skip to main content
research-article

Quantum rejection sampling

Published:22 August 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Rejection sampling is a well-known method to sample from a target distribution, given the ability to sample from a given distribution. The method has been first formalized by von Neumann [1951] and has many applications in classical computing. We define a quantum analogue of rejection sampling: given a black box producing a coherent superposition of (possibly unknown) quantum states with some amplitudes, the problem is to prepare a coherent superposition of the same states, albeit with different target amplitudes. The main result of this article is a tight characterization of the query complexity of this quantum state generation problem. We exhibit an algorithm, which we call quantum rejection sampling, and analyze its cost using semidefinite programming. Our proof of a matching lower bound is based on the automorphism principle that allows to symmetrize any algorithm over the automorphism group of the problem. Our main technical innovation is an extension of the automorphism principle to continuous groups that arise for quantum state generation problems where the oracle encodes unknown quantum states, instead of just classical data. Furthermore, we illustrate how quantum rejection sampling may be used as a primitive in designing quantum algorithms, by providing three different applications. We first show that it was implicitly used in the quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations by Harrow et al. [2009]. Second we show that it can be used to speed up the main step in the quantum Metropolis sampling algorithm by Temme et al. [2011]. Finally, we derive a new quantum algorithm for the hidden shift problem of an arbitrary Boolean function and relate its query complexity to “water-filling” of the Fourier spectrum.

References

  1. Aaronson, S. 2009. Quantum copy-protection and quantum money. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'09). IEEE Computer Society, 229--242. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2009.42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aaronson, S. and Drucker, A. 2010. A full characterization of quantum advice. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'10). ACM, 131--140. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1806689.1806710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Aharonov, D. and Regev, O. 2005. Lattice problems in NP ∩ coNP. J. ACM 52, 5, 749--765. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1089023.1089025. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aharonov, D. and Ta-Shma, A. 2003. Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'03). ACM, 20--29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/780542.780546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ambainis, A. 2000. Quantum lower bounds by quantum arguments. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'00). ACM, 636--643. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/335305.335394. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ambainis, A. 2010. Variable time amplitude amplification and a faster quantum algorithm for solving systems of linear equations. arxiv:1010.4458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ambainis, A., Magnin, L., Roetteler, M., and Roland, J. 2011. Symmetry-assisted adversaries for quantum state generation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'11). IEEE Computer Society, 167--177. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2011.24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bennett, C. H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., and Vazirani, U. 1997. Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 5, 1510--1523. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300933. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Berry, D. W., Ahokas, G., Cleve, R., and Sanders, B. C. 2005. Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians. Comm. Math. Phys. 270, 2, 9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-006-0150-x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Boixo, S., Knill, E., and Somma, R. D. 2009. Eigenpath traversal by phase randomization. Quant. Inf. Comput. 9, 9&10, 833--855. http://www.rintonpress.com/journals/qiconline.html##v9n910. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Boyer, M., Brassard, G., Høyer, P., and Tapp, A. 1998. Tight bounds on quantum searching. Fortschritte der Physik 46, 4--5, 493--505. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199806)46:⅘<493::AID-PROP493>3.0.CO;2-P.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Brassard, G., Høyer, P., Mosca, M., and Tapp, A. 2002. Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. In Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: A Millennium Volume, 53--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J., and de Wolf, R. 2001. Quantum fingerprinting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 16, 167902. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Buhrman, H. and de Wolf, R. 2002. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 288, 1, 21--43. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00144-X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Childs, A. M. 2008. On the relationship between continuous- and discrete-time quantum walk. Comm. Math. Phys. 294, 2, 22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-009-0930-1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Childs, A. M. and Kothari, R. 2011. Simulating sparse Hamiltonians with star decompositions. In Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography (TQC'10). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6519, Springer, Berlin, 11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18073-6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cleve, R., Ekert, A., Macchiavello, C., and Mosca, M. 1997. Quantum algorithms revisited. Proc. Roy. Soci. A. Math., Phys. Engi. Sci. 454, 1969, 18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1998.0164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. de Wolf, R. 2008. A brief introduction to Fourier analysis on the Boolean cube. Theory of Computing Library -- Graduate Surveys 1, 1--20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4086/toc.gs.2008.001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Devroye, L. 1986. Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. Springer, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Farhi, E., Gosset, D., Hassidim, A., Lutomirski, A., and Shor, P. 2012. Quantum money from knots. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS'12) Conference. 276--289. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2090236.2090260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Friedl, K., Ivanyos, G., Magniez, F., Santha, M., and Sen, P. 2002. Hidden translation and orbit coset in quantum computing. In Proceedings of the 35fth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'03). ACM, 1--9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/780542.780544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Grover, L. K. 1996. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'96). ACM, New York, 212--219. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Grover, L. K. 2000. Synthesis of quantum superpositions by quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 6, 1334--1337. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Grover, L. K. and Rudolph, T. 2002. Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distributions. arXiv:quant-ph/0208112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrow, A. W., Hassidim, A., and Lloyd, S. 2009. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 15, 150502. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Høyer, P., Lee, T., and Špalek, R. 2007. Negative weights make adversaries stronger. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'07). ACM, 526--535. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1250790.1250867. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Høyer, P., Mosca, M., and de Wolf, R. 2003. Quantum search on bounded-error inputs. In Proceedings of the 30th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP'03). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2719, Springer, 291--299. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45061-0_25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ivanyos, G. 2008. On solving systems of random linear disequations. Quant. Inf. Comput. 8, 6&7, 579--594. DOI: http://www.rintonpress.com/journals/qiconline.html##v8n67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kempe, J., Kitaev, A., and Regev, O. 2006. The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem. SIAM J. Comput. 35, 5, 1070--1097. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704445226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kitaev, A. 1995. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem. arXiv:quant-ph/9511026.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitaev, A. and Webb, W. A. 2008. Wavefunction preparation and resampling using a quantum computer. arXiv:0801.0342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Köbler, J., Schöning, U., and Toran, J. 1993. The Graph Isomorphism Problem: Its Structural Complexity. Birkhäuser, Boston. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lee, T., Mittal, R., Reichardt, B. W., Špalek, R., and Szegedy, M. 2011. Quantum query complexity of state conversion. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'11). 344--353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2011.75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Letac, G. 1975. On building random variables of a given distribution. Ann. Probab. 3, 2, 298--306. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aop/1176996400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Marriott, C. and Watrous, J. 2005. Quantum Arthur--Merlin games. Computat. Complex. 14, 2, 122--152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00037-005-0194-x. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 6, 1087. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Nagaj, D., Wocjan, P., and Zhang, Y. 2009. Fast amplification of QMA. Quant. Inf. Computat. 9, 11&12, 1053--1068. DOI: http://www.rintonpress.com/journals/qiconline.html##v9n1112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Regev, O. 2004. Quantum computation and lattice problems. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 2, 738--760. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0097539703440678. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Reichardt, B. W. 2009. Span programs and quantum query complexity: The general adversary bound is nearly tight for every boolean function. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'09). IEEE Computer Society Press, 544--551. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2009.55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Reichardt, B. W. 2011. Reflections for quantum query algorithms. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'11). 560--569. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Rötteler, M. 2010. Quantum algorithms for highly non-linear Boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'10). 448--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Schwarz, M., Temme, K., and Verstraete, F. 2012. Preparing projected entangled pair states on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 110502. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.110502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Sheridan, L., Maslov, D., and Mosca, M. 2009. Approximating fractional time quantum evolution. J. Phys. A 42, 18, 185302. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/42/18/185302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Somma, R. D., Boixo, S. B., Barnum, H., and Knill, E. 2008. Quantum simulations of classical annealing processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130504. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Temme, K., Osborne, T. J., Vollbrecht, K. G. H., Poulin, D., and Verstraete, F. 2011. Quantum metropolis sampling. Nature 471, 7336, 87--90. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09770.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. van Dam, W., Hallgren, S., and Ip, L. 2006. Quantum algorithms for some hidden shift problems. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 3, 763--778. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S009753970343141X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Vandenberghe, L. and Boyd, S. 1996. Semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev. 38, 1, 49--95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1038003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Vazirani, U. 1998. On the power of quantum computation. Philos. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 356, 1743, 1759--1768. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/55010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. van Neumann, J. 1951. Various techniques used in connection with random digits. Nati. Bureau Stand. Applied Math Series 12, 36--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Watrous, J. 2000. Succinct quantum proofs for properties of finite groups. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'00). IEEE Computer Society, 537--546. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2000.892141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Watrous, J. 2001. Quantum algorithms for solvable groups. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'01). ACM, 60--67. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/380752.380759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Yung, M.-H. and Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2011. A quantum-quantum Metropolis algorithm. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109, 3, 754--759. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111758109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Quantum rejection sampling

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!