By Konstantinos Meichanetzidis
When will quantum computers outperform classical ones?
This question has hovered over the field for decades, shaping billion-dollar investments and driving scientific debate.
The question has more meaning in context, as the answer depends on the problem at hand. We already have estimates of the quantum computing resources needed for Shor’s algorithm, which has a superpolynomial advantage for integer factoring over the best-known classical methods, threatening cryptographic protocols. Quantum simulation allows one to glean insights into exotic materials and chemical processes that classical machines struggle to capture, especially when strong correlations are present. But even within these examples, estimates change surprisingly often, carving years off expected timelines. And outside these famous cases, the map to quantum advantage is surprisingly hazy.
Researchers at ҹɫֱ have taken a fresh step toward drawing this map. In a new theoretical framework, Harry Buhrman, Niklas Galke, and Konstantinos Meichanetzidis introduce the concept of “queasy instances” (quantum easy) – problem instances that are comparatively easy for quantum computers but appear difficult for classical ones.
From Problem Classes to Problem Instances
Traditionally, computer scientists classify problems according to their worst-case difficulty. Consider the problem of Boolean satisfiability, or SAT, where one is given a set of variables (each can be assigned a 0 or a 1) and a set of constraints and must decide whether there exists a variable assignment that satisfies all the constraints. SAT is a canonical NP-complete problem, and so in the worst case, both classical and quantum algorithms are expected to perform badly, which means that the runtime scales exponentially with the number of variables. On the other hand, factoring is believed to be easier for quantum computers than for classical ones. But real-world computing doesn’t deal only in worst cases. Some instances of SAT are trivial; others are nightmares. The same is true for optimization problems in finance, chemistry, or logistics. What if quantum computers have an advantage not across all instances, but only for specific “pockets” of hard instances? This could be very valuable, but worst-case analysis is oblivious to this and declares that there is no quantum advantage.
To make that idea precise, the researchers turned to a tool from theoretical computer science: Kolmogorov complexity. This is a way of measuring how “regular” a string of bits is, based on the length of the shortest program that generates it. A simple string like 0000000000 can be described by a tiny program (“print ten zeros”), while the description of a program that generates a random string exhibiting no pattern is as long as the string itself. From there, the notion of instance complexity was developed: instead of asking “how hard is it to describe this string?”, we ask “how hard is it to solve this particular problem instance (represented by a string)?” For a given SAT formula, for example, its polynomial-time instance complexity is the size of the smallest program that runs in polynomial time and decides whether the formula is satisfiable. This smallest program must be consistently answering all other instances, and it is also allowed to declare “I don’t know”.
In their new work, the team extends this idea into the quantum realm by defining polynomial-time quantum instance complexity as the size of the shortest quantum program that solves a given instance and runs on polynomial time. This makes it possible to directly compare quantum and classical effort, in terms of program description length, on the very same problem instance. If the quantum description is significantly shorter than the classical one, that problem instance is one the researchers call “qܱ”: quantum-easy and classically hard. These queasy instances are the precise places where quantum computers offer a provable advantage – and one that may be overlooked under a worst-case analysis.
Why “Queasy”?
The playful name captures the imbalance between classical and quantum effort. A queasy instance is one that makes classical algorithms struggle, i.e. their shortest descriptions of efficient programs that decide them are long and unwieldy, while a quantum computer can handle the same instance with a much simpler, faster, and shorter program. In other words, these instances make classical computers “queasy,” while quantum ones solve them efficiently and finding them quantum-easy. The key point of these definitions lies in demonstrating that they yield reasonable results for well-known optimisation problems.
By carefully analysing a mapping from the problem of integer factoring to SAT (which is possible because factoring is inside NP and SAT is NP-complete) the researchers prove that there exist infinitely many queasy SAT instances. SAT is one of the most central and well-studied problems in computer science that finds numerous applications in the real-world. The significant realisation that this theoretical framework highlights is that SAT is not expected to yield a blanket quantum advantage, but within it lie islands of queasiness – special cases where quantum algorithms decisively win.
Algorithmic Utility
Finding a queasy instance is exciting in itself, but there is more to this story. Surprisingly, within the new framework it is demonstrated that when a quantum algorithm solves a queasy instance, it does much more than solve that single case. Because the program that solves it is so compact, the same program can provably solve an exponentially large set of other instances, as well. Interestingly, the size of this set depends exponentially on the queasiness of the instance!
Think of it like discovering a special shortcut through a maze. Once you’ve found the trick, it doesn’t just solve that one path, but reveals a pattern that helps you solve many other similarly built mazes, too (even if not optimally). This property is called algorithmic utility, and it means that queasy instances are not isolated curiosities. Each one can open a doorway to a whole corridor with other doors, behind which quantum advantage might lie.
A North Star for the Field
Queasy instances are more than a mathematical curiosity; this is a new framework that provides a language for quantum advantage. Even though the quantities defined in the paper are theoretical, involving Turing machines and viewing programs as abstract bitstrings, they can be approximated in practice by taking an experimental and engineering approach. This work serves as a foundation for pursuing quantum advantage by targeting problem instances and proving that in principle this can be a fruitful endeavour.
The researchers see a parallel with the rise of machine learning. The idea of neural networks existed for decades along with small scale analogue and digital implementations, but only when GPUs enabled large-scale trial and error did they explode into practical use. Quantum computing, they suggest, is on the cusp of its own heuristic era. ‾ܰپ” will be prominent in finding queasy instances, which have the right structure so that classical methods struggle but quantum algorithms can exploit, to eventually arrive at solutions to typical real-world problems. After all, quantum computing is well-suited for small-data big-compute problems, and our framework employs the concepts to quantify that; instance complexity captures both their size and the amount of compute required to solve them.
Most importantly, queasy instances shift the conversation. Instead of asking the broad question of when quantum computers will surpass classical ones, we can now rigorously ask where they do. The queasy framework provides a language and a compass for navigating the rugged and jagged computational landscape, pointing researchers, engineers, and industries toward quantum advantage.