Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The hardness of random quantum circuits

Nature Physics volume 19, pages 1719–1724 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

As Moore’s law reaches its limits, quantum computers are emerging that hold promise to dramatically outperform classical computers. It is now possible to build quantum processors with over 100 qubits, which are expected to be beyond the reach of classical simulation. These developments have been accompanied by the anticipation that, at some stage, a quantum computer should be able to perform a task that is practically impossible for any classical computer. The lead candidate for reaching this threshold is random circuit sampling, which involves sampling the output of a quantum computer after implementing a sequence of random quantum operations. However, it is difficult to provide theoretical guarantees on the hardness of simulating random quantum circuits by classical computers. Here we prove that estimating the output probabilities of random quantum circuits is #P-hard for any classical computer. We also extend our results to a restricted model of quantum computation known as instantaneous quantum polynomial-time (IQP) circuits. We achieve this by a worst-case to average-case reduction for quantum-circuit simulation. The robustness of our result to the estimation error serves as a new hardness criterion for the performance of classical algorithms. Our results suggest that there is an exponential hardness barrier for the approximate classical simulation of most quantum circuits.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Architecture \({\mathcal{A}}\) and a quantum circuit instantiation.
Fig. 2: Cayley path interpolation in the unitary group.
Fig. 3: Overview of the average-case hardness proof.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this Article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Code availability

Code sharing is not applicable to this Article as there are no codes or algorithms beyond what appears in the paper and the Supplementary Information.

References

  1. Richard, P. Feynman. Quantum mechanical computers. Opt. News 11, 11–20 (1985).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Shor, P. W. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Rev. 41, 303–332 (1999).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A. & Lloyd, S. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Childs, A. M. Universal computation by quantum walk. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180501 (2009).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505–510 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chow, J., Dial, O. & Gambetta, J. IBM Quantum Breaks the 100-qubit Processor Barrier (IBM, 2021); https://research.ibm.com/blog/127-qubit-quantum-processor-eagle

  8. Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum computational supremacy. Nature 549, 203–209 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lund, A. P., Bremner, M. J. & Ralph, T. C. Quantum sampling problems, BosonSampling and quantum supremacy. npj Quantum Inf. 3, 15 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boixo, S. et al. Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices. Nat. Phys. 14, 595–600 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mi, X. et al. Information scrambling in quantum circuits. Science 374, 1479–1483 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lavasani, A., Alavirad, Y. & Barkeshli, M. Measurement-induced topological entanglement transitions in symmetric random quantum circuits. Nat. Phys. 17, 342–347 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shtanko, O. & Movassagh, R. Algorithms for Gibbs state preparation on noiseless and noisy random quantum circuits. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.14688 (2021).

  14. Chen, L. & Movassagh, R. Quantum Merkle trees. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.14317 (2021).

  15. Stockmeyer, L. On approximation algorithms for #P. SIAM J. Comput. 14, 849–861 (1985).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Napp, J. C., La Placa, R. L., Dalzell, A. M., Brandão, F. G. S. L. & Harrow, A. W. Efficient classical simulation of random shallow 2D quantum circuits. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.0002 (2020).

  17. Gray, J. & Kourtis, S. Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction. Quantum 5, 410 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang, C. et al. Classical simulation of quantum supremacy circuits. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.06787 (2020).

  19. Pan, F., Chen, K. & Zhang, P. Solving the sampling problem of the sycamore quantum circuits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090502 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Harrow, A. W. & Mehraban, S. Approximate unitary t-designs by short random quantum circuits using nearest-neighbor and long-range gates. Commun. Math. Phys. 1–96 (2023).

  21. Hangleiter, D., Bermejo-Vega, J., Schwarz, M. & Eisert, J. Anticoncentration theorems for schemes showing a quantum speedup. Quantum 2, 65 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oszmaniec, M., Dangniam, N., Morales, M. E. & Zimborás, Z. Fermion sampling: a robust quantum computational advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states. PRX Quantum 3, 020328 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kondo, Y., Mori, R. & Movassagh, R. Quantum supremacy and hardness of estimating output probabilities of quantum circuits. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) 1296–1307 (IEEE, 2022).

  24. Bouland, A., Fefferman, B., Landau, Z. & Liu, Y. Noise and the frontier of quantum supremacy. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) 1308–1317 (IEEE, 2022).

  25. Bravyi, S., Gosset, D. & Movassagh, R. Classical algorithms for quantum mean values. Nat. Phys. 17, 337–341 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hayden, P. & Preskill, J. Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems. J. High Energy Phys. 2007, 120 (2007).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Takayanagi, T. Holographic spacetimes as quantum circuits of path-integrations. J. High Energy Phys. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2018)048 (2018).

  28. Welch, L. R. & Berlekamp, E. R. Error correction for algebraic block codes. US patent 4,633,470 (1986).

  29. Reed, I. S. & Solomon, G. Polynomial codes over certain finite fields. J. Soc. Industrial Appl. Math. 8, 300–304 (1960).

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proc. Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 333–342 (ACM, 2011).

  31. Bremner, M. J., Jozsa, R. & Shepherd, D. J. Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy. Proc. R. Soc. A 467, 459–472 (2011).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Bremner, M. J., Montanaro, A. & Shepherd, D. J. Achieving quantum supremacy with sparse and noisy commuting quantum computations. Quantum 1, 8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bouland, A., Fefferman, B., Nirkhe, C. & Vazirani, U. On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling. Nat. Phys. 15, 159–163 (2019).

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Wu, Y. et al. Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu, Q. et al. Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling. Sci. Bull. 67, 240–245 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dalzell, A. M., Hunter-Jones, N. & Brandao, F. G. S. L. Random quantum circuits anticoncentrate in log depth. PRX Quantum 3, 010333 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Terhal, B. M. & DiVincenzo, D. P. Adaptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and Arthur-Merlin games. Quant. Inf. Comp. 4, 134–145 (2004).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Aaronson, S. & Arkhipov, A. The computational complexity of linear optics. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1011.3245 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank R. Mori and S. Bravyi for discussions. I also thank S. Boixo, Y. Kondo, O. Shtanko, J. Schenker, A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, Y. Liu, L. Chen, J. Napp, A. Dalzell and K. Zyczkowski. This work was partly supported by the Frontiers Foundation and the MIT-IBM collaborative grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IBM Quantum, MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Ramis Movassagh

  2. Google Quantum AI, Venice, CA, USA

    Ramis Movassagh

Authors
  1. Ramis Movassagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R. Movassagh is the sole author of this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramis Movassagh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Physics thanks Suguru Tamaki and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

All figures are included in the Supplementary Information.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Movassagh, R. The hardness of random quantum circuits. Nat. Phys. 19, 1719–1724 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02131-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02131-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics