Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments

In the near future, there will likely be special-purpose quantum computers with 40-50 high-quality qubits. This paper lays general theoretical foundations for how to use such devices to demonstrate "quantum supremacy": that is, a clear quantum speedup for some task, motivated by the goal of overturning the Extended Church-Turing Thesis as confidently as possible. First, we study the hardness of sampling the output distribution of a random quantum circuit, along the lines of a recent proposal by the the Quantum AI group at Google. We show that there's a natural hardness assumption, which has nothing to do with sampling, yet implies that no efficient classical algorithm can pass a statistical test that the quantum sampling procedure's outputs do pass. Compared to previous work, the central advantage is that we can now talk directly about the observed outputs, rather than about the distribution being sampled. Second, in an attempt to refute our hardness assumption, we give a new algorithm, for simulating a general quantum circuit with n qubits and m gates in polynomial space and m^O(n) time. We then discuss why this and other known algorithms fail to refute our assumption. Third, resolving an open problem of Aaronson and Arkhipov, we show that any strong quantum supremacy theorem--of the form "if approximate quantum sampling is classically easy, then PH collapses"--must be non-relativizing. Fourth, refuting a conjecture by Aaronson and Ambainis, we show that the Fourier Sampling problem achieves a constant versus linear separation between quantum and randomized query complexities. Fifth, we study quantum supremacy relative to oracles in P/poly. Previous work implies that, if OWFs exist, then quantum supremacy is possible relative to such oracles. We show that some assumption is needed: if SampBPP=SampBQP and NP is in BPP, then quantum supremacy is impossible relative to such oracles.
Comment: abstract shortened to meet the constraint