Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Proof Overview and Main Ideas
Related Work, Implications and Open Problems
Background: The Stoquastic Hamiltonian Problem
Finding the Bad String
Results Related to Derandomization of RP
References
All Topics
Mathematics

Stoquastic PCP vs. Randomness

Profile image of Dorit AharonovDorit Aharonov

2019, arXiv (Cornell University)

Abstract

The derandomization of MA, the probabilistic version of NP, is a long standing open question. In this work, we connect this problem to a variant of another major problem: the quantum PCP conjecture. Our connection goes through the surprising quantum characterization of MA by Bravyi and Terhal. They proved the MA-completeness of the problem of deciding whether the groundenergy of a uniform stoquastic local Hamiltonian is zero or inverse polynomial. We show that the gapped version of this problem, i.e. deciding if a given uniform stoquastic local Hamiltonian is frustration-free or has energy at least some constant ǫ, is in NP. Thus, if there exists a gap-amplification procedure for uniform stoquastic Local Hamiltonians (in analogy to the gap amplification procedure for constraint satisfaction problems in the original PCP theorem), then MA = NP (and vice versa). Furthermore, if this gap amplification procedure exhibits some additional (natural) properties, then P = RP. We feel this work opens up a rich set of new directions to explore, which might lead to progress on both quantum PCP and derandomization. We also provide two small side results of potential interest. First, we are able to generalize our result by showing that deciding if a uniform stoquastic Local Hamiltonian has negligible or constant frustration can be also solved in NP. Additionally, our work reveals a new MA-complete problem which we call SetCSP, stated in terms of classical constraints on strings of bits, which we define in the appendix. As far as we know this is the first (arguably) natural MA-complete problem stated in non-quantum CSP language.

Related papers

On Efficiently Solvable Cases of Quantum k-SAT
Marco Aldi

Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 2018

The constraint satisfaction problems k-SAT and Quantum k-SAT (k-QSAT) are canonical NPcomplete and QMA 1-complete problems (for k ≥ 3), respectively, where QMA 1 is a quantum generalization of NP with one-sided error. Whereas k-SAT has been well-studied for special tractable cases, as well as from a parameterized complexity perspective, much less is known in similar settings for k-QSAT. Here, we study the open problem of computing satisfying assignments to k-QSAT instances which have a "matching" or "dimer covering"; this is an NP problem whose decision variant is trivial, but whose search complexity remains open. Our results fall into three directions, all of which relate to the "matching" setting: (1) We give a polynomial-time classical algorithm for k-QSAT when all qubits occur in at most two clauses. (2) We give a parameterized algorithm for k-QSAT instances from a certain non-trivial class, which allows us to obtain exponential speedups over brute force methods in some cases by reducing the problem to solving for a single root of a single univariate polynomial. (3) We conduct a structural graph theoretic study of 3-QSAT interaction graphs which have a "matching". We remark that the results of (2), in particular, introduce a number of new tools to the study of Quantum SAT, including graph theoretic concepts such as transfer filtrations and blow-ups from algebraic geometry; we hope these prove useful elsewhere.

View PDFchevron_right
The pursuit for uniqueness: extending Valiant-Vazirani Theorem to the probabilistic and quantum settings
Fernando Brandao

Arxiv preprint arXiv: …, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Quantum Computing, Postselection, and Probabilistic Polynomial-Time
Scott Aaronson

Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, 2005

I study the class of problems efficiently solvable by a quantumcomputer, given the ability to "postselect" on the outcomes of measurements. I prove that this class coincides with a classical complexity class called PP, or Probabilistic Polynomial-Time. Using this result, I show that several simple changes to the axioms of quantum mechanics would let us solve PP-complete problems efficiently. The

View PDFchevron_right
The Quantum Completeness Problem
Carsten Held

2012

View PDFchevron_right
Determining acceptance possibility for a quantum computation is hard for the polynomial hierarchy
Steven Homer

Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 1999

It is shown that determining whether a quantum computation has a non-zero probability of accepting is at least as hard as the polynomial time hierarchy. This hardness result also applies to determining in general whether a given quantum basis state appears with nonzero amplitude in a superposition, or whether a given quantum bit has positive expectation value at the end of a quantum computation. This result is achieved by showing that the complexity class NQP of Adleman, Demarrais, and Huang 1], a quantum analog of NP, is equal to the counting class coC = P.

View PDFchevron_right
Quantum Algorithms Topics in Complexity-Theory
Lars Wallenborn

2011

This handout was created in the context of a talk we gave at the \Graduate Seminar on Topics in Quantum Computation" by Prof. Nitin Saxena at the University of Bonn in the Summer Semester 2011. It is heavily based on the lecture notes [AAR] and the book [NC].

View PDFchevron_right
Classical and quantum satisfiability
Anderson de Araújo

Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 2012

We present the linear algebraic definition of QSAT and propose a direct logical characterization of such a definition. We then prove that this logical version of QSAT is not an extension of classical satisfiability problem (SAT). This shows that QSAT does not allow a direct comparison between the complexity classes NP and QMA, for which SAT and QSAT are respectively complete.

View PDFchevron_right
On a poset of quantum exact promise problems
Alberto Di Meglio

Quantum Inf. Process., 2021

Two of the most well-known quantum algorithms, those introduced by Deutsch–Jozsa and Bernstein–Vazirani, can solve promise problems with just one function query, showing an oracular separation with deterministic classical algorithms. In this work, we generalise those methods to study a family of quantum algorithms that can, with just one query, exactly solve promise problems stated over Boolean functions. We also show that these problems can be naturally ordered, inducing a partially ordered set of promise problems. We study the properties of such a poset, showing that the Deutsch–Jozsa and Bernstein–Vazirani problems are, in a certain sense, extremal problems in it, determining some of its automorphisms and proving that it is connected. We also prove that, for the problems in the poset, the corresponding classical query complexities can take any value between 1 and $$2^{n-1}+1$$ 2 n - 1 + 1 .

View PDFchevron_right
Quantum measurement occurrence is undecidable
Jens Eisert

2011

In this work, we show that very natural, apparently simple problems in quantum measurement theory can be undecidable even if their classical analogues are decidable. Undecidability hence appears as a genuine quantum property here. Formally, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which one cannot construct a single algorithm that will always provide a correct answer in finite time. The problem we consider is to determine whether sequentially used identical Stern-Gerlach-type measurement devices, giving rise to a tree of possible outcomes, have outcomes that never occur. Finally, we point out implications for measurement-based quantum computing and studies of quantum many-body models and suggest that a plethora of problems may indeed be undecidable.

View PDFchevron_right
The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems
Barbara Terhal

2006

We study the complexity of the Local Hamiltonian Problem (denoted as LH-MIN) in the special case when a Hamiltonian obeys the condition that all off-diagonal matrix elements in the standard basis are real and non-positive. We will call such Hamiltonians, which are common in the natural world, stoquastic. An equivalent characterization of stoquastic Hamiltonians is that they have an entry-wise non-negative Gibbs density matrix for any temperature. We prove that LH-MIN for stoquastic Hamiltonians belongs to the complexity class AM -a probabilistic version of NP with two rounds of communication between the prover and the verifier. We also show that 2-local stoquastic LH-MIN is hard for the class MA. With the additional promise of having a polynomial spectral gap, we show that stoquastic LH-MIN belongs to the class PostBPP=BPP path -a generalization of BPP in which a post-selective readout is allowed. This last result also shows that any problem solved by adiabatic quantum computation using stoquastic Hamiltonians is in PostBPP.

View PDFchevron_right

References (56)

  1. Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, and Umesh V. Vazirani. The detectabil- ity lemma and quantum gap amplification. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2009, pages 417-426, 2009.
  2. Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, and Umesh V. Vazirani. The 1d area law and the complexity of quantum states: A combinatorial approach. In IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2011, pages 324-333, 2011.
  3. Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, and Thomas Vidick. Guest column: the quantum PCP conjecture. SIGACT News, 44(2):47-79, 2013.
  4. Anurag Anshu, Itai Arad, and Thomas Vidick. Simple proof of the detectability lemma and spectral gap amplification. Phys. Rev. B, 93:205142, May 2016.
  5. Dorit Aharonov and Lior Eldar. The Commuting Local Hamiltonian Problem on Locally Expanding Graphs is Approximable in NP. Quantum Information Processing, 14(1):83-101, 2015.
  6. ALM + 98] Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. Proof Verification and the Hardness of Approximation Problems. Journal of the ACM, 45(3):501-555, 1998.
  7. Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, and Umesh Vazirani. Improved one-dimensional area law for frustration-free systems. Phys. Rev. B, 85:195145, May 2012.
  8. Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, Umesh Vazirani, and Thomas Vidick. Rigorous RG Algo- rithms and Area Laws for Low Energy Eigenstates in 1D. Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, 356(1):65-105, Nov 2017.
  9. Dorit Aharonov and Tomer Naveh. Quantum NP -A Survey, 2002.
  10. Itai Arad. A note about a partial no-go theorem for quantum PCP. Quantum Infor- mation & Computation, 11(11-12):1019-1027, 2011.
  11. Sanjeev Arora and S Safra. Probabilistic Checking of Proofs: A New Characterization of NP. Journal of the ACM, 45(1):70-122, 1998.
  12. Sergey Bravyi, Arvid J. Bessen, and Barbara M. Terhal. Merlin-arthur games and stoquastic complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:0611021, 2006.
  13. Sergey Bravyi, David P. Divincenzo, Roberto Oliveira, and Barbara M. Terhal. The complexity of stoquastic local hamiltonian problems. Quantum Info. Comput., 8(5):361-385, May 2008.
  14. László Babai, Lance Fortnow, Noam Nisan, and Avi Wigderson. Bpp has subexpo- nential time simulations unless exptime has publishable proofs. Comput. Complex., 3(4):307-318, October 1993.
  15. Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, and Robert Knig. Quantum advantage with shallow circuits. Science, 362(6412):308-311, 2018.
  16. Fernando G. S. L. Brandão and Aram W. Harrow. Product-state approximations to quantum ground states. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '13), pages 871-880, 2013.
  17. Sergey Bravyi and Matthew Hastings. On complexity of the quantum ising model. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 349(1):1-45, Jan 2017.
  18. Dan Boneh, Yuval Ishai, Amit Sahai, and David J. Wu. Lattice-based snargs and their application to more efficient obfuscation. In Advances in Cryptology -EURO- CRYPT 2017 -36th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, 2017.
  19. Sergey Bravyi. Monte Carlo simulation of stoquastic Hamiltonians. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.2295, 2014.
  20. BSCG + 14] Eli Ben-Sasson, Alessandro Chiesa, Christina Garman, Matthew Green, Ian Miers, Eran Tromer, and Madars Virza. Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 459-474. IEEE Computer Society, 2014.
  21. Sergey Bravyi and Barbara M. Terhal. Complexity of stoquastic frustration-free hamil- tonians. SIAM J. Comput., 39(4):1462-1485, 2009.
  22. Cristian S. Calude, Elena Calude, and Michael J. Dinneen. Guest column: Adiabatic quantum computing challenges. SIGACT News, 46(1):40-61, March 2015.
  23. Stephen A Cook. The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium, pages 151-158. ACM, 1971.
  24. Matthew Coudron, Jalex Stark, and Thomas Vidick. Trading locality for time: certi- fiable randomness from low-depth circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04233, 2018.
  25. Irit Dinur. The PCP Theorem by Gap Amplification. Journal of the ACM, 54(3), 2007.
  26. Andrew Drucker. A pcp characterization of am. In Proceedings of the 38th International Colloquim Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming -Volume Part I, ICALP'11, 2011.
  27. Lior Eldar and Aram W Harrow. Local hamiltonians whose ground states are hard to approximate. In 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2017, pages 427-438, 2017.
  28. Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser. Quantum com- putation by adiabatic evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:0001106, 2000.
  29. Michael H. Freedman and Matthew B. Hastings. Quantum systems on non-k- hyperfinite complexes: a generalization of classical statistical mechanics on expander graphs. Quantum Information & Computation, 14(1-2):144-180, 2014.
  30. Franćois Le Gall. Average-Case Quantum Advantage with Shallow Circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12792, 2018.
  31. David Gosset and Yichen Huang. Correlation length versus gap in frustration-free systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:097202, Mar 2016.
  32. Sevag Gharibian, Yichen Huang, Zeph Landau, and Seung Woo Shin. Quantum hamiltonian complexity. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 10(3):159-282, 2015.
  33. Shafi Goldwasser, Yael Tauman Kalai, and Guy N. Rothblum. Delegating computation: Interactive proofs for muggles. J. ACM, 62(4):27:1-27:64, 2015.
  34. Sevag Gharibian, Zeph Landau, Seung Woo Shin, and Guoming Wang. Tensor network non-zero testing. Quantum Information & Computation, 15(9&10):885-899, 2015.
  35. Oded Goldreich and David Zuckerman. Another proof that BPP ⊆ PH (and more). In Studies in Complexity and Cryptography, pages 40-53. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
  36. Johan Håstad. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. ACM, 48(4), July 2001.
  37. Matthew B. Hastings. Obstructions to classically simulating the quantum adiabatic algorithm. Quantum Information & Computation, 13(11-12):1038-1076, 2013.
  38. Matthew B. Hastings. Trivial low energy states for commuting hamiltonians, and the quantum pcp conjecture. Quantum Info. Comput., 13(5-6):393-429, May 2013.
  39. Johan Håstad, Russell Impagliazzo, Leonid A. Levin, and Michael Luby. A pseudo- random generator from any one-way function. SIAM J. Comput., 28(4), March 1999.
  40. Russell Impagliazzo, Valentine Kabanets, and Avi Wigderson. In search of an easy witness: exponential time vs. probabilistic polynomial time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 65(4):672-694, 2002.
  41. Russell Impagliazzo and Avi Wigderson. P = bpp if e requires exponential circuits: Derandomizing the xor lemma. In Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '97, pages 220-229. ACM, 1997.
  42. Valentine Kabanets and Russell Impagliazzo. Derandomizing polynomial identity tests means proving circuit lower bounds. Computational Complexity, 13(1):1-46, Dec 2004.
  43. Alexei Kitaev, A Shen, and M N Vyalyi. Classical and quantum computation. Graduate studies in mathematics. American mathematical society, Providence (R.I.), 2002.
  44. Joel Klassen and Barbara M. Terhal. Two-local qubit Hamiltonians: when are they stoquastic? arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.05405, 2018.
  45. Leonid A Levin. Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Trans- mission, 9(3):265-266, 1973.
  46. Milad Marvian, Daniel A Lidar, and Itay Hen. On the Computational Complexity of Curing the Sign Problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03408, 2018.
  47. Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum informa- tion. Cambridge Series on Information and the Natural Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  48. Anand Natarajan and Thomas Vidick. Low-degree testing for quantum states, and a quantum entangled games PCP for QMA. In 59th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2018, pages 731-742, 2018.
  49. Chinmay Nirkhe, Umesh Vazirani, and Henry Yuen. Approximate low-weight check codes and circuit lower bounds for noisy ground states. In 45th International Collo- quium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2018, pages 91:1-91:11, 2018.
  50. Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. Hardness vs randomness. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 49(2):149-167, 1994.
  51. Tobias J Osborne. Hamiltonian complexity. Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(2):022001, 2012.
  52. Madhu Sudan, Luca Trevisan, and Salil Vadhan. Pseudorandom generators without the xor lemma. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 62(2):236 -266, 2001.
  53. Peter Shor and Ryan Williams. Mathoverflow: Com- plete problems for randomized complexity classes. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/34469/complete-problems-for-randomized-complexity Accessed: 2019-01-14.
  54. Barbara M. Terhal and David P. DiVincenzo. Adaptive quantum computation, con- stant depth quantum circuits and arthur-merlin games. Quantum Information & Com- putation, 4:134-145, 2004.
  55. John Watrous. Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups. In 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2000, 12-14 November 2000, Redondo Beach, California, USA, pages 537-546, 2000.
  56. Stathis Zachos and Martin Furer. Probabilistic quantifiers vs. distrustful adversaries. In Seventh Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 443-455, 1987.

Related papers

Quantum NP - A Survey
Dorit Aharonov

Eprint Arxiv Quant Ph 0210077, 2002

We describe Kitaev's result from 1999, in which he defines the complexity class QMA, the quantum analog of the class NP, and shows that a natural extension of 3−SAT, namely local Hamiltonians, is QMA complete. The result builds upon the classical Cook-Levin proof of the NP completeness of SAT , but differs from it in several fundamental ways, which we highlight. This result raises a rich array of open problems related to quantum complexity, algorithms and entanglement, which we state at the end of this survey. This survey is the extension of lecture notes taken by Naveh for Aharonov's quantum computation course, held in Tel Aviv University, 2001.

View PDFchevron_right
The Quantum PCP Conjecture
Dorit Aharonov

2013

The classical PCP theorem is arguably the most important achievement of classical complexity theory in the past quarter century. In recent years, researchers in quantum computational complexity have tried to identify approaches and develop tools that address the question: does a quantum version of the PCP theorem hold? The story of this study starts with classical complexity and takes unexpected turns providing fascinating vistas on the foundations of quantum mechanics, the global nature of entanglement and its topological properties, quantum error correction, information theory, and much more; it raises questions that touch upon some of the most fundamental issues at the heart of our understanding of quantum mechanics. At this point, the jury is still out as to whether or not such a theorem holds. This survey aims to provide a snapshot of the status in this ongoing story, tailored to a general theory-of-CS audience.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity of Stoquastic Frustration-Free Hamiltonians
Barbara Terhal

SIAM Journal on Computing, 2010

We study several problems related to properties of non-negative matrices that arise at the boundary between quantum and classical probabilistic computation. Our results are twofold. First, we identify a large class of quantum Hamiltonians describing systems of qubits for which the adiabatic evolution can be efficiently simulated on a classical probabilistic computer. These are stoquastic local Hamiltonians with a "frustration free" ground-state. A Hamiltonian belongs to this class iff it can be represented as H = a Ha where (1) every term Ha acts non-trivially on a constant number of qubits, (2) every term Ha has real non-positive off-diagonal matrix elements in the standard basis, and (3) the ground-state of H is a ground-state of every term Ha. Secondly, we generalize the Cook-Levin theorem proving NP-completeness of the satisfiability problem to the complexity class MA -a probabilistic analogue of NP. Specifically, we construct a quantum version of the k-SAT problem which we call "stoquastic k-SAT" such that stoquastic k-SAT is contained in MA for any constant k, and any promise problem in MA is Karp-reducible to stoquastic 6-SAT. This result provides the first non-trivial example of a MA-complete promise problem.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity Limitations on Quantum Computation
John Rogers

Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 1999

We use the powerful tools of counting complexity and generic oracles to help understand the limitations of the complexity of quantum computation. We show several results for the probabilistic quantum class BQP. • BQP is low for PP, i.e., PP BQP = PP. • There exists a relativized world where P = BQP and the polynomial-time hierarchy is infinite. • There exists a relativized world where BQP does not have complete sets. • There exists a relativized world where P = BQP but P = UP ∩ coUP and one-way functions exist. This gives a relativized answer to an open question of Simon.

View PDFchevron_right
A quantum characterization of NP
Alain Tapp

arXiv (Cornell University), 2007

In this article we introduce a new complexity class called PQMA log (2). Informally, this is the class of languages for which membership has a logarithmic-size quantum proof with perfect completeness and soundness which is polynomially close to 1 in a context where the verifier is provided a proof with two unentangled parts. We then show that PQMA log (2) = NP. For this to be possible, it is important, when defining the class, not to give too much power to the verifier. This result, when compared to the fact that QMA log = BQP, gives us new insight on the power of quantum information and the impact of entanglement.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved