Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Error tolerance of the BosonSampling model for linear optics quantum computing
arXiv
Authors: Peter P. Rohde, Timothy C. Ralph
Year
2011
Paper ID
29794
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
137
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Linear optics quantum computing (LOQC) is a promising approach to implementing scalable quantum computation (QC). However, this approach has very demanding physical resource requirements. Recently, Aaronson & Arkhipov showed that a simplified model, which avoids the requirement for fast feed-forward and post-selection, while likely not capable of solving BQP-complete problems efficiently, can solve an interesting sampling problem, believed to be classically hard. Loss and mode-mismatch are the dominant sources of error in such systems. We provide evidence that even lossy systems, or systems with mode-mismatch, are likely to be classically hard to simulate. This is of practical interest to experimentalists wishing to demonstrate such systems, since it suggests that even with errors in their implementation, they are likely implementing an algorithm which is classically hard to simulate. Our results also equivalently apply to the multi-walker quantum walk model.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Linear optics quantum computing (LOQC) is a promising approach to implementing scalable quantum computation (QC).
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.