Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Performance of Gaussian Boson Sampling on Planted Bipartite Clique Detection
arXiv
Authors: Yu-Zhen Janice Chen, Laurent Massoulié, Don Towsley
Year
2025
Paper ID
51231
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
192
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We investigate whether Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS) can provide a computational advantage for solving the planted biclique problem, which is a graph problem widely believed to be classically hard when the planted structure is small. Although GBS has been heuristically and experimentally observed to favor sampling dense subgraphs, its theoretical performance on this classically hard problem remains largely unexplored. We focus on a natural statistic derived from GBS output: the frequency with which a node appears in GBS samples, referred to as the node weight. We rigorously analyze whether this signal is strong enough to distinguish planted biclique nodes from background nodes. Our analysis characterizes the distribution of node weights under GBS and quantifies the bias introduced by the planted structure. The results reveal a sharp limitation: when the planted biclique size falls within the conjectured hard regime, the natural fluctuations in node weights dominate the bias signal, making detection unreliable using simple ranking strategies. These findings provide the first rigorous evidence that planted biclique detection may remain computationally hard even under GBS-based quantum computing, and they motivate further investigation into more advanced GBS-based algorithms or other quantum approaches for this problem.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We investigate whether Gaussian Boson Sampling (GBS) can provide a computational advantage for solving the planted biclique problem, which is a graph problem widely believed to...
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.