Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

The power of quantum circuits in sampling

arXiv
Authors: Guy Blanc, Caleb Koch, Jane Lange, Carmen Strassle, Li-Yang Tan

Year

2025

Paper ID

51866

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

112

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We give new evidence that quantum circuits are substantially more powerful than classical circuits. We show, relative to a random oracle, that polynomial-size quantum circuits can sample distributions that subexponential-size classical circuits cannot approximate even to TV distance 1-o(1). Prior work of Aaronson and Arkhipov (2011) showed such a separation for the case of exact sampling (i.e. TV distance 0), but separations for approximate sampling were only known for uniform algorithms. A key ingredient in our proof is a new hardness amplification lemma for the classical query complexity of the Yamakawa-Zhandry (2022) search problem. We show that the probability that any family of query algorithms collectively finds k distinct solutions decays exponentially in k.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We give new evidence that quantum circuits are substantially more powerful than classical circuits.

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #51866 #78853 When irrelevance governs: dissi... #78852 Quantum Information-Theoretic A... #78851 Quantum-assisted rendezvous on ... #78850 An Instability of the Quantum M...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.