Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The T-Complexity Costs of Error Correction for Control Flow in Quantum Computation

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 2311.12772 v2 pith:ZULHOAWW submitted 2023-11-21 cs.PL quant-ph

classification cs.PLquant-ph
keywords quantumt-complexityprogramcircuitcontrolcorrectionerrorflow
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Numerous quantum algorithms require the use of quantum error correction to overcome the intrinsic unreliability of physical qubits. However, error correction imposes a unique performance bottleneck, known as T-complexity, that can make an implementation of an algorithm as a quantum program run more slowly than on idealized hardware. In this work, we identify that programming abstractions for control flow, such as the quantum if-statement, can introduce polynomial increases in the T-complexity of a program. If not mitigated, this slowdown can diminish the computational advantage of a quantum algorithm. To enable reasoning about the costs of control flow, we present a cost model that a developer can use to accurately analyze the T-complexity of a program and pinpoint the sources of slowdown. We also present a set of program-level optimizations, that a developer can use to rewrite a program to reduce its T-complexity, predict the T-complexity of the optimized program using the cost model, and then compile it to an efficient circuit via a straightforward strategy. We implement the program-level optimizations in Spire, an extension of the Tower quantum compiler. Using a set of 11 benchmark programs that use control flow, we show that the cost model is accurate, and that Spire's optimizations recover programs that are asymptotically efficient, meaning their runtime T-complexity under error correction is equal to their time complexity on idealized hardware. Our results show that optimizing a program before it is compiled to a circuit can yield better results than compiling the program to an inefficient circuit and then invoking a quantum circuit optimizer found in prior work. For our benchmarks, only 2 of 8 tested circuit optimizers recover circuits with asymptotically efficient T-complexity. Compared to these 2 optimizers, Spire uses 54x to 2400x less compile time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools