Merlin-Arthur Games and Stoquastic Hamiltonians B.M. Terhal, IBM Research based on work with Bravyi, Bessen, DiVincenzo & Oliveira. quant-ph/0611021 &

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Solving Hard Problems With Light Scott Aaronson (Assoc. Prof., EECS) Joint work with Alex Arkhipov vs.
Advertisements

Local Hamiltonians in Quantum Computation Funding: Slovak Research and Development Agency, contract No. APVV , European Project QAP 2004-IST- FETPI-15848,
Sergey Bravyi, IBM Watson Center Robert Raussendorf, Perimeter Institute Perugia July 16, 2007 Exactly solvable models of statistical physics: applications.
Shortest Vector In A Lattice is NP-Hard to approximate
Reducibility Class of problems A can be reduced to the class of problems B Take any instance of problem A Show how you can construct an instance of problem.
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
NP-complete and NP-hard problems Transitivity of polynomial-time many-one reductions Concept of Completeness and hardness for a complexity class Definition.
Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science for Some.
Theory of Computing Lecture 16 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Boris Altshuler Columbia University Anderson Localization against Adiabatic Quantum Computation Hari Krovi, Jérémie Roland NEC Laboratories America.
Complexity 15-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Hierarchy Theorem.
Complexity 18-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Probabilistic Algorithms.
Computability and Complexity 13-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov The Class NP.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli.
Complexity of simulating quantum systems on classical computers Barbara Terhal IBM Research.
NP-complete and NP-hard problems Transitivity of polynomial-time many-one reductions Definition of complexity class NP –Nondeterministic computation –Problems.
Graphs 4/16/2017 8:41 PM NP-Completeness.
Julia Kempe CNRS & LRI, Univ. of Paris-Sud Alexei Kitaev Caltech Oded Regev Tel-Aviv University FSTTCS, Chennai, December 18 th, 2004 The Complexity of.
The Theory of NP-Completeness
NP-complete and NP-hard problems
1 Dorit Aharonov School of Computer Science and Engineering The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel Israel Quantum Hamiltonian Complexity Complexity What.
Analysis of Algorithms CS 477/677
NP-Completeness NP-Completeness Graphs 4/17/2017 4:10 AM x x x x x x x
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture NP-Completeness Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Lecture 20: April 12 Introduction to Randomized Algorithms and the Probabilistic Method.
NP-complete and NP-hard problems. Decision problems vs. optimization problems The problems we are trying to solve are basically of two kinds. In decision.
1 Quantum NP Dorit Aharonov & Tomer Naveh Presented by Alex Rapaport.
1 The Theory of NP-Completeness 2012/11/6 P: the class of problems which can be solved by a deterministic polynomial algorithm. NP : the class of decision.
Nattee Niparnan. Easy & Hard Problem What is “difficulty” of problem? Difficult for computer scientist to derive algorithm for the problem? Difficult.
1 Introduction to Approximation Algorithms. 2 NP-completeness Do your best then.
Lecture 30. P, NP and NP Complete Problems 1. Recap Data compression is a technique to compress the data represented either in text, audio or image form.
NP Complexity By Mussie Araya. What is NP Complexity? Formal Definition: NP is the set of decision problems solvable in polynomial time by a non- deterministic.
Prabhas Chongstitvatana1 NP-complete proofs The circuit satisfiability proof of NP- completeness relies on a direct proof that L  p CIRCUIT-SAT for every.
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 13 May 11, Outline proof systems interactive proofs and their power Arthur-Merlin games.
Quantum Information Theory: Present Status and Future Directions Julia Kempe CNRS & LRI, Univ. de Paris-Sud, Orsay, France Newton Institute, Cambridge,
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing November 29, 2005.
Week 10Complexity of Algorithms1 Hard Computational Problems Some computational problems are hard Despite a numerous attempts we do not know any efficient.
Adiabatic quantum computation and stoquastic Hamiltonians B.M. Terhal IQI, RWTH Aachen A review of joint work with S. Bravyi, D.P.DiVincenzo and R. Oliveira.
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati. INDEX  Probabilistic Turing Machine  Probabilistic Complexity Classes  Probabilistic Algorithms.
CSC401 – Analysis of Algorithms Chapter 13 NP-Completeness Objectives: Introduce the definitions of P and NP problems Introduce the definitions of NP-hard.
Techniques for Proving NP-Completeness Show that a special case of the problem you are interested in is NP- complete. For example: The problem of finding.
CSCI 3160 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Tutorial 10 Chengyu Lin.
Barriers in Hamiltonian Complexity Umesh V. Vazirani U.C. Berkeley.
Quantum Two 1. 2 Evolution of Many Particle Systems 3.
1 Dorit Aharonov Hebrew Univ. & UC Berkeley Adiabatic Quantum Computation.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 1a: Problems and Languages.
NP-Complete Problems. Running Time v.s. Input Size Concern with problems whose complexity may be described by exponential functions. Tractable problems.
Non-Approximability Results. Summary -Gap technique -Examples: MINIMUM GRAPH COLORING, MINIMUM TSP, MINIMUM BIN PACKING -The PCP theorem -Application:
A Monomial matrix formalism to describe quantum many-body states Maarten Van den Nest Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics Montreal, October 19 th 2011.
A simple nearest-neighbour two-body Hamiltonian system for which the ground state is a universal resource for quantum computation Stephen Bartlett Terry.
CSE 589 Part V One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important. Bertrand Russell.
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 467 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Richard Cleve DC 3524 Course.
Strings Basic data type in computational biology A string is an ordered succession of characters or symbols from a finite set called an alphabet Sequence.
NP-Completness Turing Machine. Hard problems There are many many important problems for which no polynomial algorithms is known. We show that a polynomial-time.
Quantum Computing: Solving Complex Problems David DiVincenzo, IBM Fermilab Colloquium, 4/2007.
Chapter 11 Introduction to Computational Complexity Copyright © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. 1.
Complexity 24-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Interactive Proofs.
Adiabatic Quantum Computing Josh Ball with advisor Professor Harsh Mathur Problems which are classically difficult to solve may be solved much more quickly.
The NP class. NP-completeness Lecture2. The NP-class The NP class is a class that contains all the problems that can be decided by a Non-Deterministic.
Construction We constructed the following graph: This graph has several nice properties: Diameter Two Graph Pebbling Tim Lewis 1, Dan Simpson 1, Sam Taggart.
The NP class. NP-completeness
P & NP.
The complexity of the Separable Hamiltonian Problem
NP-Completeness (2) NP-Completeness Graphs 7/23/ :02 PM x x x x
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
2nd Lecture: QMA & The local Hamiltonian problem
3rd Lecture: QMA & The local Hamiltonian problem (CNT’D)
Prabhas Chongstitvatana
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
Quantum One.
Presentation transcript:

Merlin-Arthur Games and Stoquastic Hamiltonians B.M. Terhal, IBM Research based on work with Bravyi, Bessen, DiVincenzo & Oliveira. quant-ph/ & quant-ph/

Quantum Complexity Theory Heuristic methods have been developed to solve classical problems (simplex method for linear programming, simulated annealing, Monte Carlo methods).  Classical complexity theory aims at making rigorous what problems can be solved efficiently and which ones are hard (and how hard they are). Physicists have developed (heuristic) methods to solve quantum problems (perturbation theory, WKB approximation, mean-field theory etc. etc.)  Quantum complexity theory aims at showing which problems a classical machine can solve efficiently, which ones a quantum computer can do better, and which ones are hard and how hard. The how hard-aspect is sometimes characterized in terms of interaction of an ordinary human being (Arthur) with an all-powerful prover (Merlin).

NP Success story of complexity theory in physics: the notion of NP and NP-completeness. Is the question P  NP a mathematics or physics question: A mathematical question with physical consequences, a universe where P=NP would probably be much different. Useful notion of NP-completeness.

Satisfiability The k-SAT problem: Let x be an n-bit string. Let C i be a constraint that depends only on the value of some k bits of x. A bitstring x can either satisfy or not satisfy the constraint C i depending on the value of these k bits. Take a set of constraints C i for i=1 to m with m=poly(n). Q: Is there a bit string that satisfies all m constraints? If yes, a prover can give you the bitstring and you can check the m constraints. If no, no prover can convince you that there is such bitstring. k-SAT is NP-complete

Beyond NP What is the physical relevance of these classes? What are the ‘complete’-problems? QMA (or Quantum NP) MA NP Stoquastic MA MA ~probabilistic version of NP QMA ~quantum version of NP

Definitions Interaction between Arthur and Merlin Arthur runsArthur runs V(..,x) NPProof y by Merlin Polynomial time algorithm (in |x|) with input y If Yes, there exists a y, V(y,x)=1 If No, for all y, V(y,x)=0 QMAQuantum proof  by Merlin Poly-time quantum algorithm If Yes, there exists a state , Prob(V; ,x)  2/3 If No, for all states , Prob(V, ,x)  1/3 MAProof y by Merlin Poly-time probabilistic algorithm with input y If Yes, there exists a y, Prob(V;y,x)=1 If No, for all y Prob(V;y,x)  1/3

The Story The Quantum Ising Spin Glass problem is complete for QMA. Note that QMA allows for an error if the answer is yes (if yes, Arthur decides yes with probability at least (say) 2/3). Note that NP and MA do not have this error (MA allows for error in no-instances) For the class QMA 1 in which Arthur decides Yes with probability 1, the complete problem is the quantum satisfiability problem. For MA the complete problem (first known MA-complete problem) is the stoquastic satisfiability problem. Relation to stoquastic Hamiltonians and classical satisfiability problem. For stoquastic MA (weird class) the complete problem is the Stoquastic Ising Spin Glass problem. Beliefs in computer science: MA=NP=Stoquastic MA=AM

Quantum Ising Spin Glass Quantum Ising Spin Glass (QISP): Given is a k-local Hamiltonian H=  i H i on n qubits and given  <  (with |  -  |  1/poly(n)). ||H i ||  poly(n). We are promised that the ground-state energy (H)) is either   or  . Q: Is there a state with energy less than  ? k-local means that the Hamiltonian is a sum of terms each of which acts non-trivially on at most k qubits. Kitaev: 5-local QISP is QMA-complete. Strongest results to date: 2-local QISP on qudits of a 1-D chain is QMA-complete (Aharonov,Gottesman, Kempe, Irani). Quantum Ising Spin glass is also called the local Hamiltonian problem.

Quantum k-SAT Ground-state of Hamiltonian is not always the one which is the ground-state of each individual term in the Hamiltonian. `frustration free property’ So a different question to ask is: is there a state which is the ground-state of each local term in a quantum Ising spin glass Hamiltonian? Such state satisfies all local constraints. We can always shift the Hamiltonian such that the energy of this satisfying state is 0. Then the satisfying state has the property of being in the null-space of a bunch of k-local projectors…. Quantum k-SAT on n qubits: Given a set of k-local projectors  i on n qubits and   1/poly(n). Either - there is a state that is in the space spanned by all projectors  i. (yes-instance), - or any state  there exists an i such that  1-  (no-instance). (Note we are switching null-space and +1 space here…)

Connection with classical k-SAT Classical k-SAT problem can be viewed as quantum k-SAT where the projectors are diagonal in computation basis. Some bit-strings in +1 space, some in null-space. Promise on no-instances is not needed. There is something in between diagonal k-local projectors and general k-local projectors….the stoquastic k-SAT problem

Stoquastic Hamiltonians Physicists have known for a long time that not all Hamiltonians are created equal. Some are more quantum than other’s. Physics lingo: “Avoid the sign-problem”, “Quantum ground-state problem mapped onto classical partition function problem”, Green’s function Monte Carlo techniques” What is exactly the property of these Hamiltonians and what does this feature do to the complexity of the lowest-eigenvalue problem, the power of these Hamiltonians for implementing an adiabatic quantum computer, etc?

Stoquastic Hamiltonians General definition: stoquastic Hamiltonians are real and have non-positive off- diagonal elements in some standard (product) basis |i>. Then G=I-t H for some (real) t is a non-negative matrix (in this basis) or consider the nonnegative Gibbs matrix G=e -  H. Perron-Frobenius: Eigenvector with largest eigenvalue of G (ground-state of H) has the property that |  >=  i  i |i> where  i  0. P(i)=  i /  i  i is a probability distribution. Our excuses for the word stoquastic….introduced not without reason.

Examples of Stoquastic Hamiltonians Particles in a potential; Hamiltonian is a sum of a diagonal potential term in position |x> and off-diagonal negative kinetic terms (-d 2 /dx 2 ). All of classical and quantum mechanics. Quantum transverse Ising model Ferromagnetic Heisenberg models (modeling interacting spins on lattices) Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (describing atom-laser interaction), spin-boson model, bosonic Hubbard models, Bose-Einstein condensates etc. D-Wave’s Orion quantum computer… Non-stoquastic are typically fermionic systems, charged particles in a magnetic field. Stoquastic Hamiltonians are ubiquitous in nature. Note that we only consider ground-state properties of these Hamiltonians.

Local Stoquastic Hamiltonians Remember k-local Hamiltonians are those that can be written as a sum of terms acting non-trivially on k qubits (qudits). Our results hold for local term-wise stoquastic Hamiltonians, each local term is stoquastic. Side Remark: Local termwise-stoquastic is not necessarily the same as local stoquastic:  2-local on qubits: termwise-stoquastic is stoquastic.  3-local on qubits: there is a counter-example of a Hamiltonian which is stoquastic but not term-wise stoquastic (also allowing 1-local unitary transformations).

Stoquastic k-SAT Quantum k-SAT: remember we have a collection of projectors  i (m=poly(n) of them). Now we demand that  i are projectors with nonnegative entries in the computational basis. Thus H=  i (I-  i ) is stoquastic. (in fact termwise-stoquastic, i.e. each H i is stoquastic). How to prove that this problem is a complete problem for the classical class MA? Sketch of ideas: Completeness for a problem Q: 1. Prove that a problem Q is in the class. 2. Prove that any problem in the class can be reduced to Q (“if we can solve Q we can solve any problem in the class”)

Stoquastic k-SAT Completeness for a problem Q: 1. Prove that a problem Q is in the class. 2. Prove that any problem in the class can be reduced to Q (“if we can solve Q we can solve any problem in the class”) Kitaev showed 2. for the quantum Ising spin glass by converting Arthur’s quantum verifying circuit into a Hamiltonian. We do 2. by treating a probabilistic verifying circuit as a restricted quantum circuit and applying Kitaev’s construction to obtain a restricted Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian turns out to be stoquastic! In MA, if answer is yes, verifying circuit with proof always outputs yes (zero error) This results in a Hamiltonian where the ground-state (in the yes-case) satisfies each local constraint, i.e the stoquastic k-SAT problem.

Containment in MA. Given a set of k-local projectors  i (m=poly(n) of them) with nonnegative entries in the computational basis and   1/poly(n). -Yes-instance: there is a state that is in the space spanned by all projectors  i. - No-instance: for any state  there exists an i such that  1-  Consider the nonnegative (symmetric) matrix G= m -1  i  i. - Yes-instance: the largest eigenvalue of G is 1. - No-instance: the largest eigenvalue of G is less than 1-  /m

Containment in MA The idea of the proof: Merlin provides starting point to a random walk on n bit strings. The random walk is a true random walk in case of a Yes-instance. Arthur will test whether the transition probabilities during the walk sum up to 1 and do a final test (which depends on the starting point). In case of a no- instance there is a high probability that some test fails. If a test fails, Arthur decides No.

MA (versus NP) Special version of stoquastic k-SAT problem can be viewed as a bunch of constraints (like SAT) and relations. Graph with vertices which are n-bit strings. Vertex x is good when bit-string is in the support of all projectors. We have an edge between vertex x and x’ when there exists an i such that > 0. Graph has degree m (is poly(n)) Special Stoquastic k-SAT problem that is still MA-complete: Does the graph contain a disconnected sub-graph of only good vertices? How to prove that there is such sub-graph when sub-graph can be exponentially large? Walk around on sub-graph starting from point provided by prover. Promise guarantees that in the no-case after some poly(n) time you will get to a bad vertex. Note that you would explore only a set with poly(n) vertices (chosen by random walk)

Discussion Adiabatic evolution with general (local) Hamiltonians is universal for quantum computation. What is the power of adiabatic quantum computation with stoquastic (local) Hamiltonians? Can we classically simulate it? Do heuristic methods/approximation algorithms work better for stoquastic Hamiltonians? Problem is still `hard’ but more ‘classically hard’.