracle O such that IQPO⊆PHO, strengthening the result of Raz and Tal (STOC 2019). It also yields an oracle separation between IQP and DQC1. We prove Fourier growth bounds for multi-query IQP circuits, including bounds in terms of the size of their accepting set. Our results suggest a possible route toward decision-based quantum advantage within the restricted IQP model. The key ingredient is an algebraic identity of the quadratic function Q(x)=∑i<jxixj that allows extracting inner-product phases within an IQP circuit.