skip to main content
research-article

Ground State Connectivity of Local Hamiltonians

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 April 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The study of ground state energies of local Hamiltonians has played a fundamental role in quantum complexity theory. In this article, we take a new direction by introducing the physically motivated notion of “ground state connectivity” of local Hamiltonians, which captures problems in areas ranging from quantum stabilizer codes to quantum memories. Roughly, “ground state connectivity” corresponds to the natural question: Given two ground states |Ψ〉 and |ϕ〉 of a local Hamiltonian H, is there an “energy barrier” (with respect to H) along any sequence of local operations mapping |Ψ〉 to |ϕ〉? We show that the complexity of this question can range from QCMA-complete to PSPACE-complete, as well as NEXP-complete for an appropriately defined “succinct” version of the problem. As a result, we obtain a natural QCMA-complete problem, a goal which has generally proven difficult since the conception of QCMA over a decade ago. Our proofs rely on a new technical tool, the Traversal Lemma, which analyzes the Hilbert space a local unitary evolution must traverse under certain conditions. We show that this lemma is essentially tight with respect to the length of the unitary evolution in question.

References

  1. D. Aharonov and T. Naveh. 2002. Quantum NP - A survey. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/0210077v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Ambainis. 2014. On physical problems that are slightly more difficult than QMA. In Proceedings of 29th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC’14). 32--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Beame and C. Re. 2004. Lecture 12: Probabilistically checkable proofs. Retrieved March 12, 2018 from http://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse532/04sp/lect12.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Bonamy and N. Bousquet. 2013. Recoloring bounded treewidth graphs. In Proceedings of the 7th Latin-American Algorithms, Graphs, and Optimization Symposium (LAGOS’13).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Bonamy, M. Johnson, I. Lignos, V. Patel, and D. Paulusma. 2011. On the diameter of reconfiguration graphs for vertex colourings. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 38, 0 (2011), 161--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. P. Bonsma. 2012. The complexity of rerouting shortest paths. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7464. 222--233. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Bonsma and L. Cereceda. 2009. Finding paths between graph colourings: PSPACE-completeness and superpolynomial distances. Theoretical Computer Science 410, 50 (2009), 5215--5226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Bravyi and M. Vyalyi. 2005. Commutative version of the local Hamiltonian problem and common eigenspace problem. Quantum Information 8 Computation 5, 3 (2005), 187--215. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. Brown, S. Flammia, and N. Schuch. 2011. Computational difficulty of computing the density of states. Physical Review Letters 104 (2011), 040501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, J. Watrous, and R. de Wolf. 2001. Quantum fingerprinting. Physical Review Letters 87, 16 (2001), 167902.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. L. Cereceda, J. van den Heuvel, and M. Johnson. 2008. Connectedness of the graph of vertex-colorings. Discrete Mathematics 308, 56 (2008), 913--919. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. Cereceda, J. van den Heuvel, and M. Johnson. 2011. Finding paths between 3-colorings. Journal of Graph Theory 67, 1 (2011), 69--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. Cohen. 1993. A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory. Springer. 96044745 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hXGr-9l1DXcC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Cook. 1972. The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'72). 151--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Cubitt and A. Montanaro. 2013. Complexity classification of local Hamiltonian problems. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/1311.3161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Fricke, S. M. Hedetniemi, S. T. Hedetniemi, and K. R. Hutson. 2011. -Graphs of graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 31, 3 (2011), 517--531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. S. Gharibian. 2013. Approximation, Proof Systems, and Correlations in a Quantum World. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Waterloo. Preprint at arXiv:quant-ph/1301.2632.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Gharibian, Y. Huang, Z. Landau, and S. W. Shin. 2014a. Quantum Hamiltonian complexity. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/1401.3916v1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Gharibian and J. Kempe. 2012. Hardness of approximation for quantum problems. In Proceedings of 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’12). 387--398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Gharibian, Z. Landau, S. W. Shin, and G. Wang. 2014b. Tensor network non-zero testing. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/1406.5279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Gopalan, P. Kolaitis, E. Maneva, and C. Papadimitriou. 2006. The connectivity of Boolean satisfiability: Computational and structural dichotomies. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’06). 346--357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Gottesman. 1997. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/9705052.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R. A. Horn and C. H. Johnson. 1990. Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. T. Ito, E. D. Demaine, N. J. A. Harvey, C. H. Papadimitriou, M. Sideri, R. Uehara, and Y. Uno. 2011. On the complexity of reconfiguration problems. Theoretical Computer Science 412, 12--14 (2011), 1054--1065. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. T. Ito, M. Kamiński, and E. D. Demaine. 2012a. Reconfiguration of list edge-colorings in a graph. Discrete Applied Mathematics 160, 15 (2012), 2199--2207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. Ito, K. Kawamura, H. Ono, and X. Zhou. 2012b. Reconfiguration of list L(2,1)-labelings in a graph. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation. 34--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Janzing and P. Wocjan. 2006. BQP-complete Problems Concerning Mixing Properties of Classical Random Walks on Sparse Graphs. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/0610235v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. S. P. Jordan, H. Kobayashi, D. Nagaj, and H. Nishimura. 2012. Achieving perfect completeness in classical-witness quantum Merlin-Arthur proof systems. Quantum Information 8 Computation 12, 5 8 6 (2012), 461--471. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. Kamiński, P. Medvedev, and M. Milanic. 2012. Complexity of independent set reconfigurability problems. Theoretical Computer Science 439 (2012), 9--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. Kempe and O. Regev. 2003. 3-local Hamiltonian is QMA-complete. Quantum Information 8 Computation 3, 3 (2003), 258--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. Kitaev. 1999. Quantum NP. (1999). Talk at 2nd Workshop on Algorithms in Quantum Information Processing (AQIP 1999), DePaul University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Kitaev. 2001. Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires. Physics-Uspekhi 44 (2001), 131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. A. Kitaev. 2003. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics 303, 1 (2003), 2--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. A. Kitaev and C. Laumann. 2009. Topological phases and quantum computation. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/0904.2771.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. A. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. Vyalyi. 2002. Classical and Quantum Computation. American Mathematical Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. L. Levin. 1973. Universal search problems. Problems of Information Transmission 9, 3 (1973), 265--266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. A. Mouawad, N. Nishimura, V. Pathak, and V. Raman. 2014b. Shortest reconfiguration paths in the solution space of Boolean formulas. arXiv.org e-Print cs.CC/1404.3801v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. A. Mouawad, N. Nishimura, and V. Raman. 2014a. Vertex cover reconfiguration and beyond. arXiv.org e-Print cs.CC/1402.4926.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. A. E. Mouawad, N. Nishimura, V. Raman, N. Simjour, and A. Suzuki. 2013. On the parameterized complexity of reconfiguration problems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IPEC’13). 281--294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. R. Oliveira and B. M. Terhal. 2008. The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional square lattice. Quantum Information 8 Computation 8, 10 (2008), 0900--0924. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. T. J. Osborne. 2012. Hamiltonian complexity. Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 2 (2012), 022001. http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/75/i=2/a=022001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and A. Winter. 2011. All non-classical correlations can be activated into distillable entanglement. Physical Review Letters 106 (2011), 220403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. W. J. Savitch. 1970. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 4, 2 (1970), 177--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. T. J. Schaefer. 1978. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Theory of Computing. 216--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. K. W. Schwerdtfeger. 2013. A computational trichotomy for connectivity of Boolean satisfiability. CoRR (2013). arXiv.org e-Print abs/1312.4524.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. J. Watrous. 2008. Lecture 2: Mathematical Preliminaries. Part II. (2008). Retrieved from www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/∼watrous/CS766/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. J. Watrous. 2009. Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science. Springer, Chapter Quantum Computational Complexity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. M. W. Wilde. 2013. Quantum Information Theory. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. A. Winter. 1999. Coding theorem and strong converse for quantum channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45, 7 (1999), 2481--2485. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. P. Wocjan, D. Janzing, and T. Beth. 2003. Two QCMA-complete problems. Quantum Information 8 Computation 3, 6 (2003), 635--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. P. Wocjan and J. Yard. 2008. The Jones polynomial: Quantum algorithms and applications in quantum complexity theory. Quantum Information 8 Computation 8, 1 (2008), 147--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. J. Yan and D. Bacon. 2012. The k-local Pauli commuting Hamiltonians problem is in P. arXiv.org e-Print quant-ph/1203.3906.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ground State Connectivity of Local Hamiltonians

        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!