4.7 Review

Quantum sampling problems, BosonSampling and quantum supremacy

期刊

NPJ QUANTUM INFORMATION
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41534-017-0018-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communications Technology [CE110001027]
  2. Australian Research Council via the Future Fellowship scheme [FT110101044]
  3. Lockheed Martin Corporation
  4. Australian Research Council [FT110101044] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a large body of evidence for the potential of greater computational power using information carriers that are quantum mechanical over those governed by the laws of classical mechanics. But the question of the exact nature of the power contributed by quantum mechanics remains only partially answered. Furthermore, there exists doubt over the practicality of achieving a large enough quantum computation that definitively demonstrates quantum supremacy. Recently the study of computational problems that produce samples from probability distributions has added to both our understanding of the power of quantum algorithms and lowered the requirements for demonstration of fast quantum algorithms. The proposed quantum sampling problems do not require a quantum computer capable of universal operations and also permit physically realistic errors in their operation. This is an encouraging step towards an experimental demonstration of quantum algorithmic supremacy. In this paper, we will review sampling problems and the arguments that have been used to deduce when sampling problems are hard for classical computers to simulate. Two classes of quantum sampling problems that demonstrate the supremacy of quantum algorithms are BosonSampling and Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-time Sampling. We will present the details of these classes and recent experimental progress towards demonstrating quantum supremacy in BosonSampling.

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

4.7
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