* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Power of Quantum Advice
Quantum dot cellular automaton wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Aharonov–Bohm effect wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Basil Hiley wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Delayed choice quantum eraser wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
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 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 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/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”) “PHYSICS” IMPLICATION: 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 E ' Tr E . Furthermore, H is on poly(n,m,1/) qubits. Implication for Quantum Communication , x 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 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 Main Tool: Majority-Certificates Lemma (Related to boosting in computational learning theory) 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) There’s a unique fiS consistent with each Ci, and (ii) f*(x)=MAJORITY(f1(x),…,fm(x)) for all x{0,1}n. 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 “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” Quantum Karp-Lipton Theorem: An Unexpected Application of Our BQP/qpoly=YQP/poly Theorem Karp-Lipton 1982: If NP P/poly, then coNPNP = NPNP. Our quantum analogue: If NP BQP/qpoly, then coNPNP QMAPromiseQMA. 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. Open Problems Does 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)? If you can make the following terms comprehensible to a computer scientist: “Squeezed state” “Parametric downconversion” “Homodyne measurement” please see me after the talk