Top Banner
A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker
13

A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Mar 26, 2015

Download

Documents

Jacob Whitaker
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice

Scott AaronsonAndrew Drucker

Page 2: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Freeze-Dried Computation

Motivating Question: How much useful computational work can one “store” in a quantum state, for later retrieval?

If quantum states are exponentially large objects, then possibly a huge amount!

Yet we also know, from Holevo’s Theorem, that quantum states have no more “general-purpose storage capacity” than classical strings of the same size

Page 3: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Cast of CharactersBQP/qpoly is the class of problems solvable in quantum polynomial time, with the help of polynomial-size “quantum advice states”

Formally: a language L is in BQP/qpoly if there exists a polynomial time quantum algorithm A, as well as quantum advice states {|n}n on poly(n) qubits, such that for every input x of size n, A(x,|n) decides whether or not xL with error probability at most 1/3

YQP (“Yoda Quantum Polynomial-Time”) is the same, except we also require that for every alleged advice state , A(x,) outputs either the right answer or “FAIL” with probability at least 2/3

BQP YQP QMA BQP/qpoly

Page 4: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Watrous 2000: For any fixed, finite black-box group Gn and subgroup Hn≤Gn, deciding membership in Hn is in BQP/qpoly

The quantum advice state is just an equal superposition |Hn over the elements of Hn We don’t know how to solve the same problem in BQP/poly

A. 2004: BQP/qpoly PostBQP/poly P#P/poly Quantum advice can be simulated by classical advice, combined with postselection on unlikely measurement outcomes

A. 2006: HeurBQP/qpoly = HeurYQP/polyTrusted quantum advice can be simulated on most inputs by trusted classical advice combined with untrusted quantum advice

A.-Kuperberg 2007: There exists a “quantum oracle” separating BQP/qpoly from BQP/poly

QUANTUM ADVICE IS POWERFUL

NO IT ISN’T

Page 5: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

New Result: BQP/qpoly = YQP/polyTrusted quantum advice is equivalent in power to trusted classical advice combined with untrusted quantum advice.

(“Quantum states never need to be trusted”)

Given any n-qubit state , there exists a local Hamiltonian H (indeed, a sum of 2D nearest-neighbor interactions) such that:

For any ground state | of H, and measuring circuit E with ≤m gates, there’s an efficient measuring circuit E’ such that

.Tr' EE

“PHYSICS” IMPLICATION:

Furthermore, H is on poly(n,m,1/) qubits.

Page 6: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Implication for Quantum Communication

Given any n-qubit state , Alice can send a poly(n)-qubit state and a string x to Bob, in such a way that:

can be used to simulate on all small circuits, and Bob can efficiently verify that using x

, x

Page 7: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Majority-Certificates

Lemma

Real Majority-Certificates Lemma

Circuit Learning (Bshouty et al.)

Minimax Theorem

Safe Winnowing

Lemma

Holevo’s Theorem

Random Access Code Lower

Bound (Ambainis et al.)

BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly

HeurBQP/qpoly=HeurYQP/poly(A.’06)

Quantum advice no harder than ground state preparation

Fat-Shattering Bound (A.’06)

Covering Lemma (Alon et al.)

Learning of p-Concept Classes (Bartlett & Long)

LOCAL HAMILTONIANS is QMA-complete

(Kitaev)

Cook-Levin Theorem

QMA=QMA+(Aharonov & Regev)

Used as lemma

Generalizes

Page 8: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Main Tool: Majority-Certificates Lemma(Related to boosting in computational learning theory)

Lemma: Let S be a set of Boolean functions f:{0,1}n{0,1}, and let f*S. Then there exist m=O(n) certificates C1,…,Cm, each of size k=O(log|S|), such that

(i)There’s a unique fiS consistent with each Ci, and

(ii)f*(x)=MAJORITY(f1(x),…,fm(x)) for all x{0,1}n.

Definitions: A certificate is a partial Boolean function C:{0,1}n{0,1,*}. A Boolean function f:{0,1}n{0,1} is consistent with C, if f(x)=C(x) whenever C(x){0,1}. The size of C is the number of inputs x such that C(x){0,1}.

Page 9: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

that computes some Boolean function f:{0,1}n{0,1} belonging to a “small” set S (meaning, of size 2poly(n)). Someone wants to prove to us that f equals (say) the all-0 function, by having us check a polynomial number of outputs f(x1),…,f(xm).

Intuition: We’re given a black box (think: quantum state)

fx f(x)

This is trivially impossible!f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5

x1 0 1 0 0 0 0

x2 0 0 1 0 0 0

x3 0 0 0 1 0 0

x4 0 0 0 0 1 0

x5 0 0 0 0 0 1

But … what if we get 3 black boxes, and are allowed to simulate f=f0 by taking the point-wise MAJORITY of their outputs?

Page 10: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

“Lifting” the Lemma to QuantumlandBoolean Majority-Certificates BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly Proof

Set S of Boolean functions Set S of p(n)-qubit mixed states

“True” function f*S “True” advice state |n

Other functions f1,…,fm Other states 1,…,m

Certificate Ci to isolate fi Measurement Ei to isolate I

New Difficulty Solution

The class of p(n)-qubit quantum states is infinitely large! And even if we discretize it, it’s still doubly-exponentially large

Result of A.’06 on learnability of quantum states (building on Ambainis et al. 1999)

Instead of Boolean functions f:{0,1}n{0,1}, now we have real functions f:{0,1}n[0,1] representing the expectation values

Learning theory has tools to deal with this: fat-shattering dimension, -covers… (Alon et al. 1997)

How do we verify a quantum witness without destroying it?

QMA=QMA+ (Aharonov & Regev 2003)

What if a certificate asks us to verify Tr(E)≤a, but Tr(E) is “right at the knife-edge”?

“Safe Winnowing Lemma”

Page 11: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Quantum Karp-Lipton Theorem:An Unexpected Application of Our BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly Theorem

Our quantum analogue:

If NP BQP/qpoly, then coNPNP QMAPromiseQMA.

Karp-Lipton 1982: If NP P/poly, then coNPNP = NPNP.

Idea: Let M be a YQP/poly machine that solves 3SAT. In QMA, guess the classical advice z to M, and check that some quantum witness | is consistent with z. Then, in PromiseQMA, search for a quantum witness | consistent with z, as well as a 3SAT instance of size n on which | fails. If no such instance is found, guess the first quantified string of the coNPNP statement, and use | to find the second quantified string.

Page 12: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

Open ProblemsDoes QMA=QCMA? Does BQP/qpoly=BQP/poly? Can we at least prove (classical) oracle separations?

Improve the parameters of the majority-certificates lemma, and clarify the connection with boosting?

Other applications of majority-certificates?

Is it possible that every state on n qubits can be simulated by a verifiable state on n qubits, rather than poly(n)?

Page 13: A Full Characterization of Quantum Advice Scott Aaronson Andrew Drucker.

If you can make the following terms comprehensible to a computer scientist:

“Squeezed state”

“Parametric downconversion”

“Homodyne measurement”

please see me after the talk