Document Open Access Logo

Low-Stabilizer-Complexity Quantum States Are Not Pseudorandom

Authors Sabee Grewal , Vishnu Iyer , William Kretschmer , Daniel Liang

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.64.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.81 MB
  • 20 pages

Document Identifiers

Related Versions

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Quantum complexity theory
Keywords
  • Pseudorandom quantum states
  • Clifford + T
  • Haar random
  • Bell sampling
  • stabilizer formalism
  • stabilizer extent
  • stabilizer fidelity
  • learning theory
  • complexity theory

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Abstract

We show that quantum states with "low stabilizer complexity" can be efficiently distinguished from Haar-random. Specifically, given an n-qubit pure state |ψ⟩, we give an efficient algorithm that distinguishes whether |ψ⟩ is (i) Haar-random or (ii) a state with stabilizer fidelity at least 1/k (i.e., has fidelity at least 1/k with some stabilizer state), promised that one of these is the case. With black-box access to |ψ⟩, our algorithm uses O(k^{12} log(1/δ)) copies of |ψ⟩ and O(n k^{12} log(1/δ)) time to succeed with probability at least 1-δ, and, with access to a state preparation unitary for |ψ⟩ (and its inverse), O(k³ log(1/δ)) queries and O(n k³ log(1/δ)) time suffice. 
As a corollary, we prove that ω(log(n)) T-gates are necessary for any Clifford+T circuit to prepare computationally pseudorandom quantum states, a first-of-its-kind lower bound.

Cite As Get BibTex

Sabee Grewal, Vishnu Iyer, William Kretschmer, and Daniel Liang. Low-Stabilizer-Complexity Quantum States Are Not Pseudorandom. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 251, pp. 64:1-64:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2023.64

Author Details

Sabee Grewal
  • The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
Vishnu Iyer
  • The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
William Kretschmer
  • The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
Daniel Liang
  • The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA

Funding

SG, VI, DL are supported by Scott Aaronson’s Vannevar Bush Fellowship from the US Department of Defense, the Berkeley NSF-QLCI CIQC Center, a Simons Investigator Award, and the Simons "It from Qubit" collaboration.
  • Kretschmer, William: Supported by an NDSEG Fellowship.

Acknowledgements

We thank Scott Aaronson for helpful comments.

References

  1. Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Physical Review A, 70(5), November 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.70.052328.
  2. Srinivasan Arunachalam, Sergey Bravyi, Arkopal Dutt, and Theodore J. Yoder. Optimal algorithms for learning quantum phase states, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2208.07851.
  3. Manuel Blum, Michael Luby, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. Self-Testing/Correcting with Applications to Numerical Problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 47(3):549-595, 1993. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(93)90044-W.
  4. Zvika Brakerski and Omri Shmueli. (Pseudo) Random Quantum States with Binary Phase. In Theory of Cryptography, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36030-6_10.
  5. Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp. Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/305/05215.
  6. Sergey Bravyi, Dan Browne, Padraic Calpin, Earl Campbell, David Gosset, and Mark Howard. Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions. Quantum, 3:181, September 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-09-02-181.
  7. Sergey Bravyi and David Gosset. Improved Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:250501, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250501.
  8. A. R. Calderbank and Peter W. Shor. Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. Phys. Rev. A, 54:1098-1105, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1098.
  9. Zhiyuan Fan, Jiatu Li, and Tianqi Yang. The Exact Complexity of Pseudorandom Functions and the Black-Box Natural Proof Barrier for Bootstrapping Results in Computational Complexity. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2022, pages 962-975, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519935.3520010.
  10. Manuel Gerken. Measure concentration: Levy’s Lemma, 2013. Google Scholar
  11. Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9705052.
  12. Daniel Gottesman. The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9807006.
  13. David Gross, Sepehr Nezami, and Michael Walter. Schur-Weyl duality for the Clifford group with applications: Property testing, a robust Hudson theorem, and de Finetti representations. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 385(3):1325-1393, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-021-04118-7.
  14. Jonas Haferkamp, Felipe Montealegre-Mora, Markus Heinrich, Jens Eisert, David Gross, and Ingo Roth. Quantum homeopathy works: Efficient unitary designs with a system-size independent number of non-Clifford gates, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2002.09524.
  15. Marcel Hinsche, Marios Ioannou, Alexander Nietner, Jonas Haferkamp, Yihui Quek, Dominik Hangleiter, Jean-Pierre Seifert, Jens Eisert, and Ryan Sweke. A single t-gate makes distribution learning hard, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2207.03140.
  16. Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050-1057, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7.
  17. Yuval Ishai, Eyal Kushilevitz, Rafail Ostrovsky, and Amit Sahai. Cryptography with Constant Computational Overhead. In Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '08, pages 433-442, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1374376.1374438.
  18. Zhengfeng Ji, Yi-Kai Liu, and Fang Song. Pseudorandom Quantum States. In Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2018. Springer International Publishing, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96878-0_5.
  19. E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Seidelin, and D. J. Wineland. Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates. Physical Review A, 77(1), 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.77.012307.
  20. Richard Kueng and David Gross. Qubit stabilizer states are complex projective 3-designs, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.02767.
  21. Ching-Yi Lai and Hao-Chung Cheng. Learning Quantum Circuits of Some T Gates. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 68(6):3951-3964, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2022.3151760.
  22. Ashley Montanaro. Learning stabilizer states by Bell sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.04012, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.04012.
  23. Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667.
  24. Ryan O'Donnell. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814782.
  25. Hakop Pashayan, Joel J. Wallman, and Stephen D. Bartlett. Estimating Outcome Probabilities of Quantum Circuits Using Quasiprobabilities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:070501, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.070501.
  26. Patrick Rall, Daniel Liang, Jeremy Cook, and William Kretschmer. Simulation of qubit quantum circuits via Pauli propagation. Phys. Rev. A, 99:062337, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.062337.
  27. Robert Raussendorf and Hans J. Briegel. Quantum computing via measurements only, 2000. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0010033.
  28. Peter W. Shor. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A, 52:R2493-R2496, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493.
  29. Zak Webb. The Clifford Group Forms a Unitary 3-Design. Quantum Info. Comput., 16(15–16):1379-1400, 2016. Google Scholar
  30. Huangjun Zhu, Richard Kueng, Markus Grassl, and David Gross. The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design, 2016. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08172.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact