4.8 Article

Sample Complexity of Device-Independently Certified Quantum Supremacy

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 122, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.210502

关键词

-

资金

  1. ERC (TAQ)
  2. Templeton Foundation
  3. DFG [EI 519/14-1, EI 519/9-1, EI 519/7-1, CRC 183]
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [817482]
  5. European Union's Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF-EF) programme [GA: 700140]
  6. ARO [W911NF-14-1-0098]
  7. Spanish Ministry MINECO (National Plan 15: FISICATEAMO Grant) [FIS2016-79508-P]
  8. Spanish Ministry MINECO (SEVERO OCHOA Grant) [SEV-2015-0522]
  9. Fundacio Cellex
  10. Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR 874, 875]
  11. Generalitat de Catalunya (CERCA Programme, AGAUR) [2017 SGR 1341]
  12. Generalitat de Catalunya (CERCA/Program)
  13. ERC (CoG QITBOX)
  14. ERC (AdG OSYRIS)
  15. EU FETPRO QUIC
  16. EU STREP program EQuaM (FP7/2007-2017) [323714]
  17. National Science Centre, Poland-Symfonia Grant [2016/20/W/ST4/00314]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results on the hardness of approximate sampling are seen as important stepping stones toward a convincing demonstration of the superior computational power of quantum devices. The most prominent suggestions for such experiments include boson sampling, instantaneous quantum polynomial time (IQP) circuit sampling, and universal random circuit sampling. A key challenge for any such demonstration is to certify the correct implementation. For all these examples, and in fact for all sufficiently flat distributions, we show that any noninteractive certification from classical samples and a description of the target distribution requires exponentially many uses of the device. Our proofs rely on the same property that is a central ingredient for the approximate hardness results, namely, that the sampling distributions, as random variables depending on the random unitaries defining the problem instances, have small second moments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据