On the Power of Quantum Fourier Sampling

Authors Bill Fefferman, Christopher Umans

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.6 MB
  • 19 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Bill Fefferman
Christopher Umans

Cite AsGet BibTex

Bill Fefferman and Christopher Umans. On the Power of Quantum Fourier Sampling. In 11th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 61, pp. 1:1-1:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)


A line of work initiated by Terhal and DiVincenzo [Terhal/DiVincenzo, arXiv, 2002] and Bremner, Jozsa, and Shepherd [Bremner/Jozsa/Sheperd, Proc. Royal Soc. A, 2010], shows that restricted classes of quantum computation can efficiently sample from probability distributions that cannot be exactly sampled efficiently on a classical computer, unless the PH collapses. Aaronson and Arkhipov [Aaronson/Arkhipov, J. Theory of Comp., 2013] take this further by considering a distribution that can be sampled efficiently by linear optical quantum computation, that under two feasible conjectures, cannot even be approximately sampled within bounded total variation distance, unless the PH collapses. In this work we use Quantum Fourier Sampling to construct a class of distributions that can be sampled exactly by a quantum computer. We then argue that these distributions cannot be approximately sampled classically, unless the PH collapses, under variants of the Aaronson-Arkhipov conjectures. In particular, we show a general class of quantumly sampleable distributions each of which is based on an "Efficiently Specifiable" polynomial, for which a classical approximate sampler implies an average-case approximation. This class of polynomials contains the Permanent but also includes, for example, the Hamiltonian Cycle polynomial, as well as many other familiar #P-hard polynomials. Since our distribution likely requires the full power of universal quantum computation, while the Aaronson-Arkhipov distribution uses only linear optical quantum computation with noninteracting bosons, why is our result interesting? We can think of at least three reasons: 1. Since the conjectures required in [Aaronson/Arkhipov, J. Theory of Comp., 2013] have not yet been proven, it seems worthwhile to weaken them as much as possible. We do this in two ways, by weakening both conjectures to apply to any "Efficiently Specifiable" polynomial, and by weakening the so-called Anti-Concentration conjecture so that it need only hold for one distribution in a broad class of distributions. 2. Our construction can be understood without any knowledge of linear optics. While this may be a disadvantage for experimentalists, in our opinion it results in a very clean and simple exposition that may be more immediately accessible to computer scientists. 3. It is extremely common for quantum computations to employ “Quantum Fourier Sampling” in the following way: first apply a classically efficient function to a uniform superposition of inputs, then apply a Quantum Fourier Transform followed by a measurement. Our distributions are obtained in exactly this way, where the classically efficient function is related to a (presumed) hard polynomial. Establishing rigorously a robust sense in which the central primitive of Quantum Fourier Sampling is classically hard seems a worthwhile goal in itself.
  • Quantum Complexity Theory
  • Sampling Complexity


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


  1. Scott Aaronson. BQP and the polynomial hierarchy. In Leonard J. Schulman, editor, STOC, pages 141-150. ACM, 2010. Google Scholar
  2. Scott Aaronson. The equivalence of sampling and searching. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 17:128, 2010. Google Scholar
  3. Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov. The computational complexity of linear optics. Theory of Computing, 9:143-252, 2013. Google Scholar
  4. Andrew C Berry. The accuracy of the gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 49(1):122-136, 1941. Google Scholar
  5. G. E. P. Box and M. E. Muller. A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29:610-611, 1958. Google Scholar
  6. Michael J. Bremner, Richard Jozsa, and Dan J. Shepherd. Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2010. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2010.0301.
  7. Michael J. Bremner, Ashley Montanaro, and Dan J. Shepherd. Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations. CoRR, abs/1504.07999, 2015. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07999.
  8. James R. Driscoll, Dennis M. Healy Jr., and Daniel N. Rockmore. Fast discrete polynomial transforms with applications to data analysis for distance transitive graphs. SIAM J. Comput., 26(4):1066-1099, 1997. Google Scholar
  9. Edward Farhi and Aram W Harrow. Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. Bill Fefferman, Ronen Shaltiel, Christopher Umans, and Emanuele Viola. On beating the hybrid argument. Theory of Computing, 9:809-843, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4086/toc.2013.v009a026.
  11. Bill Fefferman and Chris Umans. On pseudorandom generators and the BQP vs PH problem. QIP, 2011. Google Scholar
  12. Richard Jozsa and Marrten Van Den Nest. Classical simulation complexity of extended clifford circuits. Quantum Info. Comput., 14(7&8):633-648, May 2014. URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2638682.2638689.
  13. A.Y Kitaev, A.H Shen, and M.N Vyalyi. Quantum and Classical Computation. AMS, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Donald E. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume III: Sorting and Searching. Addison-Wesley, 1973. Google Scholar
  15. Tomoyuki Morimae, Keisuke Fujii, and Joseph F. Fitzsimons. Hardness of classically simulating the one-clean-qubit model. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:130502, Apr 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.130502.
  16. Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quanum Information. Cambridge U.P., 2000. Google Scholar
  17. Larry J. Stockmeyer. On approximation algorithms for #P. SIAM J. Comput., 14(4):849-861, 1985. Google Scholar
  18. Terence Tao and Van Vu. On the permanent of random Bernoulli matrices. In Advances in Mathematics, page 75, 2008. Google Scholar
  19. Barbara M. Terhal and David P. DiVincenzo. Adaptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and Arthur-Merlin games. CoRR, quant-ph/0205133, 2002. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205133.
  20. Seinosuke Toda. PP is as hard as the Polynomial-Time Hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput., 20(5):865-877, 1991. Google Scholar