Abstract
We study the conditions under which, given a generic quantum system, complexity metrics provide actual lower bounds to the circuit complexity associated to a set of quantum gates. Inhomogeneous cost functions — many examples of which have been recently proposed in the literature — are ruled out by our analysis. Such measures are shown to be unrelated to circuit complexity in general and to produce severe violations of Lloyd’s bound in simple situations. Among the metrics which do provide lower bounds, the idea is to select those which produce the tightest possible ones. This establishes a hierarchy of cost functions and considerably reduces the list of candidate complexity measures. In particular, the criterion suggests a canonical way of dealing with penalties, consisting in assigning infinite costs to directions not belonging to the gate set. We discuss how this can be implemented through the use of Lagrange multipliers. We argue that one of the surviving cost functions defines a particularly canonical notion in the sense that: i) it straightforwardly follows from the standard Hermitian metric in Hilbert space; ii) its associated complexity functional is closely related to Kirillov’s coadjoint orbit action, providing an explicit realization of the “complexity equals action” idea; iii) it arises from a Hamilton-Jacobi analysis of the “quantum action” describing quantum dynamics in the phase space canonically associated to every Hilbert space. Finally, we explain how these structures provide a natural framework for characterizing chaos in classical and quantum systems on an equal footing, find the minimal geodesic connecting two nearby trajectories, and describe how complexity measures are sensitive to Lyapunov exponents.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
L. Susskind, Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons, Fortsch. Phys. 64 (2016) 24 [Addendum ibid. 64 (2016) 44] [arXiv:1403.5695] [INSPIRE].
D. Stanford and L. Susskind, Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 126007 [arXiv:1406.2678] [INSPIRE].
L. Susskind and Y. Zhao, Switchbacks and the Bridge to Nowhere, arXiv:1408.2823 [INSPIRE].
L. Susskind, Entanglement is not enough, Fortsch. Phys. 64 (2016) 49 [arXiv:1411.0690] [INSPIRE].
A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 191301 [arXiv:1509.07876] [INSPIRE].
A.R. Brown, D.A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, Complexity, action, and black holes, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 086006 [arXiv:1512.04993] [INSPIRE].
J. Couch, W. Fischler and P.H. Nguyen, Noether charge, black hole volume, and complexity, JHEP 03 (2017) 119 [arXiv:1610.02038] [INSPIRE].
M.A. Nielsen, A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds, quant-ph/0502070 [INSPIRE].
M.A. Nielsen, M.R. Dowling, M. Gu and A.C. Doherty, Quantum Computation as Geometry, Science 311 (2006) 1133 [quant-ph/0603161] [INSPIRE].
M.R. Dowling and M.A. Nielsen, The geometry of quantum computation, quant-ph/0701004 [INSPIRE].
M. Miyaji, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Distance between Quantum States and Gauge-Gravity Duality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 261602 [arXiv:1507.07555] [INSPIRE].
R. Jefferson and R.C. Myers, Circuit complexity in quantum field theory, JHEP 10 (2017) 107 [arXiv:1707.08570] [INSPIRE].
S. Chapman, M.P. Heller, H. Marrochio and F. Pastawski, Toward a Definition of Complexity for Quantum Field Theory States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 121602 [arXiv:1707.08582] [INSPIRE].
R.-Q. Yang, Complexity for quantum field theory states and applications to thermofield double states, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 066004 [arXiv:1709.00921] [INSPIRE].
R. Khan, C. Krishnan and S. Sharma, Circuit Complexity in Fermionic Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 126001 [arXiv:1801.07620] [INSPIRE].
L. Hackl and R.C. Myers, Circuit complexity for free fermions, JHEP 07 (2018) 139 [arXiv:1803.10638] [INSPIRE].
H.A. Camargo, P. Caputa, D. Das, M.P. Heller and R. Jefferson, Complexity as a novel probe of quantum quenches: universal scalings and purifications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 081601 [arXiv:1807.07075] [INSPIRE].
M. Guo, J. Hernandez, R.C. Myers and S.-M. Ruan, Circuit Complexity for Coherent States, JHEP 10 (2018) 011 [arXiv:1807.07677] [INSPIRE].
A. Bhattacharyya, A. Shekar and A. Sinha, Circuit complexity in interacting QFTs and RG flows, JHEP 10 (2018) 140 [arXiv:1808.03105] [INSPIRE].
S. Chapman et al., Complexity and entanglement for thermofield double states, SciPost Phys. 6 (2019) 034 [arXiv:1810.05151] [INSPIRE].
J. Jiang and X. Liu, Circuit Complexity for Fermionic Thermofield Double states, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 026011 [arXiv:1812.00193] [INSPIRE].
J. Jiang, J. Shan and J. Yang, Circuit complexity for free Fermion with a mass quench, Nucl. Phys. B 954 (2020) 114988 [arXiv:1810.00537] [INSPIRE].
I. Akal, Weighting gates in circuit complexity and holography, arXiv:1903.06156 [INSPIRE].
A. Bhattacharyya, P. Nandy and A. Sinha, Renormalized Circuit Complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 101602 [arXiv:1907.08223] [INSPIRE].
F. Liu et al., Circuit complexity across a topological phase transition, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 013323 [arXiv:1902.10720] [INSPIRE].
G. Camilo, D. Melnikov, F. Novaes and A. Prudenziati, Circuit Complexity of Knot States in Chern-Simons theory, JHEP 07 (2019) 163 [arXiv:1903.10609] [INSPIRE].
J.M. Magán, Black holes, complexity and quantum chaos, JHEP 09 (2018) 043 [arXiv:1805.05839] [INSPIRE].
P. Caputa and J.M. Magan, Quantum Computation as Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 231302 [arXiv:1807.04422] [INSPIRE].
A. Kirillov, Lectures on the Orbit Method, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, AMS Press, Providence U.S.A. (2004).
V. Balasubramanian, M. DeCross, A. Kar and O. Parrikar, Binding Complexity and Multiparty Entanglement, JHEP 02 (2019) 069 [arXiv:1811.04085] [INSPIRE].
A. Belin, A. Lewkowycz and G. Sárosi, Complexity and the bulk volume, a new York time story, JHEP 03 (2019) 044 [arXiv:1811.03097] [INSPIRE].
P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Anti-de Sitter Space from Optimization of Path Integrals in Conformal Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 071602 [arXiv:1703.00456] [INSPIRE].
P. Caputa, N. Kundu, M. Miyaji, T. Takayanagi and K. Watanabe, Liouville Action as Path-Integral Complexity: From Continuous Tensor Networks to AdS/CFT, JHEP 11 (2017) 097 [arXiv:1706.07056] [INSPIRE].
H.A. Camargo, M.P. Heller, R. Jefferson and J. Knaute, Path integral optimization as circuit complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 011601 [arXiv:1904.02713] [INSPIRE].
T.W.B. Kibble, Geometrization of Quantum Mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 65 (1979) 189 [INSPIRE].
A. Ashtekar and T.A. Schilling, Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics, gr-qc/9706069 [INSPIRE].
A. Alekseev and S.L. Shatashvili, Path Integral Quantization of the Coadjoint Orbits of the Virasoro Group and 2D Gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 719 [INSPIRE].
M. Reed and B. Simon, Functional analysis, Academic Press, New York U.S.A. (1981).
M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I, Springer, Berlin Germany (2002).
K.-H. Neeb, Infinite-dimensional Lie groups, 3rd cycle, Monastir Tunisia (2005).
D. Carmi, R.C. Myers and P. Rath, Comments on Holographic Complexity, JHEP 03 (2017) 118 [arXiv:1612.00433] [INSPIRE].
R. Haag, Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg Germany (1992).
R.-Q. Yang, Y.-S. An, C. Niu, C.-Y. Zhang and K.-Y. Kim, To be unitary-invariant or not?: a simple but non-trivial proposal for the complexity between states in quantum mechanics/field theory, arXiv:1906.02063 [INSPIRE].
R.-Q. Yang and K.-Y. Kim, Time evolution of the complexity in chaotic systems: a concrete example, JHEP 05 (2020) 045 [arXiv:1906.02052] [INSPIRE].
S. Lloyd, Ultimate physical limits to computation, Nature 406 (2000) 1047 [quant-ph/9908043].
D. Carmi, S. Chapman, H. Marrochio, R.C. Myers and S. Sugishita, On the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity, JHEP 11 (2017) 188 [arXiv:1709.10184] [INSPIRE].
W. Cottrell and M. Montero, Complexity is simple!, JHEP 02 (2018) 039 [arXiv:1710.01175] [INSPIRE].
B. Swingle, Entanglement Renormalization and Holography, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 065007 [arXiv:0905.1317] [INSPIRE].
X. Wang, M. Allegra, K. Jacobs, S. Lloyd, C. Lupo and M. Mohseni, Quantum Brachistochrone Curves as Geodesics: Obtaining Accurate Minimum-Time Protocols for the Control of Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 170501 [arXiv:1408.2465] [INSPIRE].
A.R. Brown and L. Susskind, Second law of quantum complexity, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 086015 [arXiv:1701.01107] [INSPIRE].
A.M. Perelomov, Coherent states for arbitrary lie groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 26 (1972) 222 [INSPIRE].
L.G. Yaffe, Large N Limits as Classical Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 (1982) 407 [INSPIRE].
J.M. Magan, De Finetti theorems and entanglement in large-N theories and gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 086002 [arXiv:1705.03048] [INSPIRE].
A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike and Y. Okudaira, Time-Optimal Quantum Evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 060503 [quant-ph/0511039] [INSPIRE].
A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike and Y. Okudaira, Time-optimal unitary operations, Phys. Rev. A 75 (2007) 042308 [quant-ph/0608039] [INSPIRE].
A. Bernamonti, F. Galli, J. Hernandez, R.C. Myers, S.-M. Ruan and J. Simón, First Law of Holographic Complexity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 081601 [arXiv:1903.04511] [INSPIRE].
V. Balasubramanian, M. Decross, A. Kar and O. Parrikar, Quantum Complexity of Time Evolution with Chaotic Hamiltonians, JHEP 01 (2020) 134 [arXiv:1905.05765] [INSPIRE].
M. Miyaji, Butterflies from Information Metric, JHEP 09 (2016) 002 [arXiv:1607.01467] [INSPIRE].
A.Y. Yosifov and L.G. Filipov, Quantum Complexity and Chaos in Young Black Holes, Universe 5 (2019) 93 [arXiv:1904.09767] [INSPIRE].
T. Ali, A. Bhattacharyya, S.S. Haque, E.H. Kim, N. Moynihan and J. Murugan, Chaos and Complexity in Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 026021 [arXiv:1905.13534] [INSPIRE].
A.I. Larkin and Y.N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical Method in the Theory of Superconductivity, Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 28 (1969) 1200.
P. Cvitanović, R. Artuso and G. Vattay, Chaos: Classical and Quantum, http://ChaosBook.org, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen Denmark (2016).
R.-Q. Yang, C. Niu, C.-Y. Zhang and K.-Y. Kim, Comparison of holographic and field theoretic complexities for time dependent thermofield double states, JHEP 02 (2018) 082 [arXiv:1710.00600] [INSPIRE].
K. Hashimoto, N. Iizuka and S. Sugishita, Time evolution of complexity in Abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 126001 [arXiv:1707.03840] [INSPIRE].
D.W.F. Alves and G. Camilo, Evolution of complexity following a quantum quench in free field theory, JHEP 06 (2018) 029 [arXiv:1804.00107] [INSPIRE].
D. Ge and G. Policastro, Circuit Complexity and 2D Bosonisation, JHEP 10 (2019) 276 [arXiv:1904.03003] [INSPIRE].
S. El-Showk and K. Papadodimas, Emergent Spacetime and Holographic CFTs, JHEP 10 (2012) 106 [arXiv:1101.4163] [INSPIRE].
K. Papadodimas and S. Raju, An Infalling Observer in AdS/CFT, JHEP 10 (2013) 212 [arXiv:1211.6767] [INSPIRE].
B. Oblak, BMS Particles in Three Dimensions, Ph.D. Thesis, Brussels University, Brussels Belgium (2016) [arXiv:1610.08526] [INSPIRE].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ArXiv ePrint: 1908.03577
Rights and permissions
Open Access . This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Bueno, P., Magán, J.M. & Shahbazi, C.S. Complexity measures in QFT and constrained geometric actions. J. High Energ. Phys. 2021, 200 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2021)200
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2021)200