An Invitation to Quantum Complexity Theory The Study of What We Can’t Do With Computers We Don’t Have Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi SZK BQP NPcomplete.
Download ReportTranscript An Invitation to Quantum Complexity Theory The Study of What We Can’t Do With Computers We Don’t Have Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi SZK BQP NPcomplete.
An Invitation to Quantum Complexity Theory
The Study of What We Can’t Do With Computers We Don’t Have
Scott Aaronson (MIT)
NP complete
QIP08, New Delhi
SZK BQP
So then why can’t we just ignore quantum computing, and get back to real work?
Because the universe isn’t classical
My picture of reality, as an 11-year-old messing around with BASIC programming: + details (Also some people’s
current
picture of reality) Fancier version:
Extended Church-Turing Thesis
Shor’s factoring algorithm presents us with a choice Either
1. the Extended Church-Turing Thesis is false, 2. textbook quantum mechanics is false, or 3.
there’s an efficient classical factoring algorithm.
All three seem like crackpot speculations.
At least one of them is true!
In my view, this is why everyone should care about quantum computing, whether or not quantum factoring machines are ever built
Outline of Talk
• What is quantum complexity theory?
• The “black-box model” • Three examples of what we know • Five examples of what we don’t
Quantum Complexity Theory
Today, we know fast quantum algorithms to factor integers, compute discrete logarithms, solve certain Diophantine equations, simulate quantum systems … but
not
to solve NP-complete problems.
Quantum complexity theory is the field where we step back and ask:
How much of the classical theory of computation is actually overturned by quantum mechanics? And how much of it can be salvaged (even if in a strange new quantum form)?
But first, what
is
the classical theory of computation?
Classical Complexity Theory
A polytheistic religion with many local gods:
EXP PSPACE IP MIP BPP RP ZPP SL NC AC 0 TC 0 MA AM SZK
But also some gods everyone prays to:
P
: Class of problems solvable efficiently on a deterministic classical computer
NP
: Class of problems for which a “yes” answer has a short, efficiently-checkable proof
Major Goal:
Disprove the heresy that the
P
gods are equal and
NP
The Black-Box Model
In both classical and (especially) quantum complexity theory, much of what we know today can be stated in the
“black-box model”
This is a model where we count only the number of questions to some
black box
or
oracle
f: x
f
f(x) and ignore all other computational steps
Quantum Black-Box Algorithms
Algorithm’s state has the form A
query
maps each basis state |x,w to |x,w f(x) (f(x) gets “reversibly written to the workspace”) Between two query steps, can apply an arbitrary unitary operation that doesn’t depend on f
Query complexity
needed to achieve = minimum number of steps , corresponding to right answer 2 2 3 for all f
Example Of Something We Can Prove In The Black-Box Model
Given a function f:[N] {0,1}, suppose we want to know whether there’s an x such that f(x)=1. How many queries to f are needed?
Classically, it’s obvious the answer is ~N On the other hand, Grover gave a quantum algorithm that needs only ~ N queries Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani proved that no quantum algorithm can do better
Example #2
Given a periodic function f:[N] [N], how many queries to f are needed to determine its period?
Classically, one can show ~N queries are needed by any deterministic algorithm, and ~ N by any randomized algorithm On the other hand, Shor (building on Simon) gave a quantum algorithm that needs only O(log N) queries. Indeed, this is the core of his factoring algorithm So quantum query complexity can be exponentially smaller than classical!
Beals, Buhrman, Cleve, Mosca, de Wolf: But only if there’s some “promise” on f, like that it’s periodic
Example #3
Given a function f:[N] [N], how many queries to f are needed to determine whether f is one-to-one or two-to one? (Promised that it’s one or the other) Classically, ~ N (by the Birthday Paradox) By combining the Birthday Paradox with Grover’s algorithm, Brassard, H øyer, and Tapp gave a quantum algorithm that needs only ~N 1/3 queries A., Shi: This is the best possible Quantum algorithms can’t
always
to get exponential speedups!
exploit structure
Open Problem #1: Are quantum computers more powerful than classical computers?
(In the “real,” non-black-box world?)
More formally, does
BPP
=
BQP
?
BPP
(Bounded-Error Probabilistic Polynomial Time): Class of problems solvable efficiently with use of randomness
Note:
It’s generally believed that
BPP
=
P BQP
(Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time): Class of problems solvable efficiently by a quantum computer
Most of us believe (hope?) that
BPP
BQP
— among other things, because factoring is in
BQP
!
On the other hand, Bernstein and Vazirani showed that
BPP
BQP
PSPACE
Therefore, you can’t prove
BPP
BQP
without also proving
P
PSPACE
. And that would be almost as spectacular as proving
P
NP
!
Open Problem #2: Can Quantum Computers Solve NP-complete Problems In Polynomial Time?
More formally, is
NP
BQP
?
Contrary to almost every popular article ever written on the subject, most of us think the answer is no For “generic” combinatorial optimization problems, the situation seems similar to that of black-box model —where you only get the quadratic speedup of Grover’s algorithm, not an exponential speedup As for proving this … dude, we can’t even prove
classical
computers can’t solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time!
(Conditional result?)
Open Problem #3: Can Quantum Computers Be Simulated In NP?
Most of us don’t believe
NP
BQP
about
BQP
NP
?
… but what If a quantum computer solves a problem, is there always a short proof of the solution that would convince a skeptic?
(As in the case of factoring?) My own opinion: Not enough evidence even to conjecture either way
Related Problems
Is
BQP
PH
(where
PH
is the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy, a generalization of number of quantifiers)?
NP
to any constant
Gottesman’s Question:
quantum mechanics)?
If a quantum computer solves a problem, can
it itself
interactively prove the answer to a skeptic (who doesn’t even believe
The latter question carries a $25 prize! See www.scottaaronson.com/blog
Open Problem #4: Are Quantum Proofs More Powerful Than Classical Proofs?
That is, does
QMA
=
QCMA
?
QMA
(Quantum Merlin-Arthur): A quantum generalization of
NP
.
Class of problems for which a “yes” answer can be proved by giving a polynomial-size quantum state | , which is then checked by a
BQP
algorithm.
QCMA
: A “hybrid” between
QMA
and
NP
. The proof is classical, but the algorithm verifying it can be quantum Known:
QMA
-complete problems [Kitaev et al.], “quantum oracle separation” between
QMA
and
QCMA
[A.-Kuperberg]
Open Problem #5: Are Two Quantum Proofs More Powerful Than One?
Does
QMA(2)
=
QMA
?
QMA(2)
: Same as
QMA
, except now the verifier is given
two
quantum proofs | and | , which are guaranteed to be unentangled with each other Liu, Christandl, and Verstraete gave a problem called “pure state N-representability,” which is in
QMA(2)
but not known to be in
QMA
Recently A., Beigi, Fefferman, and Shor showed that, if a 3SAT instance of size n is satisfiable, this can be proved using two unentangled proofs of n polylog n qubits each