3
$\begingroup$

Let $C$ be a description of a quantum circuit on $n$ qubits with poly($n$) 2-local gates. The defining BQP-complete problem, APPROX-QCIRCUIT-PROB distinguishes two cases:

  1. $\langle 0 ... 0| C^\dagger P_{\lvert 1 \rangle} C|0...0 \rangle \geq \alpha$
  2. $\langle 0 ... 0| C^\dagger P_{\lvert 1 \rangle} C|0...0 \rangle \leq \beta$

for two numbers $\alpha, \beta \in (0,1), \alpha > \beta$ and $P_{\lvert 1 \rangle}$ projecting the first qubit onto $|1\rangle$.

I am wondering whether it is possible to easily shift the focus from a single qubit to a single bitstring and reduce the problem distinguishing

  1. $|\langle 0 ... 0| C|0...0 \rangle|^2 \geq \alpha$
  2. $|\langle 0 ... 0| C|0...0 \rangle|^2 \leq \beta$

to APPROX-QCIRCUIT-PROB. In other words, if we call the outcome in case 1 ($\alpha$-)certain and in case 2 ($\beta$)-uncertain is distinguishing a certain outcome from an uncertain outcome BQP-hard?

I would be fine with focusing on $1 - \alpha = \mathcal{O}(2^{-n})$ as well as $\beta = \mathcal{O}(2^{-n})$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can't you just copy the outcome bit on an ancilla and then uncompute everything? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 20:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This also reminds me of Aaronson’s search for a peakedness test for quantum supremacy. He wants a way to efficiently classically generate such circuits $C$ that, when applied to some fiducial state, generate another basis state with high probability, and that are likewise hard to classically identify as such. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 1:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mark Spinelli, indeed, I was reading this paper and wondering about a statement made, which seems to leave the classical hardness of distinguishing between certain and uncertain outcomes (or $\delta$-peaked and random circuits if you want) as an open problem. Is this because one would like to have a routine of generating peaked circuits and then prove hardness on that subclass? The general problem seems to be, more or less trivially, BQP-hard. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 8:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the open problem is to classically and efficiently generate such a subclass of circuits that can’t, by the scratching of their paw, be classically identified as such. For example, $C=U\dagger U$ for some complicated circuit satisfies your problem and Aaronson and Zhang’s peakedness as well, but may be trivially identified as such. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 10:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll try to spell this out for the sake of documenting an answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 14:00

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Assume $\alpha = \Omega(1/poly(n))$ and $\beta = \mathcal{O}(2^{-n})$. $C$ maps an initial state $\vert 0...0\rangle$ to the state $$C \vert 0... 0 \rangle = a \vert 0\rangle \otimes \vert \phi_0\rangle + b \vert 1 \rangle \otimes \vert \phi_1 \rangle $$ with $a,b \in \mathbb{C}, \ |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1$. In order to solve APPROX-QCIRCUIT-PROB, one has to decide whether $|b|^2 \geq \alpha$ or $|b|^2 \leq \beta$ promised that one of those holds. This can be done by reducing it to the second problem that decides whether there is a peak in the output probability of $| 0...0 \rangle$. For this, add an ancillary qubit $A$ initialized in $|0 \rangle_A$ and consider the circuit $X_A \ C^\dagger \ CNOT_{1,A} \ C$ that executes $C$, copies the classical output of qubit 1 into $A$, then inverts the circuit $C$ again and finally flips the ancilla. The probability of measuring the all-zero bitstring $|0...0\rangle \otimes \vert 0\rangle_A$ reads $$\langle 0...0 0_A| X_A C^\dagger CNOT_{1,A} C | 0...0 0_A\rangle = \left( \bar a \langle 01_A | \otimes \langle \phi_0 | + \bar b \langle 11_A | \otimes \langle \phi_1 | \right) \left( a | 0 0_A \rangle \otimes |\phi_0 \rangle + b | 11_A \rangle \otimes | \phi_1 \rangle \right) = |b|^2. $$ Using $\mathcal{O}(poly(n))$ samples, we can map outputs 1. and 2. to the outputs of APPROX-QCIRCUIT-PROB and decide with bounded failure probability.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.