* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Power of Quantum Advice
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot cellular automaton wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Aharonov–Bohm effect wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Basil Hiley wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Delayed choice quantum eraser wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
The Power 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 that quantum states have no more “generalpurpose storage capacity” than classical strings of the same size Cast of Characters BQP/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 QUANTUM ADVICE IS POWERFUL 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.-Kuperberg 2007: There exists a “quantum oracle” separating BQP/qpoly from BQP/poly NO IT ISN’T A. 2004: BQP/qpoly PP/poly = PostBQP/poly Quantum advice can be simulated by classical advice, combined with postselection on unlikely measurement outcomes A. 2006: HeurBQP/qpoly = HeurYQP/poly Trusted quantum advice can be simulated on most inputs by trusted classical advice combined with untrusted quantum advice New Result: BQP/qpoly = YQP/poly Trusted quantum advice is equivalent in power to trusted classical advice combined with untrusted quantum advice. (“Quantum states never need to be trusted”) FOR THE PHYSICISTS Given an n-qubit state and parameters m,, there exists a local Hamiltonian H on poly(n,m,1/) qubits (e.g., a sum of 2qubit interactions) for which the following holds: For any ground state | of H, and any binary measurement E on performed by a circuit with ≤m gates, there’s an efficient measurement f(E) that we can perform on | such that f E Tr E . What Does It Mean? Preparing quantum advice states is no harder than preparing ground states of local Hamiltonians This explains a once-mysterious relationship between quantum proofs and quantum advice: efficient preparability of ground states would imply both QMA=QCMA and BQP/qpoly=BQP/poly “Quantum Karp-Lipton Theorem”: NP-complete problems are not efficiently solvable using quantum advice, unless some uniform complexity classes collapse unexpectedly QCMA/qpoly QMA/poly: classical proofs and quantum advice can be simulated with quantum proofs and classical advice PSPACE/poly A.’06 QMA/qpoly PP/poly QMA/poly This work PP QCMA/qpoly BQP/qpoly =YQP/poly QCMA/poly QMA BQP/poly YQP QCMA BQP Minimax Theorem Safe Winnowing Lemma Circuit Learning (Bshouty et al.) Real MajorityCertificates Lemma LOCAL HAMILTONIANS is QMA-complete (Kitaev) Covering Lemma (Alon et al.) Learning of pConcept Classes (Bartlett & Long) MajorityCertificates Lemma Cook-Levin Theorem Holevo’s Theorem Random Access Code Lower Bound (Ambainis et al.) Fat-Shattering Bound (A.’06) QMA=QMA+ (Aharonov & Regev) HeurBQP/qpoly=HeurYQP/poly (A.’06) BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly Quantum advice no harder than ground state preparation Used as lemma Generalizes Intuition: We’re given a black box (think: quantum state) x f f(x) 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). This is trivially impossible! But … what if we get 3 black boxes, and are allowed to simulate f=f0 by taking the point-wise MAJORITY of their outputs? 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 Majority-Certificates Lemma 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}. 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) Some fiS is consistent with each Ci, and (ii) If fiS is consistent with Ci for all i, then MAJ(f1(x),…,fm(x))=f*(x) for all x{0,1}n. Proof Idea By symmetry, we can assume f* is the all-0 function. Consider a two-player, zero-sum matrix game: Bob picks an input x{0,1}n The lemma follows from this claim! Just choose certificates C1,…,Cm independently from Alice’s winning Alice picks a certificate distribution. Then by a Chernoff bound, almost certainly C ofMAJ(f size k1(x),…,f consistent m(x))=0 for all f1,…,fm consistent with C1,…,Cm with someand fSall inputs x{0,1}n. So clearly there exist respectively C1,…,Cm with this property. Alice wins this game if f(x)=0 for all fS consistent with C. Crucial Claim: Alice has a mixed strategy that lets her win >90% of the time. Proof of Claim Use the Minimax Theorem! Given a distribution D over x, it’s enough to create a fixed certificate C such that 1 Pr f consistent with C s.t. f x 1 . xD 10 Stage I: Choose x1,…,xt independently from D, for some t=O(log|S|). Then with high probability, requiring f(x1)=…=f(xt)=0 kills off every fS such that 1 Pr f x 1 . xD 10 Stage II: Repeatedly add a constraint f(xi)=bi that kills at least half the remaining functions. After ≤ log2|S| iterations, we’ll have winnowed S down to just a single function fS. “Lifting” the Lemma to Quantumland Boolean 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 Result of A.’06 on learnability of quantum infinitely large! And even if we discretize it, it’s states (building on Ambainis et al. 1999) still doubly-exponentially large 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” Theorem: BQP/qpoly = YQP/poly. Proof Sketch: YQP/poly BQP/qpoly is immediate. For the other direction, let LBQP/qpoly. Let M be a quantum algorithm that decides L using advice state |n. Define f x : PrM x, accepts Let S = {f : }. Then S has “fat-shattering dimension” at most poly(n), by A.’06. So we can apply a real analogue of the Majority-Certificates Lemma to S. This yields certificates C1,…,Cm (for some m=poly(n)), such that any states 1,…,m consistent with C1,…,Cm respectively satisfy 1 f 1 x f m x f n m n x for all x{0,1}n (regardless of entanglement). To check the Ci’s, we use the “QMA+ super-verifier” of Aharonov & Regev. Promised Application to “Physics” By Kitaev et al., we know LOCAL HAMILTONIANS is QMA-complete. Furthermore, in their reduction, the witness is a “history state” 1 : T T t t 1 t Measuring this state yields the original QMA witness |1 with (1/poly(n)) probability. Hence |1 can be recovered from poly n ' : So given any language LBQP/qpoly=YQP/poly, we can use the Kitaev et al. reduction to get a local Hamiltonian H whose unique ground state is |’. We can then use |’ to recover the YQP witness |, and thereby decide L Quantum Karp-Lipton Theorem Karp-Lipton 1982: If NP P/poly, then coNPNP = NPNP. Our quantum analogue: If NP BQP/qpoly, then coNPNP QMAPromiseQMA. Proof Idea: A coNPNP statement has the form x y R(x,y). By the hypothesis and BQP/qpoly = YQP/poly, there exists an advice string s, such that any quantum state consistent with s lets us solve NP problems (and some such is consistent). In QMAPromiseQMA, first guess an s that’s consistent with some state . Then use the oracle to search for an x and such that, if is consistent with s, then R(x,Q(x,)) holds, where Q is a quantum algorithm that searches for a y such that R(x,y). A Theory of Isolatability We can generalize the majority-certificates idea well beyond what we have any application for We study the following abstract question, inspired by computational learning theory: Which classes of functions C are “isolatable”—in the sense that for any fC, one can give a small number of conditions such that any f1,…,fmC satisfying the conditions can be used to compute f efficiently on all inputs? Another application of the Majority-Certificates Lemma: it substantially simplifies the proof that BQPSPACE/coin = PSPACE/poly Although this work closes off a chapter in the quantum advice story, there are still Open Problems Find other applications of the majority-certificates technique Circuit complexity? Communication complexity? Learning theory? Quantum information? Is the dependence on n, log|S|, and 1/ optimal? Improve QMA/qpoly PSPACE/poly to QMA/qpoly P#P/poly Prove a classical oracle separation between BQP/poly and BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly