Cited by 503Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Mechanics and Applications

Gaussian Boson Sampling

Open access
Hamilton, Craig S., Kruse, Regina, Sansoni, Linda, Barkhofen, Sonja, Silberhorn, Christine, Jex, Igor·2017·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

Boson sampling has emerged as a tool to explore the advantages of quantum over classical computers as it does not require universal control over the quantum system, which favors current photonic experimental platforms. Here, we introduce Gaussian Boson sampling, a classically hard-to-solve problem that uses squeezed states as a nonclassical resource. We relate the probability to measure specific photon patterns from a general Gaussian state in the Fock basis to a matrix function called the Hafnian, which answers the last remaining question of sampling from Gaussian states. Based on this result, we design Gaussian Boson sampling, a #P hard problem, using squeezed states. This demonstrates that Boson sampling from Gaussian states is possible, with significant advantages in the photon generation probability, compared to existing protocols.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.119.170501

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gaussian states have the advantage that they can be created deterministically.

    “Gaussian states have the advantage that they can be created deterministically (Hamilton et al. , 2017; Kruse et al. , 2019).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Hamilton et al., 2017

  • GBS is computationally equivalent to sampling from the Hafnian function of a matrix.

    “Where boson sampling is equivalent to sampling from the permanent of a matrix, GBS is computationally equivalent to sampling from the Hafnian function of a matrix.”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Hamilton et al., 2017

  • Gaussian boson sampling is a variant of boson sampling in which Gaussian states are used as inputs to the optical circuit.

    “Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) is a variant of boson sampling, in which instead of photon states as inputs to the optical circuit, Gaussian states are used as inputs (Hamilton et al. , 2017).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Hamilton et al., 2017

  • Gaussian boson sampling is a special-purpose photonic platform to perform sampling tasks that are classically intractable.

    “Gaussian boson sampling, however, is a special-purpose photonic platform to perform sampling tasks that are classically intractable [186].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]1. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Theory of Comput. 9, 143 (2013).
  2. [2]2. L. Valiant, Theoretical computer science 8, 189 (1979).
  3. [3]3. M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Rahimi-Keshari, J. Dove, S. Aaronson, T. C. Ralph, and A. G. White, Science 339, 794 (2013).
  4. [4]4. M. Tillmann, B. Dakić, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Sza- meit, and P. Walther, Nature Photon 7, 540 (2013).
  5. [5]5. J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walm- sley, Science 339, 798 (2013).
  6. [6]6. A. Crespi, R. Osellame, R. Ramponi, D. J. Brod, E. F. G. ao, N. Spagnolo, C. Vitelli, E. Maiorino, P. Mataloni, and F. Sciarrino, Nature Photonics 7, 545 (2013).
  7. [9]9. J. Loredo, M. Broome, P. Hilaire, O. Gazzano, I. Sagnes, A. Lemaitre, M. Almeida, P. Senellart, and A. White, Physical Review Letters 118, 130503 (2017).
  8. [10]10. A. P. Lund, A. Laing, S. Rahimi-Keshari, T. Rudolph, J. L. O'Brien, and T. C. Ralph, Physical Review Letters 113, 100502 (2014).
  9. [11]11. S. Barkhofen, T. J. Bartley, L. Sansoni, R. Kruse, C. S. Hamilton, I. Jex, and C. Silberhorn, Physical Review Letters 118, 020502 (2017).
  10. [12]12. J. Huh, G. G. Guerreschi, B. Peropadre, J. R. Mcclean, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Nature Photonics 9, 615 (2015).
  11. [13]13. S. Rahimi-Keshari, A. P. Lund, and T. C. Ralph, Phys- ical Review Letters 114, 060501 (2015).
  12. [14]14. V. Tamma and S. Laibacher, Physical Review A 90, 063836 (2014).
  13. [18]18. V. V. Dodonov, O. V. Man'ko, and V. I. Man'ko, Phys- ical Review A 49, 2993 (1994).
  14. [19]19. V. V. Dodonov, O. V. Man'ko, and V. I. Man'ko, Phys- ical Review A 50, 813 (1994).
  15. [20]20. D. Callan, arXiv math.CO (2009), 0906.1317v1.
  16. [22]22. E. R. Caianiello, Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 1 (1953).
  17. [24]24. H. Minc, Permanents (Addison-Wesley, 1978).
  18. [25]25. P. Sankowski, in Annual Symposium on Theoretical As- pects of Computer Science (Springer, 2003) pp. 427-438.
  19. [28]28. R. Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Physical Review A 49, 1567 (1994).
  20. [30]30. M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices (Elsevier, 2004).
  21. [32]32. J. M. Hilbe, Negative Binomial Regression (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
  22. [33]33. P. P. Rohde, K. R. Motes, P. A. Knott, J. Fitzsimons, W. J. Munro, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A 91, 012342 (2015).
  23. [34]34. J. P. Olson, K. P. Seshadreesan, K. R. Motes, P. P. Ro- hde, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A 91, 022317 (2015).
  24. [35]35. K. P. Seshadreesan, J. P. Olson, K. R. Motes, P. P. Ro- hde, and J. P. Dowling, Physical Review A 91, 022334 (2015).
  25. [36]36. S. Aaronson and D. J. Brod, Physical Review A 93, 012335 (2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamilton, C. S., Kruse, R., Sansoni, L., Barkhofen, S., Silberhorn, C., & Jex, I.
Affiliations
  • Czech Technical University in Prague (CZ)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
119
Issue
17
Pages
170501-170501
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2560356194
Cited by
503
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
16.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Grantová Agentura ?eské Republiky (GAČR 17-00844S)
  • Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a T?lovýchovy (MŠMT RVO 68407700)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (641039)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
Gaussian boson sampling, boson sampling, squeezed states, hafnian, quantum advantage, Gaussian states, photonic quantum computing, sample complexity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review