BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexander M. Dalzell

Alexander M. Dalzell contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechComputational Complexitycond-mat.str-el

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Random quantum circuits anti-concentrate in log depth

We consider quantum circuits consisting of randomly chosen two-local gates and study the number of gates needed for the distribution over measurement outcomes for typical circuit instances to be anti-concentrated, roughly meaning that the probability mass is not too concentrated on a small number of measurement outcomes. Understanding the conditions for anti-concentration is important for determining which quantum circuits are difficult to simulate classically, as anti-concentration has been in some cases an ingredient of mathematical arguments that simulation is hard and in other cases a necessary condition for easy simulation. Our definition of anti-concentration is that the expected collision probability, that is, the probability that two independently drawn outcomes will agree, is only a constant factor larger than if the distribution were uniform. We show that when the 2-local gates are each drawn from the Haar measure (or any two-design), at least $Ω(n \log(n))$ gates (and thus $Ω(\log(n))$ circuit depth) are needed for this condition to be met on an $n$ qudit circuit. In both the case where the gates are nearest-neighbor on a 1D ring and the case where gates are long-range, we show $O(n \log(n))$ gates are also sufficient, and we precisely compute the optimal constant prefactor for the $n \log(n)$. The technique we employ relies upon a mapping from the expected collision probability to the partition function of an Ising-like classical statistical mechanical model, which we manage to bound using stochastic and combinatorial techniques.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Efficient classical simulation of random shallow 2D quantum circuits

Random quantum circuits are commonly viewed as hard to simulate classically. In some regimes this has been formally conjectured, and there had been no evidence against the more general possibility that for circuits with uniformly random gates, approximate simulation of typical instances is almost as hard as exact simulation. We prove that this is not the case by exhibiting a shallow circuit family with uniformly random gates that cannot be efficiently classically simulated near-exactly under standard hardness assumptions, but can be simulated approximately for all but a superpolynomially small fraction of circuit instances in time linear in the number of qubits and gates. We furthermore conjecture that sufficiently shallow random circuits are efficiently simulable more generally. To this end, we propose and analyze two simulation algorithms. Implementing one of our algorithms numerically, we give strong evidence that it is efficient both asymptotically and, in some cases, in practice. To argue analytically for efficiency, we reduce the simulation of 2D shallow random circuits to the simulation of a form of 1D dynamics consisting of alternating rounds of random local unitaries and weak measurements -- a type of process that has generally been observed to undergo a phase transition from an efficient-to-simulate regime to an inefficient-to-simulate regime as measurement strength is varied. Using a mapping from quantum circuits to statistical mechanical models, we give evidence that a similar computational phase transition occurs for our algorithms as parameters of the circuit architecture like the local Hilbert space dimension and circuit depth are varied.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

How many qubits are needed for quantum computational supremacy?

Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy (PH) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P $\neq$ NP, which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse assumption. Each version is parameterized by a constant $a$ and asserts that certain specific computational problems with input size $n$ require $2^{an}$ time steps to be solved by a non-deterministic algorithm. Then, we choose a specific value of $a$ for each version that we argue makes the assumption plausible, and based on these conjectures we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. In the first two cases, we extend this to constant additive error by introducing an average-case fine-grained conjecture.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access