Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

On the complexity of quantum partition functions (2110.15466v2)

Published 29 Oct 2021 in quant-ph and cs.CC

Abstract: The partition function and free energy of a quantum many-body system determine its physical properties in thermal equilibrium. Here we study the computational complexity of approximating these quantities for $n$-qubit local Hamiltonians. First, we report a classical algorithm with $\mathrm{poly}(n)$ runtime which approximates the free energy of a given $2$-local Hamiltonian provided that it satisfies a certain denseness condition. Our algorithm combines the variational characterization of the free energy and convex relaxation methods. It contributes to a body of work on efficient approximation algorithms for dense instances of optimization problems which are hard in the general case, and can be viewed as simultaneously extending existing algorithms for (a) the ground energy of dense $2$-local Hamiltonians, and (b) the free energy of dense classical Ising models. Secondly, we establish polynomial-time equivalence between the problem of approximating the free energy of local Hamiltonians and three other natural quantum approximate counting problems, including the problem of approximating the number of witness states accepted by a QMA verifier. These results suggest that simulation of quantum many-body systems in thermal equilibrium may precisely capture the complexity of a broad family of computational problems that has yet to be defined or characterized in terms of known complexity classes. Finally, we summarize state-of-the-art classical and quantum algorithms for approximating the free energy and show how to improve their runtime and memory footprint.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. USA: American Mathematical Society, 2002.
  2. J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, “The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem,” Siam journal on computing, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1070–1097, 2006.
  3. B. Brown, S. T. Flammia, and N. Schuch, “Computational difficulty of computing the density of states,” Physical review letters, vol. 107, no. 4, p. 040501, 2011.
  4. I. Dinur, “The PCP theorem by gap amplification,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 12–es, 2007.
  5. P. Alimonti and V. Kann, “Hardness of approximating problems on cubic graphs,” in Italian Conference on Algorithms and Complexity, pp. 288–298, Springer, 1997.
  6. M. Suzuki, Quantum Monte Carlo methods in condensed matter physics. World scientific, 1993.
  7. S. Bravyi, D. P. Divincenzo, R. I. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, “The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0606140, 2006.
  8. E. Crosson and A. W. Harrow, “Rapid mixing of path integral Monte Carlo for 1D stoquastic Hamiltonians,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 395, 2021.
  9. S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Polynomial-time classical simulation of quantum ferromagnets,” Physical review letters, vol. 119, no. 10, p. 100503, 2017.
  10. Springer, 2016.
  11. A. W. Harrow, S. Mehraban, and M. Soleimanifar, “Classical algorithms, correlation decay, and complex zeros of partition functions of quantum many-body systems,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 378–386, 2020.
  12. S. Arora, D. Karger, and M. Karpinski, “Polynomial time approximation schemes for dense instances of NP-hard problems,” Journal of computer and system sciences, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 193–210, 1999.
  13. F. G. Brandao and A. W. Harrow, “Product-state approximations to quantum ground states,” in Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’13, (New York, NY, USA), p. 871–880, Association for Computing Machinery, 2013.
  14. S. Gharibian and J. Kempe, “Approximation algorithms for QMA-complete problems,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1028–1050, 2012.
  15. A. Risteski, “How to calculate partition functions using convex programming hierarchies: provable bounds for variational methods,” in 29th Annual Conference on Learning Theory (V. Feldman, A. Rakhlin, and O. Shamir, eds.), vol. 49 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, (Columbia University, New York, New York, USA), pp. 1402–1416, PMLR, 23–26 Jun 2016.
  16. Y. Yoshida and Y. Zhou, “Approximation schemes via sherali-adams hierarchy for dense constraint satisfaction problems and assignment problems,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS ’14, (New York, NY, USA), p. 423–438, Association for Computing Machinery, 2014.
  17. D. Bertsimas and S. Vempala, “Solving convex programs by random walks,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 540–556, 2004.
  18. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  19. B. Barak, P. Raghavendra, and D. Steurer, “Rounding semidefinite programming hierarchies via global correlation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1104.4680, 2011.
  20. F. G. S. L. Brandão, Entanglement Theory and the Quantum Simulation of Many-Body Physics. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 2008.
  21. C. Cade and A. Montanaro, “The quantum complexity of computing schatten p𝑝pitalic_p-norms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.09279, 2017.
  22. A. N. Chowdhury, R. D. Somma, and Y. Subasi, “Computing partition functions in the one-clean-qubit model,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 103, p. 032422, Mar 2021.
  23. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Power of one bit of quantum information,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, no. 25, p. 5672, 1998.
  24. L. Stockmeyer, “The complexity of approximate counting,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’83, (New York, NY, USA), p. 118–126, Association for Computing Machinery, 1983.
  25. L. A. Goldberg and H. Guo, “The complexity of approximating complex-valued Ising and Tutte partition functions,” computational complexity, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 765–833, 2017.
  26. D. Aharonov, M. Ben-Or, F. G. Brandao, and O. Sattath, “The pursuit for uniqueness: extending Valiant-Vazirani theorem to the probabilistic and quantum settings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.4840, 2008.
  27. T. S. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, and S. Piddock, “Universal quantum Hamiltonians,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115, no. 38, pp. 9497–9502, 2018.
  28. L. Zhou and D. Aharonov, “Strongly universal hamiltonian simulators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02991, 2021.
  29. T. Kohler, S. Piddock, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, “Translationally-invariant universal quantum hamiltonians in 1d,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13753, 2020.
  30. T. Kohler, S. Piddock, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, “General conditions for universality of quantum hamiltonians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.12319, 2021.
  31. D. Gosset and J. Smolin, “A compressed classical description of quantum states,” in 14th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2019), Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019.
  32. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,” Nature Physics, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1050–1057, 2020.
  33. R. Cleve, D. Leung, L. Liu, and C. Wang, “Near-linear constructions of exact unitary 2-designs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.04592, 2015.
  34. C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, “Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation,” Physical Review A, vol. 80, no. 1, p. 012304, 2009.
  35. M. F. Hutchinson, “A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for Laplacian smoothing splines,” Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1059–1076, 1989.
  36. R. A. Meyer, C. Musco, C. Musco, and D. P. Woodruff, “Hutch++: Optimal stochastic trace estimation,” in Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA), pp. 142–155, SIAM, 2021.
  37. D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, “Sampling from the thermal quantum gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 103, p. 220502, 2009.
  38. G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, “Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation,” in Quantum computation and information, vol. 305 of Contemporary Mathematics, pp. 53–74, AMS, 2002.
  39. A. N. Chowdhury and R. D. Somma, “Quantum algorithms for gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation,” Quant. Inf. Comp., vol. 17, no. 1–2, p. 41–64, 2017.
  40. A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics,” in ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 2019, (New York, NY, USA), p. 193–204, Association for Computing Machinery, 2019.
  41. J. van Apeldoorn, A. Gilyén, S. Gribling, and R. de Wolf, “Quantum SDP-Solvers: Better upper and lower bounds,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 230, Feb. 2020.
  42. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. USA: Cambridge University Press, 10th ed., 2011.
  43. J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  44. Y.-K. Liu, “Consistency of local density matrices is qma-complete,” in Approximation, randomization, and combinatorial optimization. algorithms and techniques, pp. 438–449, Springer, 2006.
  45. C. Marriott and J. Watrous, “Quantum arthur–merlin games,” computational complexity, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 122–152, 2005.
  46. S. Lloyd, “Universal quantum simulators,” Science, pp. 1073–1078, 1996.
  47. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing,” Physical review letters, vol. 118, no. 1, p. 010501, 2017.
  48. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  49. D. Štefankovič, S. Vempala, and E. Vigoda, “Adaptive simulated annealing: A near-optimal connection between sampling and counting,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1–36, 2009.
  50. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,” Physical Review A, vol. 70, no. 5, p. 052328, 2004.
  51. R. Koenig and J. A. Smolin, “How to efficiently select an arbitrary Clifford group element,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 55, no. 12, p. 122202, 2014.
  52. S. Bravyi and D. Maslov, “Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clifford group,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 4546–4563, 2021.
  53. S. Aaronson and P. Rall, “Quantum approximate counting, simplified,” Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms, p. 24–32, Jan 2020.
  54. R. D. Somma and S. Boixo, “Spectral gap amplification,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 42, pp. 593–610, 2013.
  55. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization,” Quantum, vol. 3, p. 163, July 2019.
Citations (35)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now