Quantum programming is hard: Quantum programs are necessarily probabilistic and impossible to examine without disrupting the execution of a program. In response to this challenge, we and a number of other researchers have written tools to verify quantum programs against their intended semantics. This is not enough. Verifying an idealized semantics against a real world quantum program doesn't allow you to confidently predict the program’s output. In order to have verification that works, you need both an error semantics related to the hardware at hand (this is necessarily low level) and certified compilation to the that same hardware. Once we have these two things, we can talk about an approach to quantum programming where we start by writing and verifying programs at a high level, attempt to verify properties of the compiled code, and repeat as necessary.
Quantum programming is hard: Quantum programs are necessarily probabilistic and impossible to examine without disrupting the execution of a program. In response to this challenge, we and a number of other researchers have written tools to verify quantum programs against their intended semantics. This is not enough. Verifying an idealized semantics against a real world quantum program doesn't allow you to confidently predict the program’s output. In order to have verification that works, you need both an error semantics related to the hardware at hand (this is necessarily low level) and certified compilation to the that same hardware. Once we have these two things, we can talk about an approach to quantum programming where we start by writing and verifying programs at a high level, attempt to verify properties of the compiled code, and repeat as necessary.
Over the past 27 years, quantum computing has seen a huge rise in interest from both academia and industry. At the current rate, quantum computers are growing in size rapidly backed up by the increase of research in the field. Significant efforts are being made to improve the reliability of quantum hardware and to develop suitable software to program quantum computers. In contrast, the verification of quantum programs has received relatively less attention. Verifying programs is especially important in the quantum setting due to how difficult it is to program complex algorithms correctly on resource-constrained and error-prone quantum hardware. Research into creating verification frameworks for quantum programs has seen recent development, with a variety of tools implemented using a collection of theoretical ideas. This survey aims to be a short introduction into the area of formal verification of quantum programs, bringing together theory and tools developed to date. Further, this survey examines some of the challenges that the field may face in the future, namely the development of complex quantum algorithms.
The field of quantum mechanics predates computer science by at least ten years, the time between the publication of the Schrodinger equation and the Church-Turing thesis. It took another fifty years for Feynman to recognize that harnessing quantum mechanics is necessary to efficiently simulate physics and for David Deutsch to propose the quantum Turing machine. After thirty more years, we are finally getting close to the first general-purpose quantum computers based upon prototypes by IBM, Intel, Google and others.\nWhile physicists and engineers have worked on building scalable quantum computers, theoretical computer scientists have made their own advances. Complexity theorists introduced quantum complexity classes like BQP and QMA; Shor and Grover developed their famous algorithms for factoring and unstructured search. Programming languages researchers pursued two main research directions: Small-scale languages like QPL and the quantum lambda-calculi for reasoning about quantum computation and large-scale languages like Quipper and Q# for industrial-scale quantum software development. This thesis aims to unify these two threads while adding a third one: formal verification.\nWe argue that quantum programs demand machine-checkable proofs of correctness. We justify this on the basis of the complexity of programs manipulating quantum states, the expense of running quantum programs, and the inapplicability of traditional debugging techniques to programs whose states cannot be examined. We further argue that the existing mathematical models of quantum computation make this an easier task than one could reasonably expect. In light of these observations we introduce QWIRE, a tool for writing verifiable, large scale quantum programs.\nQWIRE is not merely a language for writing and verifying quantum circuits: it is a verified circuit description language. This means that the semantics of QWIRE circuits are verified in the Coq proof assistant. We also implement verified abstractions, like ancilla management and reversible circuit compilation. Finally, we turn QWIRE and Coq's abilities outwards, towards verifying popular quantum algorithms like quantum teleportation. We argue that this tool provides a solid foundation for research into quantum programming languages and formal verification going forward.
In this talk, I will give an overview of some recent progress and current challenges in the design of quantum programming languages. Unlike classical programs, which can in principle be debugged by stopping the program at critical moments and examining the contents of variables, quantum programs are not amenable to traditional debugging because the state of a quantum system cannot usually be examined in a meaningful way. Therefore, we need other methods for ensuring the correctness of quantum programs, such as formal verification. For this reason, I advocate the use of strongly typed, functional programming languages for quantum computing. As far as functional quantum programming languages are concerned, there is currently a relatively wide gap between theory and practice. On the one hand, we have languages with strong theoretical foundations, such as the quantum lambda calculus, which operate at a relatively low level of abstraction and lack many features that would be useful to practical quantum programmers. On the other hand, we have practical functional quantum programming languages such as Quipper, which is implemented as an embedded language in Haskell, has many high-level features, and has been used in large-scale projects, but lacks a theoretical basis and a strong type system [Green et al., 2013; Green et al., 2013; Green et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014]. We have recently attempted to narrow this gap through a family of languages called Proto-Quipper, which are designed to offer Quipper-like features while having sound theoretical foundations [Ross, 2015; Rios and Selinger, 2018]. I will give an overview of Quipper and its most useful features, report on the progress we made with formalizing fragments of Quipper, and outline several of the still remaining challenges.
Despite recent development of quantum program verification, it is still in its early stage, where many quantum programs are hard to verify due to their inherent probabilistic nature and parallelism in quantum superposition. We propose Qafny c , a system that compiles quantum program verification into a well-established classical program verifier Dafny, enabling the formal verification of quantum programs. The key insight behind Qafny c is the separation of quantum program verification from its execution, leveraging the strength of classical verifiers to ensure correctness before compiling certified quantum programs into executable circuits. Using Qafny c , we have successfully verified 37 diverse quantum programs by compiling their verification into Dafny. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most extensive formally verified set of quantum programs.
Quantum circuit compilation is a crucial step in translating high-level quantum algorithms into executable quantum circuits on specific hardware. The complexity and potential for errors within this process necessitate rigorous verification methods. This paper proposes a novel approach leveraging symbolic execution to formally verify quantum circuit compilation. We represent quantum circuits and compilation steps as a symbolic program, enabling the exploration of all possible compilation paths. By incorporating quantum gate fidelities and noise models into the symbolic execution engine, we can identify potential errors in the compilation logic, providing a robust and systematic way to ensure the correctness of the compilation process. The core claim is that symbolic execution can be extended to formally verify the correctness of quantum circuit compilation processes. This work addresses a critical need in quantum computing, offering a new technique for building trust and reliability into quantum software.
This work provides a comprehensive framework for noise-aware quantum program analysis, ranging from logical foundations to model checking and automated synthesis. While most research on quantum programming considers an idealized, noise-free semantics for quantum programs, we reason about quantum programs that are executed on real, noisy hardware. We use the error models published by quantum-hardware vendors to give a hardware-dependent semantics to quantum programs. We then present a noise-aware quantum Hoare logic with a relatively complete proof system. We finally use state-space exploration techniques for the hardware-aware verification and synthesis of loop-free quantum programs. In this way, we synthesize optimal, hardware-dependent solutions for parity bit-flip, GHZ state preparation, and other problems that commonly occur as subroutines in larger quantum algorithms. We evaluate our method on all 55 hardware specifications provided by the IBM Qiskit toolkit. Finally, we also show that classical probabilistic branching is needed for optimality in quantum programming.