Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0408119

Quantum Computing and Hidden Variables II: The Complexity of Sampling Histories

Scott Aaronson

Published Aug 19, 2004• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper shows that, if we could examine the entire history of a hidden variable, then we could efficiently solve problems that are believed to be intractable even for quantum computers. In particular, under any hidden-variable theory satisfying a reasonable axiom called "indifference to the identity," we could solve the Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector problems in polynomial time, as well as an oracle problem that is known to require quantum exponential time. We could also search an N-item database using O(N^{1/3}) queries, as opposed to O(N^{1/2}) queries with Grover's search algorithm. On the other hand, the N^{1/3} bound is optimal, meaning that we could probably not solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. We thus obtain the first good example of a model of computation that appears slightly more powerful than the quantum computing model.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0408119

Related papers

Quantum computing and hidden variables

Scott Aaronson

This paper initiates the study of hidden variables from a quantum computing perspective. For us, a hidden-variable theory is simply a way to convert a unitary matrix that maps one quantum state to another into a stochastic matrix that maps the initial probability distribution to the final one in some fixed basis. We list five axioms that we might want such a theory to satisfy and then investigate which of the axioms can be satisfied simultaneously. Toward this end, we propose a new hidden-variable theory based on network flows. In a second part of the paper, we show that if we could examine the entire history of a hidden variable, then we could efficiently solve problems that are believed to be intractable even for quantum computers. In particular, under any hidden-variable theory satisfying a reasonable axiom, we could solve the graph isomorphism problem in polynomial time, and could search an $N$-item database using $O({N}^{1∕3})$ queries, as opposed to $O({N}^{1∕2})$ queries with Grover's search algorithm. On the other hand, the ${N}^{1∕3}$ bound is optimal, meaning that we could probably not solve $\mathrm{NP}$-complete problems in polynomial time. We thus obtain the first good example of a model of computation that appears slightly more powerful than the quantum computing model.

arXiv:quant-ph/0408035•Physical Review A•Mar 18, 2005•48 citations

The space "just above" BQP

Scott Aaronson, Adam Bouland, Joseph F. Fitzsimons +1 more

We explore the space "just above" BQP by defining a complexity class PDQP (Product Dynamical Quantum Polynomial time) which is larger than BQP but does not contain NP relative to an oracle. The class is defined by imagining that quantum computers can perform measurements that do not collapse the wavefunction. This (non-physical) model of computation can efficiently solve problems such as Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector which are believed to be intractable for quantum computers. Furthermore, it can search an unstructured N-element list in $\tilde O$(N^{1/3}) time, but no faster than Ω(N^{1/4}), and hence cannot solve NP-hard problems in a black box manner. In short, this model of computation is more powerful than standard quantum computation, but only slightly so. Our work is inspired by previous work of Aaronson on the power of sampling the histories of hidden variables. However Aaronson's work contains an error in its proof of the lower bound for search, and hence it is unclear whether or not his model allows for search in logarithmic time. Our work can be viewed as a conceptual simplification of Aaronson's approach, with a provable polynomial lower bound for search.

arXiv:1412.6507•Electronic colloquium on computational complexity•Dec 19, 2014•0 citations

The complexity class PDQP SPUR Final Paper: Summer 2013

Mitchell Lee, Adam Bouland, Scott Aaronson

Quantum computers are believed to be strictly more computationally powerful than classical computers, but not so much more powerful that they can solve NP-complete problems eciently. This is because of the result that a quantum computer takes ( N 1=2 ) time to search an unstructured N-element list for a particular marked item, as opposed to poly(logN) time for a nondeterministic computer. On the other hand, many seemingly innocuous modications of quantum mechanics increase the power of quantum computers drastically enough that they can solve NP-complete problems eciently [3]. This paper denes a model of computation slightly more powerful than quantum computation, but only slightly so. In particular, we show that by allowing \non-collapsing measurements, we can solve eciently problems such as Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector which are believed to be intractable for quantum computers. We can also search an unstructured N-element list for a particular marked item in ~ O(N 1=3 ) time, but no faster than ( N 1=4 ).

•Jan 1, 2013•0 citations

BQP, Meet NP: Search-To-Decision Reductions and Approximate Counting

Sevag Gharibian, Jonas Kamminga

What is the power of polynomial-time quantum computation with access to an NP oracle? In this work, we focus on two fundamental tasks from the study of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems: search-to-decision reductions, and approximate counting. We first show that, in strong contrast to the classical setting where a poly-time Turing machine requires $Θ(n)$ queries to an NP oracle to compute a witness to a given SAT formula, quantumly $Θ(\log n)$ queries suffice. We then show this is tight in the black-box model - any quantum algorithm with "NP-like" query access to a formula requires $Ω(\log n)$ queries to extract a solution with constant probability. Moving to approximate counting of SAT solutions, by exploiting a quantum link between search-to-decision reductions and approximate counting, we show that existing classical approximate counting algorithms are likely optimal. First, we give a lower bound in the "NP-like" black-box query setting: Approximate counting requires $Ω(\log n)$ queries, even on a quantum computer. We then give a "white-box" lower bound (i.e. where the input formula is not hidden in the oracle) - if there exists a randomized poly-time classical or quantum algorithm for approximate counting making $o(log n)$ NP queries, then $\text{BPP}^{\text{NP}[o(n)]}$ contains a $\text{P}^{\text{NP}}$-complete problem if the algorithm is classical and $\text{FBQP}^{\text{NP}[o(n)]}$ contains an $\text{FP}^{\text{NP}}$-complete problem if the algorithm is quantum.

arXiv:2401.03943•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Jan 1, 2024•0 citations

Quantum Computing and Dynamical Quantum Models

Scott Aaronson

A dynamical quantum model assigns an eigenstate to a specified observable even when no measurement is made, and gives a stochastic evolution rule for that eigenstate. Such a model yields a distribution over classical histories of a quantum state. We study what can be computed by sampling from that distribution, i.e., by examining an observer's entire history. We show that, relative to an oracle, one can solve problems in polynomial time that are intractable even for quantum computers; and can search an N-element list in order N^{1/3} steps (though not fewer).

arXiv:quant-ph/0205059•May 11, 2002•1 citation

Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments

Scott Aaronson, Lijie Chen

Depending on time, I'll discuss some subset of the following results. (1) There exists an oracle relative to which classical and quantum computers can solve the same approximate sampling problems in polynomial time, and yet the polynomial hierarchy is infinite. This means that any "BosonSampling-type theorem" will need to be non-relativizing. (2) Can P be separated from BQP by an efficiently-computable oracle (one in P/poly)? Yes if quantum-resistant one-way functions exist; no if P=PSPACE. The latter builds on recent results in quantum query complexity by myself and Shalev Ben-David. (3) How hard is it to approximately sample the output distribution of a random quantum circuit? One can do it (and even calculate the probabilities) in polynomial space and m^O(n) time, where m is the number of gates and n is the number of qubits. But if that's essentially optimal for estimating probabilities, then approximate sampling also requires exponential time. Joint work with Lijie Chen (Tsinghua University)

arXiv:1612.05903•Leibniz international proceedings in informatics•Dec 18, 2016•218 citations
This paper shows that, if we could examine the entire history of a hidden variable, then we could efficiently solve problems that are believed to be intractable even for quantum computers. In particular, under any hidden-variable theory satisfying a reasonable axiom called "indifference to the identity," we could solve the Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector problems in polynomial time, as well as an oracle problem that is known to require quantum exponential time. We could also search an N-item database using O(N^{1/3}) queries, as opposed to O(N^{1/2}) queries with Grover's search algorithm. On the other hand, the N^{1/3} bound is optimal, meaning that we could probably not solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. We thus obtain the first good example of a model of computation that appears slightly more powerful than the quantum computing model.
This paper initiates the study of hidden variables from a quantum computing perspective. For us, a hidden-variable theory is simply a way to convert a unitary matrix that maps one quantum state to another into a stochastic matrix that maps the initial probability distribution to the final one in some fixed basis. We list five axioms that we might want such a theory to satisfy and then investigate which of the axioms can be satisfied simultaneously. Toward this end, we propose a new hidden-variable theory based on network flows. In a second part of the paper, we show that if we could examine the entire history of a hidden variable, then we could efficiently solve problems that are believed to be intractable even for quantum computers. In particular, under any hidden-variable theory satisfying a reasonable axiom, we could solve the graph isomorphism problem in polynomial time, and could search an NNN-item database using O(N1∕3)O({N}^{1∕3})O(N1∕3) queries, as opposed to O(N1∕2)O({N}^{1∕2})O(N1∕2) queries with Grover's search algorithm. On the other hand, the N1∕3{N}^{1∕3}N1∕3 bound is optimal, meaning that we could probably not solve NP\mathrm{NP}NP-complete problems in polynomial time. We thus obtain the first good example of a model of computation that appears slightly more powerful than the quantum computing model.
We explore the space "just above" BQP by defining a complexity class PDQP (Product Dynamical Quantum Polynomial time) which is larger than BQP but does not contain NP relative to an oracle. The class is defined by imagining that quantum computers can perform measurements that do not collapse the wavefunction. This (non-physical) model of computation can efficiently solve problems such as Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector which are believed to be intractable for quantum computers. Furthermore, it can search an unstructured N-element list in O~\tilde OO~(N^{1/3}) time, but no faster than Ω(N^{1/4}), and hence cannot solve NP-hard problems in a black box manner. In short, this model of computation is more powerful than standard quantum computation, but only slightly so. Our work is inspired by previous work of Aaronson on the power of sampling the histories of hidden variables. However Aaronson's work contains an error in its proof of the lower bound for search, and hence it is unclear whether or not his model allows for search in logarithmic time. Our work can be viewed as a conceptual simplification of Aaronson's approach, with a provable polynomial lower bound for search.
Quantum computers are believed to be strictly more computationally powerful than classical computers, but not so much more powerful that they can solve NP-complete problems eciently. This is because of the result that a quantum computer takes ( N 1=2 ) time to search an unstructured N-element list for a particular marked item, as opposed to poly(logN) time for a nondeterministic computer. On the other hand, many seemingly innocuous modications of quantum mechanics increase the power of quantum computers drastically enough that they can solve NP-complete problems eciently [3]. This paper denes a model of computation slightly more powerful than quantum computation, but only slightly so. In particular, we show that by allowing \non-collapsing measurements, we can solve eciently problems such as Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Vector which are believed to be intractable for quantum computers. We can also search an unstructured N-element list for a particular marked item in ~ O(N 1=3 ) time, but no faster than ( N 1=4 ).
What is the power of polynomial-time quantum computation with access to an NP oracle? In this work, we focus on two fundamental tasks from the study of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems: search-to-decision reductions, and approximate counting. We first show that, in strong contrast to the classical setting where a poly-time Turing machine requires Θ(n)Θ(n)Θ(n) queries to an NP oracle to compute a witness to a given SAT formula, quantumly Θ(log⁡n)Θ(\log n)Θ(logn) queries suffice. We then show this is tight in the black-box model - any quantum algorithm with "NP-like" query access to a formula requires Ω(log⁡n)Ω(\log n)Ω(logn) queries to extract a solution with constant probability. Moving to approximate counting of SAT solutions, by exploiting a quantum link between search-to-decision reductions and approximate counting, we show that existing classical approximate counting algorithms are likely optimal. First, we give a lower bound in the "NP-like" black-box query setting: Approximate counting requires Ω(log⁡n)Ω(\log n)Ω(logn) queries, even on a quantum computer. We then give a "white-box" lower bound (i.e. where the input formula is not hidden in the oracle) - if there exists a randomized poly-time classical or quantum algorithm for approximate counting making o(logn)o(log n)o(logn) NP queries, then BPPNP[o(n)]\text{BPP}^{\text{NP}[o(n)]}BPPNP[o(n)] contains a PNP\text{P}^{\text{NP}}PNP-complete problem if the algorithm is classical and FBQPNP[o(n)]\text{FBQP}^{\text{NP}[o(n)]}FBQPNP[o(n)] contains an FPNP\text{FP}^{\text{NP}}FPNP-complete problem if the algorithm is quantum.
A dynamical quantum model assigns an eigenstate to a specified observable even when no measurement is made, and gives a stochastic evolution rule for that eigenstate. Such a model yields a distribution over classical histories of a quantum state. We study what can be computed by sampling from that distribution, i.e., by examining an observer's entire history. We show that, relative to an oracle, one can solve problems in polynomial time that are intractable even for quantum computers; and can search an N-element list in order N^{1/3} steps (though not fewer).
Depending on time, I'll discuss some subset of the following results. (1) There exists an oracle relative to which classical and quantum computers can solve the same approximate sampling problems in polynomial time, and yet the polynomial hierarchy is infinite. This means that any "BosonSampling-type theorem" will need to be non-relativizing. (2) Can P be separated from BQP by an efficiently-computable oracle (one in P/poly)? Yes if quantum-resistant one-way functions exist; no if P=PSPACE. The latter builds on recent results in quantum query complexity by myself and Shalev Ben-David. (3) How hard is it to approximately sample the output distribution of a random quantum circuit? One can do it (and even calculate the probabilities) in polynomial space and m^O(n) time, where m is the number of gates and n is the number of qubits. But if that's essentially optimal for estimating probabilities, then approximate sampling also requires exponential time. Joint work with Lijie Chen (Tsinghua University)