Test of Quantumness with Small-Depth Quantum Circuits

Recently Brakerski, Christiano, Mahadev, Vazirani and Vidick (FOCS 2018) have shown how to construct a test of quantumness based on the learning with errors (LWE) assumption: a test that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer but cannot be solved by a classical polynomial-time computer under the LWE assumption. This test has lead to several cryptographic applications. In particular, it has been applied to producing certifiable randomness from a single untrusted quantum device, self-testing a single quantum device and device-independent quantum key distribution. In this paper, we show that this test of quantumness, and essentially all the above applications, can actually be implemented by a very weak class of quantum circuits: constant-depth quantum circuits combined with logarithmic-depth classical computation. This reveals novel complexity-theoretic properties of this fundamental test of quantumness and gives new concrete evidence of the superiority of small-depth quantum circuits over classical computation

Probing context-dependent errors in quantum processors

Gates in error-prone quantum information processors are often modeled using sets of one- and two-qubit process matrices, the standard model of quantum errors. However, the results of quantum circuits on real processors often depend on additional external "context" variables. Such contexts may include the state of a spectator qubit, the time of data collection, or the temperature of control electronics. In this article we demonstrate a suite of simple, widely applicable, and statistically rigorous methods for detecting context dependence in quantum circuit experiments. They can be used on any data that comprise two or more "pools" of measurement results obtained by repeating the same set of quantum circuits in different contexts. These tools may be integrated seamlessly into standard quantum device characterization techniques, like randomized benchmarking or tomography. We experimentally demonstrate these methods by detecting and quantifying crosstalk and drift on the publicly accessible 16-qubit ibmqx3.Comment: 11 pages, 3 figures, code and data available in source file

Graphical description of the action of Clifford operators on stabilizer states

We introduce a graphical representation of stabilizer states and translate the action of Clifford operators on stabilizer states into graph operations on the corresponding stabilizer-state graphs. Our stabilizer graphs are constructed of solid and hollow nodes, with (undirected) edges between nodes and with loops and signs attached to individual nodes. We find that local Clifford transformations are completely described in terms of local complementation on nodes and along edges, loop complementation, and change of node type or sign. Additionally, we show that a small set of equivalence rules generates all graphs corresponding to a given stabilizer state; we do this by constructing an efficient procedure for testing the equality of any two stabilizer graphs.Comment: 14 pages, 8 figures. Version 2 contains significant changes. Submitted to PR

Generalized self-testing and the security of the 6-state protocol

Self-tested quantum information processing provides a means for doing useful information processing with untrusted quantum apparatus. Previous work was limited to performing computations and protocols in real Hilbert spaces, which is not a serious obstacle if one is only interested in final measurement statistics being correct (for example, getting the correct factors of a large number after running Shor's factoring algorithm). This limitation was shown by McKague et al. to be fundamental, since there is no way to experimentally distinguish any quantum experiment from a special simulation using states and operators with only real coefficients. In this paper, we show that one can still do a meaningful self-test of quantum apparatus with complex amplitudes. In particular, we define a family of simulations of quantum experiments, based on complex conjugation, with two interesting properties. First, we are able to define a self-test which may be passed only by states and operators that are equivalent to simulations within the family. This extends work of Mayers and Yao and Magniez et al. in self-testing of quantum apparatus, and includes a complex measurement. Second, any of the simulations in the family may be used to implement a secure 6-state QKD protocol, which was previously not known to be implementable in a self-tested framework.Comment: To appear in proceedings of TQC 201

Fault Models for Quantum Mechanical Switching Networks

The difference between faults and errors is that, unlike faults, errors can be corrected using control codes. In classical test and verification one develops a test set separating a correct circuit from a circuit containing any considered fault. Classical faults are modelled at the logical level by fault models that act on classical states. The stuck fault model, thought of as a lead connected to a power rail or to a ground, is most typically considered. A classical test set complete for the stuck fault model propagates both binary basis states, 0 and 1, through all nodes in a network and is known to detect many physical faults. A classical test set complete for the stuck fault model allows all circuit nodes to be completely tested and verifies the function of many gates. It is natural to ask if one may adapt any of the known classical methods to test quantum circuits. Of course, classical fault models do not capture all the logical failures found in quantum circuits. The first obstacle faced when using methods from classical test is developing a set of realistic quantum-logical fault models. Developing fault models to abstract the test problem away from the device level motivated our study. Several results are established. First, we describe typical modes of failure present in the physical design of quantum circuits. From this we develop fault models for quantum binary circuits that enable testing at the logical level. The application of these fault models is shown by adapting the classical test set generation technique known as constructing a fault table to generate quantum test sets. A test set developed using this method is shown to detect each of the considered faults.Comment: (almost) Forgotten rewrite from 200