Paper detail

Noise and the frontier of quantum supremacy

Noise is the defining feature of the NISQ era, but it remains unclear if noisy quantum devices are capable of quantum speedups. Quantum supremacy experiments have been a major step forward, but gaps remain between the theory behind these experiments and their actual implementations. In this work we initiate the study of the complexity of quantum random circuit sampling experiments with realistic amounts of noise. Actual quantum supremacy experiments have high levels of uncorrected noise and exponentially decaying fidelities. It is natural to ask if there is any signal of exponential complexity in these highly noisy devices. Surprisingly, we show that it remains hard to compute the output probabilities of noisy random quantum circuits without error correction. More formally, so long as the noise rate of the device is below the error detection threshold, we show it is #P-hard to compute the output probabilities of random circuits with a constant rate of noise per gate. This hardness persists even though these probabilities are exponentially close to uniform. Interestingly these hardness results also have implications for the complexity of experiments in a low-noise setting. The issue here is that prior hardness results for computing output probabilities of random circuits are not robust enough to imprecision to connect with the Stockmeyer argument for hardness of sampling from circuits with constant fidelity. We exponentially improve the robustness of prior results to imprecision, both in the cases of Random Circuit Sampling and BosonSampling. In the latter case we bring the proven hardness within a constant factor in the exponent of the robustness required for hardness of sampling for the first time. We then show that our results are in tension with one another -- the high-noise result implies the low-noise result is essentially optimal, even with generalizations of our techniques.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.