On verifiable quantum advantage with peaked circuit sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over a decade after its proposal, the idea of using quantum computers to sample hard distributions has remained a key path to demonstrating quantum advantage. Yet a severe drawback remains: verification seems to require classical computation exponential in the system size, $n$. As an attempt to overcome this difficulty, we propose a new candidate for quantum advantage experiments with otherwise random "peaked circuits", i.e., quantum circuits whose outputs have high concentrations on a computational basis state. Naturally, the heavy output string can be used for classical verification. In this work, we analytically and numerically study an explicit model of peaked circuits, in which $τ_r$ layers of uniformly random gates are augmented by $τ_p$ layers of gates that are optimized to maximize peakedness. We show that getting $1/\text{poly}(n)$ peakedness from such circuits requires $τ_{p} = Ω((τ_r/n)^{0.19})$ with overwhelming probability. However, we also give numerical evidence that nontrivial peakedness is possible in this model -- decaying exponentially with the number of qubits, but more than can be explained by any approximation where the output of a random quantum circuit is treated as a Haar-random state. This suggests that these peaked circuits have the potential for future verifiable quantum advantage experiments. Our work raises numerous open questions about random peaked circuits, including how to generate them efficiently, and whether they can be distinguished from fully random circuits in classical polynomial time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".