Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Quantum 2-SAT on low dimensional systems is $\mathsf{QMA}_1$-complete: Direct embeddings and black-box simulation (2401.02368v1)

Published 4 Jan 2024 in quant-ph and cs.CC

Abstract: Despite the fundamental role the Quantum Satisfiability (QSAT) problem has played in quantum complexity theory, a central question remains open: At which local dimension does the complexity of QSAT transition from "easy" to "hard"? Here, we study QSAT with each constraint acting on a $k$-dimensional and $l$-dimensional qudit pair, denoted $(k,l)$-QSAT. Our first main result shows that, surprisingly, QSAT on qubits can remain $\mathsf{QMA}_1$-hard, in that $(2,5)$-QSAT is $\mathsf{QMA}_1$-complete. In contrast, $2$-SAT on qubits is well-known to be poly-time solvable [Bravyi, 2006]. Our second main result proves that $(3,d)$-QSAT on the 1D line with $d\in O(1)$ is also $\mathsf{QMA}_1$-hard. Finally, we initiate the study of 1D $(2,d)$-QSAT by giving a frustration-free 1D Hamiltonian with a unique, entangled ground state. Our first result uses a direct embedding, combining a novel clock construction with the 2D circuit-to-Hamiltonian construction of [Gosset, Nagaj, 2013]. Of note is a new simplified and analytic proof for the latter (as opposed to a partially numeric proof in [GN13]). This exploits Unitary Labelled Graphs [Bausch, Cubitt, Ozols, 2017] together with a new "Nullspace Connection Lemma", allowing us to break low energy analyses into small patches of projectors, and to improve the soundness analysis of [GN13] from $\Omega(1/T6)$ to $\Omega(1/T2)$, for $T$ the number of gates. Our second result goes via black-box reduction: Given an arbitrary 1D Hamiltonian $H$ on $d'$-dimensional qudits, we show how to embed it into an effective null-space of a 1D $(3,d)$-QSAT instance, for $d\in O(1)$. Our approach may be viewed as a weaker notion of "simulation" (`a la [Bravyi, Hastings 2017], [Cubitt, Montanaro, Piddock 2018]). As far as we are aware, this gives the first "black-box simulation"-based $\mathsf{QMA}_1$-hardness result, i.e. for frustration-free Hamiltonians.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (39)
  1. “The Power of Quantum Systems on a Line” In Communications in Mathematical Physics 287.1, 2009, pp. 41–65 DOI: 10.1007/s00220-008-0710-3
  2. B. Aspvall, M.F. Plass and R.E. Tarjan “A Linear-Time Algorithm for Testing the Truth of Certain Quantified Boolean Formulas” In Information Processing Letters 8.3, 1979, pp. 121–123
  3. “Linear Time Algorithm for Quantum 2SAT” In 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016) 55, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), 2016, pp. 15:1–15:14
  4. “Analysis and limitations of modified circuit-to-Hamiltonian constructions” In Quantum 2 Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, 2018, pp. 94 DOI: 10.22331/q-2018-09-19-94
  5. “Criticality without Frustration for Quantum Spin-1 Chains” In Physical Review Letters 109.20 American Physical Society, 2012, pp. 207202 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.207202
  6. Johannes Bausch, Toby Cubitt and Maris Ozols “The Complexity of Translationally Invariant Spin Chains with Low Local Dimension” In Annales Henri Poincaré 18.11, 2017, pp. 3449–3513 DOI: 10.1007/s00023-017-0609-7
  7. Sergey Bravyi, David P. DiVincenzo and Daniel Loss “Schrieffer–Wolff Transformation for Quantum Many-Body Systems” In Annals of Physics 326.10, 2011, pp. 2793–2826 DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2011.06.004
  8. “A Linear Time Algorithm for Quantum 2-SAT” In 31st Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC 2016) 50, 2016, pp. 27:1–27:21
  9. “On Complexity of the Quantum Ising Model” In Communications in Mathematical Physics 349.1, 2017, pp. 1–45 DOI: 10.1007/s00220-016-2787-4
  10. Sergey Bravyi “Efficient Algorithm for a Quantum Analogue of 2-SAT” arXiv, 2006 DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0602108
  11. “No-Go Theorem for One-Way Quantum Computing on Naturally Occurring Two-Level Systems” In Physical Review A 83.5 American Physical Society, 2011, pp. 050301 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.050301
  12. “Complexity Classification of Local Hamiltonian Problems” In SIAM Journal on Computing 45.2 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2016, pp. 268–316 DOI: 10.1137/140998287
  13. T.S. Cubitt, A. Montanaro and S. Piddock “Universal Quantum Hamiltonians” In National Academy of Sciences 115.38 National Academy of Sciences, 2018, pp. 9497–9502 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804949115
  14. Stephen A. Cook “The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures” In Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’71 New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 1971, pp. 151–158 DOI: 10.1145/800157.805047
  15. “A Computing Procedure for Quantification Theory” In Journal of the ACM 7.3, 1960, pp. 201
  16. S. Even, A. Itai and A. Shamir “On the Complexity of the Time Table and Multi-Commodity Flow Problems” In SIAM Journal on Computing 5.4, 1976, pp. 691–703
  17. “Quantum SAT for a Qutrit-Cinquit Pair Is QMA1-Complete” In Automata, Languages and Programming Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 881–892
  18. S. Gharibian “Strong NP-hardness of the Quantum Separability Problem” In Quantum Information and Computation 10.3&4, 2010, pp. 343–360
  19. M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson and L. Stockmeyer “Some Simplified NP-complete Graph Problems” In Theoretical Computer Science 1.3, 1976, pp. 237–267 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3975(76)90059-1
  20. “Quantum 3-SAT Is QMA1-Complete” In 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science IEEE, 2013 DOI: 10.1109/focs.2013.86
  21. Sevag Gharibian, Stephen Piddock and Justin Yirka “Oracle Complexity Classes and Local Measurements on Physical Hamiltonians” In 37th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2020) 154, 2020, pp. 20:1–20:37
  22. “Exact synthesis of multiqubit Clifford+T𝑇Titalic_T circuits” In Phys. Rev. A 87 American Physical Society, 2013, pp. 032332 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032332
  23. L. Gurvits “Classical Deterministic Complexity of Edmond’s Problem and Quantum Entanglement” In 35th Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2003) ACM Press, 2003, pp. 10–19
  24. S. Hallgren, D. Nagaj and S. Narayanaswami “The Local Hamiltonian Problem on a Line with Eight States Is QMA-complete” In Quantum Information & Computation 13.9&10, 2013, pp. 0721–0750
  25. L. Ioannou “Computational Complexity of the Quantum Separability Problem” In Quantum Information & Computation 7.4, 2007, pp. 335
  26. Richard M. Karp “Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems” In Complexity of Computer Computations: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations, Held March 20–22, 1972, at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and Sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Mathematics Program, IBM World Trade Corporation, and the IBM Research Mathematical Sciences Department, The IBM Research Symposia Series Boston, MA: Springer US, 1972, pp. 85–103 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2001-2˙9
  27. J. Kempe, A. Kitaev and O. Regev “The Complexity of the Local Hamiltonian Problem” In SIAM Journal on Computing 35.5, 2006, pp. 1070–1097
  28. M.R. Krom “The Decision Problem for a Class of First-Order Formulas in Which All Disjunctions Are Binary” In Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 13, 1967, pp. 15–20
  29. A.Yu. Kitaev, A.H. Shen and M.N. Vyalyi “Classical and Quantum Computation” USA: American Mathematical Society, 2002
  30. L. Levin “Universal Search Problems” In Problems of Information Transmission 9.3, 1973, pp. 265–266
  31. Zeph Landau, Umesh Vazirani and Thomas Vidick “A Polynomial Time Algorithm for the Ground State of One-Dimensional Gapped Local Hamiltonians” In Nature Physics 11.7 Nature Publishing Group, 2015, pp. 566–569 DOI: 10.1038/nphys3345
  32. Daniel Nagaj “Local Hamiltonians in Quantum Computation” arXiv, 2008 DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.0808.2117
  33. “New construction for a QMA complete three-local Hamiltonian” In Journal of Mathematical Physics 48.7, 2007, pp. 072104 DOI: 10.1063/1.2748377
  34. C. Papadimitriou “On Selecting a Satisfying Truth Assignment” In 32nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computing (FOCS 1991), 1991, pp. 163–169
  35. Asher Peres “Separability Criterion for Density Matrices” In Physical Review Letters 77.8 American Physical Society, 1996, pp. 1413–1415 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413
  36. W.V. Quine “On Cores and Prime Implicants of Truth Functions” In The American Mathematical Monthly 66.5, 1959, pp. 755–760
  37. Norbert Schuch, Ignacio Cirac and Frank Verstraete “Computational Difficulty of Finding Matrix Product Ground States” In Physical Review Letters 100.25, 2008 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.250501
  38. James D. Watson “Detailed Analysis of Circuit-to-Hamiltonian Mappings”, 2019 arXiv:1910.01481 [quant-ph]
  39. “Probabilistic Quantifiers vs. Distrustful Adversaries” In Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1987, pp. 443–455 DOI: 10.1007/3-540-18625-5˙67
Citations (1)

Summary

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