Upload
kaitlyn-regan
View
217
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
When Qubits Go AnalogA Relatively Easy Problem in Quantum
Information Theory
Scott Aaronson (MIT)
Erik Demaine (motivated by a computational genetics problem): “Suppose a PSPACE machine can flip a coin with bias p an unlimited number of times. Can it extract an exponential amount of information (or even more) about p?”
Me: “I’m sure whatever the answer is, it’s obvious...”
Didn’t seem too likely there could be superpowerful “Advice Coins”
Indeed, Hellman-Cover (1970) proved the following...
Suppose a probabilistic finite automaton is trying to decide whether a coin has bias ½ or ½+. Then even if it can flip the coin an unlimited number of times, the automaton needs (1/) states to succeed with probability (say) 2/3.
Implies PSPACE/coin = PSPACE/poly
Bias=0.000000000000000110101111101
poly(n) advice bits another poly(n) advice bits
Yet quantum mechanics nullifies the Hellman-Cover Theorem!
Theorem: For any >0, can distinguish a coin with bias p=½ from a coin with bias p=½+ (with bounded error) using a single qutrit of memory.
0
10 1
2
Keep flipping the coin.
Whenever the coin lands heads, rotate /100 radians counterclockwise. Whenever it lands tails, rotate /100 radians clockwise.
Halt with probability ~2/100 at each time step, by measuring along the third dimension
Expected difference in final angle after halting, in p=½ vs. p=½+ cases: 1 radian
Standard deviation in angle:
So, could BQPSPACE/coin=ALL?
Theorem: No.
Proof: Let’s even let the machine run infinitely long; it only has to get the right answer in the limit
Let 0 = superoperator applied to our memory qubits whenever coin lands heads,
1 = superoperator when it lands tails
Then induced superoperator at each time step:
We’re interested in a fixed-point of p: a mixed state p such that
p = coin’s bias
Fixed-Points of Superoperators
Studied by [A.-Watrous 2008] in the context of quantum computing with closed timelike curves
Our result there: BQPCTC = PCTC = PSPACE
Quantum computers with CTCs have exactly the same power as classical computers with CTCs, namely PSPACE (or: “CTCs make time and space equivalent as computational resources”)
Key PointFixed-point p of a superoperator p can be expressed in terms of degree-2s rational functions of p, where s is the number of qubits
(Proof: Use Cramer’s Rule on 2s2s matrices)
Let ax(p) be the probability that the PSPACE machine accepts, on input x{1,...,N} and an advice coin with bias p
Then ax(p) is a degree-2s rational function of p
By calculus, a degree-2s rational function can cross the origin (or the line y=½) at most 22s times
To specify p, well enough to decide whether ax(p)½ for any x: suffices to say how many reals 0<q<p there are such that some ax(p) crosses the line y=½ at q
This takes log2(22sN)=s+1+log2(N) bits
So, coin can specify distinct functions
p
ax(p)
OK, how about a harder problem?Is there an oracle relative to which BQPPH?
Given oracle access to two Boolean functions,f,g:{-1,1}n{-1,1}n
Promised that either
(1)f and g are both uniformly random, or
(2)f,g were chosen by picking a random unit vector and letting f(x)=sgn(vx), g(x)=sgn(Hnvx)
Problem: Decide which
New candidate problem we should use for this:
“Fourier Checking”
I claim this problem is in BQP
then measure in the Hadamard basis
On the other hand, I conjecture the Fourier Checking problem is not in PH
I can show that any poly(n) bits of f(x) and g(x) are close to uniformly random. I conjecture that this suffices to put the problem outside PH (“Generalized Linial-Nisan Conjecture”)
NO WE CAN’T
PROVE QUANTUM LOWER BOUNDS