Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Exponential learning advantages with conjugate states and minimal quantum memory

Published 6 Mar 2024 in quant-ph | (2403.03469v1)

Abstract: The ability of quantum computers to directly manipulate and analyze quantum states stored in quantum memory allows them to learn about aspects of our physical world that would otherwise be invisible given a modest number of measurements. Here we investigate a new learning resource which could be available to quantum computers in the future -- measurements on the unknown state accompanied by its complex conjugate $\rho \otimes \rho\ast$. For a certain shadow tomography task, we surprisingly find that measurements on only copies of $\rho \otimes \rho\ast$ can be exponentially more powerful than measurements on $\rho{\otimes K}$, even for large $K$. This expands the class of provable exponential advantages using only a constant overhead quantum memory, or minimal quantum memory, and we provide a number of examples where the state $\rho\ast$ is naturally available in both computational and physical applications. In addition, we precisely quantify the power of classical shadows on single copies under a generalized Clifford ensemble and give a class of quantities that can be efficiently learned. The learning task we study in both the single copy and quantum memory settings is physically natural and corresponds to real-space observables with a limit of bosonic modes, where it achieves an exponential improvement in detecting certain signals under a noisy background. We quantify a new and powerful resource in quantum learning, and we believe the advantage may find applications in improving quantum simulation, learning from quantum sensors, and uncovering new physical phenomena.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (50)
  1. R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, “Efficient quantum tomography,” in Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, 2016, pp. 899–912.
  2. A. Anshu and S. Arunachalam, “A survey on the complexity of learning quantum states,” Nature Reviews Physics, pp. 1–11, 2023.
  3. S. Aaronson, “Shadow tomography of quantum states,” in Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, 2018, pp. 325–338.
  4. S. Aaronson, X. Chen, E. Hazan, S. Kale, and A. Nayak, “Online learning of quantum states,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018.
  5. S. Aaronson and G. N. Rothblum, “Gentle measurement of quantum states and differential privacy,” in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2019, pp. 322–333.
  6. C. Bădescu and R. O’Donnell, “Improved quantum data analysis,” in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 2021, pp. 1398–1411.
  7. 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.
  8. S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, “Exponential separations between learning with and without quantum memory,” in 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 574–585.
  9. D. Aharonov, J. Cotler, and X.-L. Qi, “Quantum algorithmic measurement,” Nature communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 887, 2022.
  10. H.-Y. Huang, M. Broughton, J. Cotler, S. Chen, J. Li, M. Mohseni, H. Neven, R. Babbush, R. Kueng, J. Preskill et al., “Quantum advantage in learning from experiments,” Science, vol. 376, no. 6598, pp. 1182–1186, 2022.
  11. A. Montanaro, “Learning stabilizer states by bell sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.04012, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.04012
  12. D. Gross, S. Nezami, and M. Walter, “Schur–weyl duality for the clifford group with applications: Property testing, a robust hudson theorem, and de finetti representations,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 385, no. 3, pp. 1325–1393, 2021.
  13. S. Grewal, V. Iyer, W. Kretschmer, and D. Liang, “Improved stabilizer estimation via bell difference sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13915, 2023.
  14. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Information-theoretic bounds on quantum advantage in machine learning,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 126, no. 19, p. 190505, 2021.
  15. A. J. Brady, A. Eickbusch, S. Singh, J. Wu, and Q. Zhuang, “Advances in bosonic quantum error correction with gottesman-kitaev-preskill codes: Theory, engineering and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02913, 2023.
  16. D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter et al., “Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature, pp. 1–3, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06927-3
  17. A. Osterwalder and F. Merkt, “Using high rydberg states as electric field sensors,” Physical review letters, vol. 82, no. 9, p. 1831, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1831
  18. J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. Kübler, R. Löw, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, “Microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances,” Nature physics, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 819–824, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2423
  19. C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, P. F. Wilson, C. M. Cooke, D. A. Anderson, and G. Raithel, “Atom-based rf electric field metrology: from self-calibrated measurements to subwavelength and near-field imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 717–728, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7812705
  20. C. G. Wade, N. Šibalić, N. R. de Melo, J. M. Kondo, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, “Real-time near-field terahertz imaging with atomic optical fluorescence,” Nature Photonics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 40–43, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2016.214
  21. M. T. Simons, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. K. Robinson, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, “Rydberg atom-based sensors for radio-frequency electric field metrology, sensing, and communications,” Measurement: Sensors, vol. 18, p. 100273, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665917421002361
  22. D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, “Longer-baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters,” Physical review letters, vol. 109, no. 7, p. 070503, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2939.pdf
  23. C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sensing,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 89, no. 3, p. 035002, 2017.
  24. E. T. Khabiboulline, J. Borregaard, K. De Greve, and M. D. Lukin, “Optical interferometry with quantum networks,” Physical review letters, vol. 123, no. 7, p. 070504, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.070504
  25. J. Bland-Hawthorn, M. J. Sellars, and J. G. Bartholomew, “Quantum memories and the double-slit experiment: implications for astronomical interferometry,” JOSA B, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. A86–A98, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.07590.pdf
  26. S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, “A hierarchy for replica quantum advantage,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05874, 2021.
  27. S. Arora and S. Kale, “A combinatorial, primal-dual approach to semidefinite programs,” in Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 2007, pp. 227–236.
  28. R. Kothari and R. O’Donnell, “Mean estimation when you have the source code; or, quantum monte carlo methods,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA).   SIAM, 2023, pp. 1186–1215.
  29. S. Becker, N. Datta, L. Lami, and C. Rouzé, “Classical shadow tomography for continuous variables quantum systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2024.
  30. K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, “Matchgate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 404, no. 2, p. 629–700, Oct. 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-023-04844-0
  31. J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. R. McClean, “Revisiting dequantization and quantum advantage in learning tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00811, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00811
  32. D. Ebler, M. Horodecki, M. Marciniak, T. Młynik, M. T. Quintino, and M. Studziński, “Optimal universal quantum circuits for unitary complex conjugation,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.00107.pdf
  33. D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, “Sampling from the thermal quantum gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer,” Physical review letters, vol. 103, no. 22, p. 220502, 2009.
  34. A. Riera, C. Gogolin, and J. Eisert, “Thermalization in nature and on a quantum computer,” Physical review letters, vol. 108, no. 8, p. 080402, 2012.
  35. A. N. Chowdhury and R. D. Somma, “Quantum algorithms for gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.02940, 2016.
  36. Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Babbush, “Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization,” PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 040332, 2021.
  37. R. Babbush, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, S. F. Ung, A. Zhao, D. R. Reichman, H. Neven, A. D. Baczewski, and J. Lee, “Quantum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 4058, 2023.
  38. T. Schuster, M. Niu, J. Cotler, T. O’Brien, J. R. McClean, and M. Mohseni, “Learning quantum systems via out-of-time-order correlators,” Physical Review Research, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 043284, 2023.
  39. A. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, “Modern rf measurements with hot atoms: A technology review of rydberg atom-based radio frequency field sensors,” IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 44–56, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9748947
  40. C. Tresp, C. Zimmer, I. Mirgorodskiy, H. Gorniaczyk, A. Paris-Mandoki, and S. Hofferberth, “Single-photon absorber based on strongly interacting rydberg atoms,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 117, no. 22, p. 223001, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.223001
  41. C. E. Shannon, “Communication in the presence of noise,” Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 10–21, 1949. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1697831
  42. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “Power of one bit of quantum information,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 81, no. 25, p. 5672, 1998.
  43. T. E. O’Brien, L. B. Ioffe, Y. Su, D. Fushman, H. Neven, R. Babbush, and V. Smelyanskiy, “Quantum computation of molecular structure using data from challenging-to-classically-simulate nuclear magnetic resonance experiments,” PRX Quantum, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 030345, 2022.
  44. J. Grassberger and G. Hörmann, “A note on representations of the finite heisenberg group and sums of greatest common divisors,” Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 4, 2001.
  45. J. Rosenberg, “A selective history of the stone-von neumann theorem,” Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 365, pp. 331–354, 2004.
  46. A. Asadian, P. Erker, M. Huber, and C. Klöckl, “Heisenberg-weyl observables: Bloch vectors in phase space,” Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 010301, 2016.
  47. A. A. Mele, “Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08956, 2023.
  48. E. Hostens, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, “Stabilizer states and clifford operations for systems of arbitrary dimensions and modular arithmetic,” Physical Review A, vol. 71, no. 4, p. 042315, 2005.
  49. D. Gross, “Hudson’s theorem for finite-dimensional quantum systems,” Journal of mathematical physics, vol. 47, no. 12, 2006.
  50. L. Kocia, Y. Huang, and P. Love, “Discrete wigner function derivation of the aaronson–gottesman tableau algorithm,” Entropy, vol. 19, no. 7, p. 353, 2017.
Citations (4)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.