Cited by 88Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsQuantum Information and Cryptography

How many qubits are needed for quantum computational supremacy?

Open access
Dalzell, Alexander M., Harrow, Aram W., Koh, Dax Enshan, La Placa, Rolando L.·2020·Quantum

Abstract

Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c n time steps, where c ∈ { a , b } . A third conjecture poly3-ave-SBSETH( a ′ ) asserts a similar statement about average-case algorithms living in the exponential-time version of the complexity class S B P . We analyze evidence for these conjectures and argue that they are plausible when a = 1 / 2 , b = 0.999 and a ′ = 1 / 2 .Imposing poly3-NSETH(1/2) and per-int-NSETH(0.999), and assuming that the runtime of a hypothetical quantum circuit simulation algorithm would scale linearly with the number of gates/constraints/optical elements, we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits and 500 gates, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and 500 constraints and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons and 500 optical elements are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. Imposing poly3-ave-SBSETH(1/2), we additionally rule out simulations with constant additive error for IQP and QAOA circuits of the same size. Without the assumption of linearly increasing simulation time, we can make analogous statements for circuits with slightly fewer qubits but requiring 10 4 to 10 7 gates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22331/q-2020-05-11-264

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For p=1, 420 qubits would suffice to demonstrate quantum advantage.

    “In particular, it has been shown that for p = 1 , 420 qubits would suffice to demonstrate quantum advantage (Dalzell et al. , 2020).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Dalzell et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dalzell, A. M., Harrow, A. W., Koh, D. E., & La Placa, R. L.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Zapata (United States) (US)
  • Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Venue
Quantum
Published
2020-05-11
Volume
4
Pages
264
ISSN
2521-327X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801929759
Cited by
88
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
California Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
classical simulation of quantum circuits, polynomial hierarchy collapse, permanent, quantum approximate optimization algorithm, boson sampling, linear optical networks, qubit requirements, counting problems

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