Quantum physics

through the
Computational lens

Dorit Aharonov,
The Hebrew University 1
FOCS’96, Radisson, Burlington, Vermont2
 Computational economics
computational biology…
Computational quantum physics
Ha n
r dn a t i o
ess im
rox
App
Reducti
o ns Robustness

Pseudo- Communicatio
n
randomness Int
era
r ro r cti
E t i on on
r re c
co 3
 Computational complexity
in physics
1. NP  quantum states

2. interactive proofs  testing quantum mechanics

3. Error correction  black holes

4
Setting the language:

Quantum computation

5
 The computational power of physical systems

A BC A

Uniform
Circuits

Extended
Church ≈ ≈
TuringThesis:
 Crash course in Quantum mechanics:
quantum states

|   a | i  | i   ... | i
i 1 2 n   a | i , i ,..., i
i 1 2 n

   n   
i j  0 ,1 i j  0 ,1

2 2 2
C  C  ... C 1

.n quantum bits – require 2n complex numbers

cl e
r ti nt
i pa e
lt gle m
u
M an
n t
E
 Quantum Circuits
m
H Hj
j 1 Input: |  ( 0 )  | 0 ,1,1,...,1, 0

Dynamics:
….
U4 U5
U3 U
2
| (t )  U | (0 ) U U   I
U1
Measurement  output
8

NOT CNOT Hadamard

1 0 0 0
| 0 | 1  
0 1 0 1 0 0 | 0  |02|1 |   12 12 
  0 1 
| 1 | 0 1 0 0 0 1 |0  |1  1

0

0 1 0 
| 1  2
|   2 2

Hadamard + classical gates
are quantum universal
Complexity measure: number of gates.
 Quantum algorithms
Prime factors
of Integers

N=PQ
N Shor’94

P Q

HarrowHassidimLloyd’08

kitaevLarsenWang’02 ChildsCleveDeottoFarhi
UnitGroup 9

Eisentrager
A’JonesLandau’04 GuttmanSpielman’02
HallgrenKitaevSong’14
 Example 1:
Bell’s game
1
2
| 0,1 | 1,0 
X A  {0,1} X B  {0,1}
a b
a  b 1
0 0
They win if:
a 0  b1  1
X A , X B  {(0,0), (0,1), (1,0)} : a  b
a1  b 0  1
X A , X B  {(1,1)} :a  b
a1  b1  0
> 0.85! Pr(success) with EPR 10
Pr(Win)  0.75
 Example II: Inner Product Estimation
Two distributions over n bit | P   P (P
i ) (
| i),
strings. i
Are they equal or
their supports do not intersect? | Q    Q (i ) | i 
i
Q ()
need exp(n) many samples.
 P | Q   1 or 0 ?
H
i  {0 ,1} n
1
2
| 0 | P   1
2
| 1 | Q  
1
2 | 0 | P   12 | 1 | P   12 | 0 | Q   12 | 1 | Q 
|0 |1
| 0  1   P |Q 
2
|0 |1
Prob ( 0 )  2
| 1  2 Can estimate <P|Q>
efficiently
(by measuring the left qubit)
Example III: Quantum error correcting codes

Groundstates:
Eigenstates of H with
Lowest eigenvalues (energies)

H   B P  A V
P V
 A Computational complexity map
BQP: Class of problems solvable in
polynomial time by quantum computers
QNP BPP: Class of problems solvable in
NP polynomial time by classical computers

BQ factoring
BPP P 2 2
x  ny  1
P 1
3

QECC: Shor,Steane’95
Fault tolerant QC:
A’BenOr96
KnillLaflammeZurek’96
All physically realizable
Kitaev’96
computational models can be
Widely believed:
simulated in poly time by a Turing
machine” (Extended CTT) QC violates ECTT
BQP is strictly larger than BPP,
Quantum Systems can in principle
13
physically implement BQP
What does quantum complexity
tell us about physics?

14
 1.
NP
&
The complexity of groundstates

15
 We do not understand Quantum States…
New quantum Simulating quantum Systems,
algorithms, Understanding
Cryptographic Physical phenomena
protocols
n
2
P, BPP 2
a l l y
ion
m
Easy/ a t H Hj
pu t
tractable
Com d j 1

Ha r
Area laws
Quantum NP
A B
 NP & Quantum NP
Verifier BQP Verifier

input “hint” input


3-SAT
( x1  x 3  x 7 )  ( x 4  x 3  x12 )  ...
Is the input formula
satisfiable?
Quantum SAT?
Quantum Cook-Levin?
Cook-Levin’71:
3-sat is NP complete
 K-SAT  Local Hamiltonians

CSP is a special
Classical case! Local
CSPs Hamiltonians
ic le
Major CS problem: a rt nt
Constraint Satisfaction l tip eme
Mu angl Major CMP problem:
Problem (CSP) t
En m The Local
( x1  x3  x7 )  ( x4  x3  x12 )  ...  H  H j Hamiltonian
j 1 Problem:

Given: CSP formula Given: Local Hamiltonian

Objectives: Min. # of Violations Objective: Ground energy
Optimal assignment
Approximations
In Quantum NP
 Quantum Cook Levin
Theorem: Approx groundvalue of a local Hamiltonian is QNP
complete [Kitaev98 (based on Feynman82)]

|  ( k )
Time
steps :
|  (1) 
|  ( 0 )
( x1  x 3  x 7 )  ( x 4  x 3  x12 )  ...
Computation is local
1
2
| 0 | P   1
2
| 1 | Q 
L m
| history   1
L 1  |  (k ) | k  H    j
k 0 j 1
 Complexity of
groundstates
of Local Hamiltonians

A class of Hamiltonians is quantum NP complete 

Do not expect a classical description of GSs

(unless QNP=NP)

Exponentially Long relaxation times to GSs

 1D systems
m
H Hj
j 1
Classically: 1D constraint systems are in P
Quantumly: Heuristics: DMRG works.

Quantum 1D is
If gapped:
Quantum NP hard!
Quantum 1D in P [A’KempeGottesmanIrani’07]
[LandauVaziraniVidick’13]
Even trans. Invariant!
[GottesmanIrani’10]

Reductions:
Area law Hamiltonian Road map
 2.
Interactive Experiments

Inspired by GoldwasserMicaliRakoff’85 22
Motivated by conversations with Oded Goldreich and Madhu Sudan
A Physical Experiment

A physical
Quantum theory
Mechanics 23
F=ma
 Is Quantum Mechanics (QM) Falsifiable?

Question 1: Fundamental: Is QM Falsifiable?

Question 2: Experimental: Can Experimentalists Test

Their systems, claimed to be quantum computers?

Question 3: Cryptographic: How can we safely Delagate

computations to an untrusted company claiming to have a Q comp.?
 Why did Shor’s algorithm for factoring N=PQ succeed in
getting arround the “usual type of experiments” pitfall?

Interactive proofs [Goldwasser, Micali, Rackoff’85]

N
X

P,Q
..
. All powerful prover,
BPP verifier BQP
but Prover
untrusted
With interaction,
A computationally weak Verifier
Can get convinced of highly complex claims
Without knowing how to prove them!!! 25
The power of interaction

26
 Verifying quantum evolutions
[A’EbanBenOr’08, BroadbentKashefiFitzimons’09, Broadbent’15,A’BenOrMahadev’16]

Verifier: BPP
.. BQP Prover
+ O(1) qubits .
Theorem: A BQP prover can prove any quantum
circuit to a BPP+O(1) qubits verifier!

d 1
2 dim Hilbert space 2 dim Hilbert space
 Verifying quantum evolutions
Open: Can this be done with one classical verifier?

Possible
with two
entangled
provers 28
[ReichardtUngerVazirani’12]

Open: Relations to qPCP?

Cryptography: Q. obfuscation?

Can interactive experiments be used elsewhere?

 3.
Quantum gravity
& quantum information processing
?

29
 AdS/CFT [Maldacena’97]
quantum gravity

AlmheiriDongHarlow’14:
CFT as a code subspace

Complexity of quantum states = Length of wormhole [Susskind’15]

Testing unitarity of blackhole evolution [Hayden & Preskill’07]

30
31
Thanks Avi,
and happy
birthday!!

32