- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Gaining confidence on the correct realization of arbitrary quantum computations

Jose Carrasco1,2, Marc Langer3,2,4, Antoine Neven2, and Barbara Kraus3,2,4

PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 6, L032074 – Published 30 September, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.L032074

Abstract

We present verification protocols to gain confidence in the correct performance of a device implementing an arbitrary quantum computation. The derivation of the protocols is based on the fact that matchgate computations, which are classically efficiently simulable, become universal if supplemented with additional resources. We combine tools from weak simulation, randomized compiling, and statistics to derive verification circuits that (i) strongly resemble the original circuit and (ii) can be classically efficiently simulated not only in the ideal, i.e., error free scenario, but also in the realistic situation where errors are present. In fact, in one of the protocols we apply exactly the same circuit as in the original computation, however, to a slightly modified input state.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (38)

  1. U. Mahadev, Classical verification of quantum computations, in 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (Paris, 2018) pp. 259–267.
  2. Z. Brakerski, V. Koppula, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, Simpler proofs of quantumness, in 15th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2020), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), edited by S. T. Flammia (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2020), Vol. 158, pp. 8:1–8:14.
  3. Z. Brakerski, P. Christiano, U. Mahadev, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, A cryptographic test of quantumness and certifiable randomness from a single quantum device, Journal of the ACM 68, 1 (2021).
  4. J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum certification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382 (2020).
  5. 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, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012307 (2008).
  6. D. Lu, H. Li, D.-A. Trottier, J. Li, A. Brodutch, A. P. Krismanich, A. Ghavami, G. I. Dmitrienko, G. Long, J. Baugh, and R. Laflamme, Experimental estimation of average fidelity of a clifford gate on a 7-qubit quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 140505 (2015).
  7. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficient measurement of quantum gate error by interleaved randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080505 (2012).
  8. E. Onorati, A. H. Werner, and J. Eisert, Randomized benchmarking for individual quantum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 060501 (2019).
  9. T. Proctor, S. Seritan, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Scalable randomized benchmarking of quantum computers using mirror circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 150502 (2022).
  10. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).
  11. R. Jozsa and S. Strelchuk, Efficient classical verification of quantum computations, arXiv:1705.02817 [quant-ph].
  12. S. Ferracin, T. Kapourniotis, and A. Datta, Accrediting outputs of noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing devices, New J. Phys. 21, 113038 (2019).
  13. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, K. G. H. Vollbrecht, and J. I. Cirac, On entropy growth and the hardness of simulating time evolution, New J. Phys. 10, 033032 (2008).
  14. A. Elben, B. Vermersch, R. van Bijnen, C. Kokail, T. Brydges, C. Maier, M. K. Joshi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Cross-platform verification of intermediate scale quantum devices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010504 (2020).
  15. M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All pure fermionic non-Gaussian states are magic states for matchgate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080503 (2019).
  16. M. Van Den Nest, Simulating quantum computers with probabilistic methods, Quantum Inf. Comput. 11, 784 (2011).
  17. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016).
  18. L. G. Valiant, Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comput. 31, 1229 (2002).
  19. B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002).
  20. R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Matchgates and classical simulation of quantum circuits, Proc. R. Soc. A 464, 3089 (2008).
  21. R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, A. Miyake, and J. Watrous, Matchgate and space-bounded quantum computations are equivalent, Proc. R. Soc. A 466, 809 (2010).
  22. D. J. Brod, Efficient classical simulation of matchgate circuits with generalized inputs and measurements, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062332 (2016).
  23. M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, and S. Strelchuk, Computational power of matchgates with supplementary resources, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052604 (2020).
  24. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.L032074 for more details on MGCs, randomized compilation for MGCs including measurements and classical simulation thereof, an overview on the hypothesis tests we use, and a selection of additional numerical demonstrations, which also includes Refs. [25, 26, 27, 28, 29].
  25. J. E. Walsh, Bounded probability properties of Kolmogorov-Smirnov and similar statistics for discrete data, Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 15, 153 (1963).
  26. P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020).
  27. N. Smirnov, Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, Ann. Math. Stat. 19, 279 (1948).
  28. D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms (Addison-Wesley, 1997).
  29. C. Spee, K. Schwaiger, G. Giedke, and B. Kraus, Mode entanglement of Gaussian fermionic states, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042325 (2018).
  30. D. J. Brod and E. F. Galvão, Extending matchgates into universal quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022310 (2011).
  31. A. Kolmogorov, Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distributione, Giornale dell' Istituto Italiano degli Attuari 4, 83 (1933).
  32. T. Epps and K. J. Singleton, An omnibus test for the two-sample problem using the empirical characteristic function, J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 26, 177 (1986).
  33. T. Proctor, S. Seritan, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, K. Young, R. Blume-Kohout, and M. Sarovar, Establishing trust in quantum computations, arXiv:2204.07568.
  34. A. Soeda, S. Akibue, and M. Murao, Two-party locc convertibility of quadpartite states and Kraus–Cirac number of two-qubit unitaries, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424036 (2014).
  35. S. Heußen, L. Postler, M. Rispler, I. Pogorelov, C. D. Marciniak, T. Monz, P. Schindler, and M. Müller, Strategies for a practical advantage of fault-tolerant circuit design in noisy trapped-ion quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042422 (2023).
  36. A. Montanaro and S. Stanisic, Error mitigation by training with fermionic linear optics, arXiv:2102.02120.
  37. R. Jozsa and M. Van Den Nest, Classical simulation complexity of extended Clifford circuits, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 633 (2014).
  38. Code and setup for the simulations is available at https://zenodo.org/record/8364056.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 6, L032074– Published 30 September, 2024
  • Received 21 September 2023
  • Accepted 15 August 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation