[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3618260.3649662acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On the Pauli Spectrum of QAC0

Published: 11 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The circuit class QAC0 was introduced by Moore (1999) as a model for constant depth quantum circuits where the gate set includes many-qubit Toffoli gates. Proving lower bounds against such circuits is a longstanding challenge in quantum circuit complexity; in particular, showing that polynomial-size QAC0 cannot compute the parity function has remained an open question for over 20 years. In this work, we identify a notion of the Pauli spectrum of QAC0 circuits, which can be viewed as the quantum analogue of the Fourier spectrum of classical AC0 circuits. We conjecture that the Pauli spectrum of QAC0 circuits satisfies low-degree concentration, in analogy to the famous Linial, Mansour, Nisan (LMN) theorem on the low-degree Fourier concentration of AC0 circuits. If true, this conjecture immediately implies that polynomial-size QAC0 circuits cannot compute parity. We prove this conjecture for the class of depth-d, polynomial-size QAC0 circuits with at most nO(1/d) auxiliary qubits. We obtain new circuit lower bounds and learning results as applications: this class of circuits cannot correctly compute the n-bit parity function on more than (1/2 + 2−Ω(n1/d))-fraction of inputs, and the n-bit majority function on more than (1/2 + O(n−1/4))-fraction of inputs. Additionally we show that this class of QAC0 circuits with limited auxiliary qubits can be learned with quasipolynomial sample complexity, giving the first learning result for QAC0 circuits. More broadly, our results add evidence that “Pauli-analytic” techniques can be a powerful tool in studying quantum circuits.

References

[1]
Dorit Aharonov, Xun Gao, Zeph Landau, Yunchao Liu, and Umesh Vazirani. 2023. A Polynomial-Time Classical Algorithm for Noisy Random Circuit Sampling. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 945–957. isbn:9781450399135 https://doi.org/10.1145/3564246.3585234
[2]
Anurag Anshu, Nikolas P Breuckmann, and Chinmay Nirkhe. 2023. NLTS Hamiltonians from good quantum codes. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 1090–1096.
[3]
Zongbo Bao and Penghui Yao. 2023. Nearly Optimal Algorithms for Testing and Learning Quantum Junta Channels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12097.
[4]
Debajyoti Bera, Frederic Green, and Steven Homer. 2007. Small depth quantum circuits. ACM SIGACT News, 38, 2 (2007), 35–50.
[5]
Eric Blais. 2009. Testing Juntas Nearly Optimally. In Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 151–158. isbn:9781605585062 https://doi.org/10.1145/1536414.1536437
[6]
Dolev Bluvstein, Harry Levine, Giulia Semeghini, Tout T Wang, Sepehr Ebadi, Marcin Kalinowski, Alexander Keesling, Nishad Maskara, Hannes Pichler, and Markus Greiner. 2022. A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays. Nature, 604, 7906 (2022), 451–456.
[7]
Ravi B Boppana. 1997. The average sensitivity of bounded-depth circuits. Information processing letters, 63, 5 (1997), 257–261.
[8]
M. Braverman. 2009. Poly-logarithmic independence fools AC^0 circuits. In Proc. 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC). 3–8.
[9]
Matthias C. Caro. 2023. Learning Quantum Processes and Hamiltonians via the Pauli Transfer Matrix. arxiv:2212.04471.
[10]
Eshan Chattopadhyay, Pooya Hatami, Kaave Hosseini, and Shachar Lovett. 2019. Pseudorandom generators from polarizing random walks. Theory of Computing, 15, 1 (2019), 1–26.
[11]
Eshan Chattopadhyay, Pooya Hatami, Shachar Lovett, and Avishay Tal. 2018. Pseudorandom generators from the second Fourier level and applications to AC0 with parity gates. In 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2019).
[12]
Sitan Chen, Jordan Cotler, Hsin-Yuan Huang, and Jerry Li. 2022. Exponential Separations Between Learning With and Without Quantum Memory. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS52979.2021.00063
[13]
Thomas Chen, Shivam Nadimpalli, and Henry Yuen. 2023. Testing and learning quantum juntas nearly optimally. In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 1163–1185. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch43
[14]
Lior Eldar and Aram W Harrow. 2017. Local Hamiltonians whose ground states are hard to approximate. In 2017 IEEE 58th annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS). 427–438.
[15]
Alexandros Eskenazis, Paata Ivanisvili, and Lauritz Streck. 2022. Low-degree learning and the metric entropy of polynomials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09659.
[16]
Maosen Fang, Stephen Fenner, Frederic Green, Steven Homer, and Yong Zhang. 2003. Quantum lower bounds for fanout. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0312208.
[17]
Eldar Fischer, Eric Lehman, Ilan Newman, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Ronitt Rubinfeld, and Alex Samorodnitsky. 2002. Monotonicity testing over general poset domains. In Proceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 474–483.
[18]
M. Furst, J. Saxe, and M. Sipser. 1984. Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Mathematical Systems Theory, 17, 1 (1984), 13–27.
[19]
Christophe Garban and Jeffrey E Steif. 2014. Noise sensitivity of Boolean functions and percolation. 5, Cambridge University Press.
[20]
Pranav Gokhale, Samantha Koretsky, Shilin Huang, Swarnadeep Majumder, Andrew Drucker, Kenneth R Brown, and Frederic T Chong. 2021. Quantum fan-out: Circuit optimizations and technology modeling. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). 276–290.
[21]
Andrew Y Guo, Abhinav Deshpande, Su-Kuan Chu, Zachary Eldredge, Przemyslaw Bienias, Dhruv Devulapalli, Yuan Su, Andrew M Childs, and Alexey V Gorshkov. 2022. Implementing a fast unbounded quantum fanout gate using power-law interactions. Physical Review Research, 4, 4 (2022), L042016.
[22]
J. Håstad. 1986. Computational Limitations for Small Depth Circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[23]
Johan Håstad. 2001. A slight sharpening of LMN. J. Comput. System Sci., 63, 3 (2001), 498–508.
[24]
Johan Håstad. 2014. On the correlation of parity and small-depth circuits. SIAM J. Comput., 43, 5 (2014), 1699–1708.
[25]
Peter Høyer and Robert Špalek. 2005. Quantum fan-out is powerful. Theory of computing, 1, 1 (2005), 81–103.
[26]
Hsin-Yuan Huang, Sitan Chen, and John Preskill. 2022. Learning to predict arbitrary quantum processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14894.
[27]
Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. 2020. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16, 10 (2020), Oct., 1050–1057. issn:1745-2481 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7
[28]
Russell Impagliazzo, William Matthews, and Ramamohan Paturi. 2012. A satisfiability algorithm for AC0. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 961–972.
[29]
A. Kalai, A. Klivans, Y. Mansour, and R. Servedio. 2005. Agnostically Learning Halfspaces. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 11–20.
[30]
Michael Kharitonov. 1993. Cryptographic hardness of distribution-specific learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 372–381.
[31]
Subhash Khot, Dor Minzer, and Muli Safra. 2018. On Monotonicity Testing and Boolean Isoperimetric-type Theorems. SIAM J. Comput., 47, 6 (2018), 2238–2276.
[32]
E. Kushilevitz and Y. Mansour. 1993. Learning decision trees using the Fourier spectrum. SIAM J. on Computing, 22, 6 (1993), 1331–1348.
[33]
N. Linial, Y. Mansour, and N. Nisan. 1993. Constant depth circuits, Fourier transform and learnability. J. ACM, 40, 3 (1993), 607–620.
[34]
M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar. 2008. Quantum-process tomography: Resource analysis of different strategies. Phys. Rev. A, 77 (2008), Mar, 032322. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032322
[35]
Ashley Montanaro and Tobias J Osborne. 2008. Quantum boolean functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:0810.2435.
[36]
Cristopher Moore. 1999. Quantum circuits: Fanout, parity, and counting. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9903046.
[37]
Noam Nisan and Avi Wigderson. 1994. Hardness vs randomness. Journal of computer and System Sciences, 49, 2 (1994), 149–167.
[38]
Ryan O’Donnell. 2014. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139814782.013
[39]
Daniel Padé, Stephen Fenner, Daniel Grier, and Thomas Thierauf. 2020. Depth-2 QAC circuits cannot simulate quantum parity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12169.
[40]
Ran Raz and Avishay Tal. 2022. Oracle separation of BQP and PH. ACM Journal of the ACM (JACM), 69, 4 (2022), 1–21.
[41]
Alexander A Razborov. 1987. Lower bounds on the size of bounded depth circuits over a complete basis with logical addition. Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 41, 4 (1987), 333–338.
[42]
Gregory Rosenthal. 2021. Bounds on the QAC0 Complexity of Approximating Parity. In 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021), James R. Lee (Ed.) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 185). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany. 32:1–32:20. isbn:978-3-95977-177-1 issn:1868-8969 https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2021.32
[43]
Cambyse Rouzé, Melchior Wirth, and Haonan Zhang. 2022. Quantum Talagrand, KKL and Friedgut’s theorems and the learnability of quantum Boolean functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07279.
[44]
Kenneth Rudinger, Guilhem J Ribeill, Luke CG Govia, Matthew Ware, Erik Nielsen, Kevin Young, Thomas A Ohki, Robin Blume-Kohout, and Timothy Proctor. 2022. Characterizing midcircuit measurements on a superconducting qubit using gate set tomography. Physical Review Applied, 17, 1 (2022), 014014.
[45]
Joseph Slote. 2024. Parity vs. AC0 with simple quantum preprocessing. In 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024).
[46]
Joseph Slote, Alexander Volberg, and Haonan Zhang. 2023. Noncommutative Bohnenblust-Hille inequality in the Heisenberg-Weyl and Gell-Mann bases with applications to fast learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01438.
[47]
P. Smolensky. 1987. Information Processing in Dynamical Systems: Foundations of Harmony Theory. In Parallel Distributed Processing: Volume 1: Foundations, D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge. 194–281.
[48]
Avishay Tal. 2017. Tight bounds on the Fourier spectrum of AC0. In 32nd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2017).
[49]
Ruben Verresen, Nathanan Tantivasadakarn, and Ashvin Vishwanath. 2021. Efficiently preparing Schrödinger’s cat, fractons and non-Abelian topological order in quantum devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03061.
[50]
Alexander Volberg and Haonan Zhang. 2023. Noncommutative Bohnenblust–Hille inequalities. Math. Ann., 1–20.
[51]
Guoming Wang. 2011. Property testing of unitary operators. Physical Review A, 84, 5 (2011), 052328.
[52]
A. Yao. 1985. Separating the polynomial time hierarchy by oracles. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 1–10.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Constant-depth circuits for Boolean functions and quantum memory devices using multi-qubit gatesQuantum10.22331/q-2024-11-20-15308(1530)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Optimal Tradeoffs for Estimating Pauli Observables2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00072(1086-1105)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
June 2024
2049 pages
ISBN:9798400703836
DOI:10.1145/3618260
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 June 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. QAC0
  2. analysis of Boolean functions
  3. quantum circuit complexity

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • NSF
  • NSF (National Science Foundation)
  • Sloan Foundation
  • AFOSR
  • Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship Program

Conference

STOC '24
Sponsor:
STOC '24: 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
June 24 - 28, 2024
BC, Vancouver, Canada

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

Upcoming Conference

STOC '25
57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2025)
June 23 - 27, 2025
Prague , Czech Republic

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)126
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
Reflects downloads up to 12 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Constant-depth circuits for Boolean functions and quantum memory devices using multi-qubit gatesQuantum10.22331/q-2024-11-20-15308(1530)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Optimal Tradeoffs for Estimating Pauli Observables2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00072(1086-1105)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media