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

Dequantizing the Quantum Singular Value Transformation: Hardness and Applications to Quantum Chemistry and the Quantum PCP Conjecture (2111.09079v5)

Published 17 Nov 2021 in quant-ph and cs.CC

Abstract: The Quantum Singular Value Transformation (QSVT) is a recent technique that gives a unified framework to describe most quantum algorithms discovered so far, and may lead to the development of novel quantum algorithms. In this paper we investigate the hardness of classically simulating the QSVT. A recent result by Chia, Gily\'en, Li, Lin, Tang and Wang (STOC 2020) showed that the QSVT can be efficiently "dequantized" for low-rank matrices, and discussed its implication to quantum machine learning. In this work, motivated by establishing the superiority of quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and making progress on the quantum PCP conjecture, we focus on the other main class of matrices considered in applications of the QSVT, sparse matrices. We first show how to efficiently "dequantize", with arbitrarily small constant precision, the QSVT associated with a low-degree polynomial. We apply this technique to design classical algorithms that estimate, with constant precision, the singular values of a sparse matrix. We show in particular that a central computational problem considered by quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry (estimating the ground state energy of a local Hamiltonian when given, as an additional input, a state sufficiently close to the ground state) can be solved efficiently with constant precision on a classical computer. As a complementary result, we prove that with inverse-polynomial precision, the same problem becomes BQP-complete. This gives theoretical evidence for the superiority of quantum algorithms for chemistry, and strongly suggests that said superiority stems from the improved precision achievable in the quantum setting. We also discuss how this dequantization technique may help make progress on the central quantum PCP conjecture.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (70)
  1. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proceedings of the Forty-third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2011), pages 333–342, 2011.
  2. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574:505–510, 2019.
  3. Scott Aaronson. Why quantum chemistry is hard. Nature Physics, 5:707–708, 2009.
  4. Guest column: the quantum PCP conjecture. SIGACT News, 44(2):47–79, 2013. ArXiv: 1309.7495.
  5. NLTS Hamiltonians from good quantum codes. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2023), pages 1090–1096, 2023.
  6. Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies. Science, 309(5741):1704–1707, 2005.
  7. Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Physical Review Letters, 83:5162–5165, 1999.
  8. Andris Ambainis. On physical problems that are slightly more difficult than QMA. In Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2014), pages 32–43, 2014.
  9. Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2003), page 20–29, 2003.
  10. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science. Chemical Reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020.
  11. Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse hamiltonians. In Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2014), page 283–292, 2014.
  12. Thiago Bergamaschi. Improved product-state approximation algorithms for quantum local hamiltonians. In Proceedings of the 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2023), volume 261 of LIPIcs, pages 20:1–20:18, 2023.
  13. On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling. Nature Physics, 15:159–163, 2019.
  14. Product-state approximations to quantum ground states. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2013), page 871–880, 2013.
  15. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. Contemporary Mathematics, 305:53–74, 2002.
  16. Fermionic quantum computation. Annals of Physics, 298(1):210–226, 2002.
  17. Sergey Bravyi. Monte Carlo simulation of stoquastic Hamiltonians. Quantum Information and Computation, 15(13&14):1122–1140, 2015.
  18. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3:625–644, 2021.
  19. The power of block-encoded matrix powers: Improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019), volume 132 of LIPIcs, pages 33:1–33:14, 2019.
  20. Sampling-based sublinear low-rank matrix arithmetic framework for dequantizing quantum machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2020), pages 387–400, 2020.
  21. Quantum-inspired algorithms for solving low-rank linear equation systems with logarithmic dependence on the dimension. In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2020), volume 181 of LIPIcs, pages 47:1–47:17, 2020.
  22. Stephen Cook. The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 1972), pages 151–158, 1972.
  23. Compact fermion to qubit mappings. Physical Review B, 104:035118, 2021.
  24. A mathematical and computational review of Hartree–Fock SCF methods in quantum chemistry. Molecular Physics, 105(23-24):3057–3098, 2007.
  25. Local hamiltonians whose ground states are hard to approximate. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2017), pages 427–438, 2017.
  26. Quantum systems on non-k𝑘kitalic_k-hyperfinite complexes: a generalization of classical statistical mechanics on expander graphs. Quantum Information and Computation, 14(1-2):144–180, 2014.
  27. Fast Monte-Carlo algorithms for finding low-rank approximations. Journal of the ACM, 51(6):1025–1041, 2004.
  28. Quantum Hamiltonian complexity. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 10(3):159–282, 2015.
  29. Approximation algorithms for qma-complete problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 41(4):1028–1050, 2012.
  30. Hardness of approximation for quantum problems. arXiv:quant-ph/1209.1055, 2012.
  31. Hardness of approximation for quantum problems. In Proceedings of the 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP 2012), pages 387–398, 2012.
  32. QMA with subset state witnesses. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 2016:4, 2016.
  33. Sevag Gharibian and François Le Gall. Dequantizing the quantum singular value transformation: hardness and applications to quantum chemistry and the quantum PCP conjecture. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 19–32, 2022. arXiv:2111.09079.
  34. Alex Bredariol Grilo. Quantum proofs, the local Hamiltonian problem and applications. (Preuves quantiques, le problème des Hamiltoniens locaux et applications). PhD thesis, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France, 2018.
  35. Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 212–219, 1996.
  36. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019), pages 193–204, 2019.
  37. An improved quantum-inspired algorithm for linear regression. ArXiv:2009.07268, 2020.
  38. The complexity of simulating local measurements on quantum systems. Quantum, 3:189, 2019.
  39. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters, 103:150502, 2009. Full version available as ArXiv: 0811.3171.
  40. Quantum-inspired classical algorithms for singular value transformation. In Proceedings of the 45th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2020), volume 170 of LIPIcs, pages 53:1–53:14, 2020.
  41. Majorana loop stabilizer codes for error mitigation in fermionic quantum simulations. Physical Review Applied, 12:064041, 2019.
  42. Random generation of combinatorial structures from a uniform distribution. Theoretical Computer Science, 43:169–188, 1986.
  43. Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot. Zeitschrift für Physik, 47:631–651, 1928.
  44. Alexei Yu. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem. arXiv:quant-ph/9511026, 1995.
  45. Classical and Quantum Computation. American Mathematical Society, 2002.
  46. Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hypercontraction. PRX Quantum, 2:030305, 2021.
  47. Hamiltonian simulation by uniform spectral amplification. ArXiv: 1707.05391, 2017.
  48. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum, 3:163, 2019.
  49. Leonid Levin. Universal search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3):265–266, 1973.
  50. Yupan Liu. StoqMA meets distribution testing. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2021), pages 4:1–4:22, 2021.
  51. Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators. Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996.
  52. Lin Lin and Yu Tong. Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems. Quantum, 4:361, 2020.
  53. Exploiting locality in quantum computation for quantum chemistry. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 5(24):4368–4380, 2014. PMID: 26273989.
  54. Search via quantum walk. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(1):142–164, 2011.
  55. Ashley Montanaro. Quantum speedup of Monte Carlo methods. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 471(2181):20150301, 2015.
  56. A grand unification of quantum algorithms. arXiv: 2105.02859, 2021.
  57. Tobias J. Osborne. Hamiltonian complexity. Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(2):022001, 2012.
  58. Approximating Hamiltonian dynamics with the Nyström method. Quantum, 4:234, 2020.
  59. Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(29):7555–7560, 2017.
  60. Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation. Physical Review Research, 1:033033, 2019.
  61. Martin Schwarz and Maarten Van den Nest. Simulating quantum circuits with sparse output distributions. arXiv: 1310.6749, 2013.
  62. Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental limitations of density functional theory. Nature Physics, 5:732–735, 2009.
  63. Quantum codes for quantum simulation of fermions on a square lattice of qubits. Physical Review A, 99:022308, 2019.
  64. Mario Szegedy. Quantum speed-up of Markov chain based algorithms. In Proceedings of the 45th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2004), pages 32–41, 2004.
  65. Ewin Tang. A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2019), pages 217–228, 2019.
  66. Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamiltonians of spins. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2005(09):P09012–P09012, 2005.
  67. Maarten Van Den Nest. Simulating quantum computers with probabilistic methods. Quantum Information and Computation, 11(9–10):784–812, 2011.
  68. Local spin operators for fermion simulations. Physical Review A, 94:030301, 2016.
  69. Computational complexity in electronic structure. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 15:397–411, 2013.
  70. Several natural BQP-complete problems. ArXiv: 0606179, 2006.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Sevag Gharibian (34 papers)
  2. François Le Gall (73 papers)
Citations (48)

Summary

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets