The T-Complexity Costs of Error Correction for Control Flow in Quantum Computation
November 21, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Proc. ACM Program. Lang.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Charles Yuan, Michael Carbin
arXiv ID
2311.12772
Category
cs.PL: Programming Languages
Cross-listed
quant-ph
Citations
13
Venue
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Numerous quantum algorithms require the use of quantum error correction to overcome the intrinsic unreliability of physical qubits. However, error correction imposes a unique performance bottleneck, known as T-complexity, that can make an implementation of an algorithm as a quantum program run more slowly than on idealized hardware. In this work, we identify that programming abstractions for control flow, such as the quantum if-statement, can introduce polynomial increases in the T-complexity of a program. If not mitigated, this slowdown can diminish the computational advantage of a quantum algorithm. To enable reasoning about the costs of control flow, we present a cost model that a developer can use to accurately analyze the T-complexity of a program and pinpoint the sources of slowdown. We also present a set of program-level optimizations, that a developer can use to rewrite a program to reduce its T-complexity, predict the T-complexity of the optimized program using the cost model, and then compile it to an efficient circuit via a straightforward strategy. We implement the program-level optimizations in Spire, an extension of the Tower quantum compiler. Using a set of 11 benchmark programs that use control flow, we show that the cost model is accurate, and that Spire's optimizations recover programs that are asymptotically efficient, meaning their runtime T-complexity under error correction is equal to their time complexity on idealized hardware. Our results show that optimizing a program before it is compiled to a circuit can yield better results than compiling the program to an inefficient circuit and then invoking a quantum circuit optimizer found in prior work. For our benchmarks, only 2 of 8 tested circuit optimizers recover circuits with asymptotically efficient T-complexity. Compared to these 2 optimizers, Spire uses 54x to 2400x less compile time.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Programming Languages
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Tensor Comprehensions: Framework-Agnostic High-Performance Machine Learning Abstractions
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Glow: Graph Lowering Compiler Techniques for Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Learnable Programming: Blocks and Beyond
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Scenic: A Language for Scenario Specification and Scene Generation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Vandal: A Scalable Security Analysis Framework for Smart Contracts
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted