1 / 24

The complexity of the Separable Hamiltonian Problem

Andr é Chailloux , Université Paris 7 and UC Berkeley Or Sattath , the Hebrew University. The complexity of the Separable Hamiltonian Problem. QIP 2012. Quantum Merlin-Arthur (QMA): Quantum analogue of NP.

ave
Download Presentation

The complexity of the Separable Hamiltonian Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. AndréChailloux, Université Paris 7 and UC BerkeleyOr Sattath, the Hebrew University The complexity of the Separable Hamiltonian Problem QIP 2012

  2. Quantum Merlin-Arthur (QMA):Quantum analogue of NP • Merlin(prover) is all powerful, but malicious.Arthur(verifier) is skeptical, and limited to BQP. • A problem LQMA if: • xL ∃| that Arthur accepts w.h.p. • xL  ∀| Arthur rejects w.h.p.

  3. QMA(2) • The same as QMA, but with 2 provers, that do not share entanglement. • Similar to interrogation of suspects:

  4. QMA(2): what is “The power of unentanglement”? QMA(2) has been studied extensively: • There are short proofs for NP-Complete problems in QMA(2)[BT’07,ABD+’09,Beigi’10,LNN’11]. • Pure N-representability QMA(2) [LCV’07], not known to be in QMA. • QMA(k) = QMA(2) [HM’10]. • QMA ⊆PSPACE, while the best upper-bound is QMA(2) ⊆ NEXP [KM’01]. [ABD+’09] open problem: “Can we find a natural QMA(2)-complete problem?”

  5. Main results We introduce anatural candidate for a QMA(2)-completeness: Separable version of Local-Hamiltonian. Theorem 1: Separable LocalHamiltonian is QMA-Complete! Theorem 2: Separable Sparse Hamiltonianis QMA(2)-Complete. • The Local Hamiltonian problem: • Given , ( acts on k qubits) • is there a state with energy <a • or all states have energy > b ? • A Hamiltonian is sparse if each row has at most polynomial non-zero entries.

  6. The Separable Hamiltonian problem • Problem: Given , and a partition of the qubits, decide whether there exists a separable state with energy at most a or all separable states have energies above b? • The witness: the separable state with energy below a. • The verification: Estimation of the energy.

  7. Separable Local Hamiltonian • Theorem 1:Separable LocalHamiltonianQMA. • First try: the prover provides the witness, and the verifier checks that it is not entangled. We don’t know how.

  8. Separable Local Hamiltonian • Theorem 1:Separable LocalHamiltonianQMA. • Second try: The prover sends the classical description of all k local reduced density matrices of the A part and of the B part separately . • The prover proves that there exists a state which is consistent with the local density matrices. • The state can be entangled, but if exists, then also exists, where , and similarly . • The verifier uses the classical description to calculate the energy:

  9. Consistency of Local Density Matrices Consistensy of Local Density Matrices Problem (CLDM): • Input: density matrices over k qubits and sets . • Output: yes, if there exists an n-qubit state which is consistent: . No, otherwise. Theorem[Liu`06]: CLDM QMA.

  10. Verification procedure forSeparable Local Hamiltonian • The prover sends:a) Classical part, containing the reduced density matrices of the A part, and the B part.b) A quantum proof for the fact that such a state exists. • The verifier:a) classically verifies that the energy is below the threshold a, assuming that the state is.b) verifies that there exists such a state using the CLDM protocol.

  11. Part II Separable Sparse Hamiltonian is QMA(2)-Complete.

  12. Reminder: Kitaev’sproof that Local Hamiltonian is QMA-Complete • Given a quantum circuit Q, and a witness , the history state is: , . • Kitaev’s Hamiltonian gives an energetic penalty to: • states which are not history states. • history states are penalized for Pr(Q rejects ) • Only if there exists a witnesswhich Q accepts w.h.p., Kitaev’sHamiltonian has a low energy state.

  13. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) – naïve approach What happens if we use Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for a QMA(2) circuit, and allow only separable witnesses? Problems: • Even if , then is typically not separable. • Even if is separable , is typically entangled. For this approach to work, one part must be fixed during the entire computation.

  14. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) • We need to assume that one part is fixed during the computation. • Aram Harrow and Ashley Montanaro have shown exactly this! • Thm: Every QMA(k) verification circuit can be transformed to a QMA(2) verification circuit with the following form:

  15. Harrow-Montanaro’s construction SWAP SWAP time

  16. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) SWAP SWAP The history state is a tensor product state:

  17. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) • There is a delicate issue in the argument: SWAP Non-local operator!Causes H to be non-local! SWAP

  18. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2): Local vs. Sparse • Control-Swap over multiple qubits is sparse. • Local & Sparse Hamiltonian common properties: C-SWAP=.

  19. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) • The instance that we constructed is local, except one term which is sparse. • Theorem 2: Separable Sparse Hamiltonianis QMA(2)-Complete.

  20. Summary • Known results: Local Hamiltonian & Sparse Hamiltonian are QMA-Complete. • A “reasonable” guess would be that both their Separable version are either QMA(2)-Complete, or QMA-Complete, but it turns out to bewrong*. • Separable Local Hamiltonian is QMA-Complete. • Separable Sparse Hamiltonian is QMA(2)-Complete. * Unless QMA = QMA(2).

  21. Open problems • Can this help resolve whether Pure N- Representability is QMA(2)-Complete or not? • QMA vs. QMA(2) ?

  22. Thank you! • We would especially like to thank Fernando Brandão for suggesting the soundness proof technique.

  23. Pure N-Representability • Similar to CLDM, but with the additional requirement that the state is pure (i.e. not a mixed state). • In QMA(2): verifier receives 2 copies, and estimates the purity using the swap test: passes the swap test.

  24. Adapting Kitaev’s Hamiltonian for QMA(2) • Theorem 2: Separable SparseHamiltonian is QMA(2)-Complete. • Why not: Separable Local Hamiltonian is QMA(2)-Complete? • If we use the local implementation of C-SWAP, the history state becomes entangled. • Only Seems like a technicality. SWAP SWAP

More Related