The quantum assembly language (QASM) is a popular intermediate representation used in many quantum compilation and simulation tools to describe quantum circuits. Currently, multiple different dialects of QASM are used in different quantum computing tools. This makes the interaction between those tools tedious and time-consuming due to the need for translators between theses different syntaxes. Beside requiring a multitude of translators, the translation process exposes the constant risk of loosing information due to the potential incompatibilities between the different dialects. Moreover, several tools introduce details of specific target hardware or qubit technologies within the QASM syntax and prevent porting the code to other hardwares. In this paper, we propose a common QASM syntax definition, named cQASM, which aims to abstract away qubit technology details and guarantee the interoperability between all the quantum compilation and simulation tools supporting this standard. Our vision is to enable an extensive quantum computing toolbox shared by all the quantum computing community.
The cQASM instructions can then be used as input to a quantum computer simulator or as input to a lower-level compiler which generates hardware-specific instructions, or executable QASM (eQASM), suitable for execution by the target quantum processor. As a concrete example, the OpenQL compiler developed at QuTech supports multiple backends and generates different types of eQASM, such as the QuMis code introduced in @cite_11 and executable on a dedicated microarchitecture controlling superconducting qubits.
@cite_11
2952413488 2145860679 2919333331 2297565774
The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that these systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently compute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked: If predicting Quantum Mechanical systems requires exponential resources, is QM a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untrusted future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To answer these questions, we define Quantum Prover Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computational capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: "Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one". We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our second protocol uses polynomial codes QAS due to BCGHS, combined with quantum fault tolerance and multiparty quantum computation techniques. A slight modification of our constructions makes the protocol "blind": the quantum computation and input are unknown to the prover. After we have derived the results, we have learned that Broadbent at al. have independently derived "universal blind quantum computation" using completely different methods. Their construction implicitly implies similar implications. The widely held belief that BQP strictly contains BPP raises fundamental questions: Upcoming generations of quantum computers might already be too large to be simulated classically. Is it possible to experimentally test that the se systems perform as they should, if we cannot efficiently comp ute predictions for their behavior? Vazirani has asked [Vaz07]: If computing predictions for Quantum Mechanics requires exponential resources, is Quantum Mechanics a falsifiable theory? In cryptographic settings, an untruste d future company wants to sell a quantum computer or perform a delegated quantum computation. Can the customer be convinced of correctness without the ability to compare results to predictions? To provide answers to these questions, we define Quantum Prov er Interactive Proofs (QPIP). Whereas in standard Interactive Proofs [GMR85] the prover is computationally unbounded, here our prover is in BQP, representing a quantum computer. The verifier models our current computati onal capabilities: it is a BPP machine, with access to few qubits. Our main theorem can be roughly stated as: ”Any language in BQP has a QPIP, and moreover, a fault tolerant one”. We provide two proofs. The simpler one uses a new (possibly of independent interest) quantum authentication scheme (QAS) based on random Clifford elements. This QPIP however, is not fault tolerant. Our � � Motivated by the recent advancement of quantum processors, we investigate quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) to employ quasi-maximum-likelihood (ML) decoding of classical channel codes. QAOA is a hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithm, which is advantageous for the near-term noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices, where the fidelity of quantum gates is limited by noise and decoherence. We first describe how to construct Ising Hamiltonian model to realize quasi-ML decoding with QAOA. For level-1 QAOA, we derive the systematic way to generate theoretical expressions of cost expectation for arbitrary binary linear codes. Focusing on (7, 4) Hamming code as an example, we analyze the impact of the degree distribution in associated generator matrix on the quantum decoding performance. The excellent performance of higher-level QAOA decoding is verified when Pauli rotation angles are optimized through meta-heuristic variational quantum eigensolver (VQE). Furthermore, we demonstrate the QAOA decoding performance in a real quantum device. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is designed to run on a gate model quantum computer and has shallow depth. It takes as input a combinatorial optimization problem and outputs a string that satisfies a high fraction of the maximum number of clauses that can be satisfied. For certain problems the lowest depth version of the QAOA has provable performance guarantees although there exist classical algorithms that have better guarantees. Here we argue that beyond its possible computational value the QAOA can exhibit a form of Quantum Supremacy in that, based on reasonable complexity theoretic assumptions, the output distribution of even the lowest depth version cannot be efficiently simulated on any classical device. We contrast this with the case of sampling from the output of a quantum computer running the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm (QADI) with the restriction that the Hamiltonian that governs the evolution is gapped and stoquastic. Here we show that there is an oracle that would allow sampling from the QADI but even with this oracle, if one could efficiently classically sample from the output of the QAOA, the Polynomial Hierarchy would collapse. This suggests that the QAOA is an excellent candidate to run on near term quantum computers not only because it may be of use for optimization but also because of its potential as a route to establishing quantum supremacy.