Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Unitary $t$-designs from $relaxed$ seeds

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1911.03704 v2 pith:XNF6UUD5 submitted 2019-11-09 quant-ph

classification quant-ph
keywords unitaryrelaxedunitariescomposeddesignseedsvarepsilonacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

The capacity to randomly pick a unitary across the whole unitary group is a powerful tool across physics and quantum information. A unitary $t$-design is designed to tackle this challenge in an efficient way, yet constructions to date rely on heavy constraints. In particular, they are composed of ensembles of unitaries which, for technical reasons, must contain inverses and whose entries are algebraic. In this work, we reduce the requirements for generating an $\varepsilon$-approximate unitary $t$-design. To do so, we first construct a specific $n$-qubit random quantum circuit composed of a sequence of, randomly chosen, 2-qubit gates, chosen from a set of unitaries which is approximately universal on $U(4)$, yet need not contain unitaries and their inverses, nor are in general composed of unitaries whose entries are algebraic; dubbed $relaxed$ seed. We then show that this relaxed seed, when used as a basis for our construction, gives rise to an $\varepsilon$-approximate unitary $t$-design efficiently, where the depth of our random circuit scales as $poly(n, t, log(1/\varepsilon))$, thereby overcoming the two requirements which limited previous constructions. We suspect the result found here is not optimal, and can be improved. Particularly because the number of gates in the relaxed seeds introduced here grows with $n$ and $t$. We conjecture that constant sized seeds such as those in ( Brand\~ao, Harrow, and Horodecki; Commun. Math. Phys. (2016) 346: 397) are sufficient.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools