On the Satisfiability of Quantum Circuits of Small Treewidth

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9139)

Abstract

It has been known since long time that many NP-hard optimization problems can be solved in polynomial time when restricted to structures of constant treewidth. In this work we provide the first extension of such results to the quantum setting. We show that given a quantum circuit C with n uninitialized inputs, \( poly (n)\) gates, and treewidth t, one can compute in time \((\frac{n}{\delta })^{\exp (O(t))}\) a classical assignment \(y\in \{0,1\}^n\) that maximizes the acceptance probability of C up to a \(\delta \) additive factor. In particular our algorithm runs in polynomial time if t is constant and \(1/poly(n) < \delta < 1\). For unrestricted values of t this problem is known to be hard for the complexity class QCMA, a quantum generalization of NP. In contrast, we show that the same problem is already NP-hard if \(t=O(\log n)\) even when \(\delta \) is constant. Finally, we show that for \(t=O(\log n)\) and constant \(\delta \), it is QMA-hard to find a quantum witness \(|\varphi \rangle \) that maximizes the acceptance probability of a quantum circuit of treewidth t up to a \(\delta \) additive factor.

Keywords

Treewidth Satisfiability of quantum circuits Tensor networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Aharonov, D., Kitaev, A., Nisan, N.: Quantum circuits with mixed states. In: Proceeding of the 30th Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 20–30 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aharonov, D., Naveh, T.: Quantum NP - A survey (2002). arXiv preprint quant-ph/0210077
  3. 3.
    Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Satisfiability, branch-width and tseitin tautologies. In: Proceeding of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 593–603 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allender, E., Chen, S., Lou, T., Papakonstantinou, P.A., Tang, B.: Width-parametrized SAT: time-space tradeoffs. Theor. Comput. 10(12), 297–339 (2014)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnborg, S., Lagergren, J., Seese, D.: Easy problems for tree-decomposable graphs. J. Algorithms 12(2), 308–340 (1991)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnborg, S., Proskurowski, A.: Linear time algorithms for NP-hard problems restricted to partial \(k\)-trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 23(1), 11–24 (1989)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Babai, L.: Bounded round interactive proofs in finite groups. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 5(1), 88–111 (1992)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bookatz, A.D.: QMA-complete problems. Quantum Inf. Comput. 14(5–6), 361–383 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broering, E., Lokam, S.V.: Width-based algorithms for SAT and CIRCUIT-SAT. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 162–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Courcelle, B.: The monadic second-order logic of graphs I. recognizable sets of finite graphs. Inf. comput. 85(1), 12–75 (1990)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Georgiou, K., Papakonstantinou, P.A.: Complexity and algorithms for well-structured k-SAT instances. In: Kleine Büning, H., Zhao, X. (eds.) SAT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4996, pp. 105–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gottesman, D.: The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers (1998). arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006
  13. 13.
    Jozsa, R., Linden, N.: On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 459(2036), 2011–2032 (2003)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitaev, A., Shen, A., Vyalyi, M.: Classical and Quantum Computation. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 47. AMS, Boston (2002) MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markov, I.L., Shi, Y.: Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks. SIAM J. Comput. 38(3), 963–981 (2008)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors III. Planar tree-width. J. Comb. Theor. Ser. B 36(1), 49–64 (1984)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thilikos, D.M., Serna, M., Bodlaender, H.L.: Constructive linear time algorithms for small cutwidth and carving-width. In: Lee, D.T., Teng, S.-H. (eds.) ISAAC 2000. LNCS, vol. 1969, pp. 192–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valiant, L.G.: Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time. SIAM J. Comput. 31(4), 1229–1254 (2002)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vidal, G.: Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watrous, J.: Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups. In: Proceeding of the 41st Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 537–546 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics - Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations