## Archive for the ‘Announcements’ Category

Tuesday, February 12th, 2019

A few weeks ago, I was at QIP’2019 in Boulder, CO. This week I was at SQuInT’2019 in Albuquerque, NM. There were lots of amazing talks—feel free to ask in the comments section.

There’s an interview with me at the website “GigaOm,” conducted by Byron Reese and entitled Quantum Computing: Capabilities and Limits. I didn’t proofread the transcript and it has some errors in it, but hopefully the meaning comes through. In other interview news, if you were interested in my podcast with Adam Ford in Melbourne but don’t like YouTube, Adam has helpfully prepared transcripts of the two longest segments: The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine and The Winding Road to Quantum Supremacy.

The New York Times ran an article entitled The Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting Into Class, about the surge in computer science majors all over the US, and the shortage of professors to teach them. The article’s go-to example of a university where this is happening is UT Austin, and there’s extensive commentary from my department chair, Don Fussell.

The STOC’2019 accepted papers list is finally out. Lots of cool stuff!

### Announcements

Thursday, December 27th, 2018

I’m planning to be in Australia soon—in Melbourne January 4-10 for a friend’s wedding, then in Sydney January 10-11 to meet colleagues and give a talk. It will be my first trip down under for 12 years (and Dana’s first ever). If there’s interest, I might be able to do a Shtetl-Optimized meetup in Melbourne the evening of Friday the 4th (or the morning of Saturday the 5th), and/or another one in Sydney the evening of Thursday the 10th. Email me if you’d go, and then we’ll figure out details.

The National Quantum Initiative Act is now law. Seeing the photos of Trump signing it, I felt … well, whatever emotions you might imagine I felt.

Frank Verstraete asked me to announce that the University of Vienna is seeking a full professor in quantum algorithms; see here for details.

Wednesday, November 7th, 2018

If you like quantum, complexity, etc., then please read to the end! I’ve gotten a bunch of emails lately of the form “why haven’t you ever blogged about such-and-such?,” when it turned out that I damn well did blog about it; it was just somewhere down in a multi-item post.

1. Like many of you, I watched the US midterm election results with (mostly…) disappointment and dismay.  I think that history will judge us harshly for not totally and unequivocally rebuking everything Trump stands for and every politician associated with him.  But that’s not what I wanted to blog about today.

2. There was a breakthrough in communication complexity by Arkadev Chattopadhyay, Nikhil Mande, and Suhail Sherif: the first exponential separation between randomized communication complexity and log approximate rank for a total Boolean function f.  This falsifies the longstanding conjecture that these measures are polynomially related (though it doesn’t resolve the original log rank conjecture).  For those of you keeping score at home, the quantum communication complexity of f is sandwiched in between randomized CC and log approximate rank.  So, at least one of the following must now be true: either randomized CC is exponentially separated from quantum CC, or else quantum CC is exponentially separated from log approximate rank.  My money’s on the latter.

3. Ewin Tang, who achieved fame with a quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems (which I blogged about in July), is now back with quantum-inspired classical algorithms for principal component analysis and supervised clustering.  Well, with the announcements of such algorithms; details of the analysis are to come later.

4. A bunch of people asked me about the paper by Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, and Robert Koenig, Quantum advantage with shallow circuits.  tl;dr: it’s great!  And it was deservedly a highlight of the QIP conference back in January!  That’s why it confused me when everyone started asking about it a couple weeks ago.  The resolution is that the paper was just recently published in Science magazine, which led to popular coverage like this, which in turn led to people asking me whether this result unconditionally proves P≠BQP (that is, quantum computers can solve more problems in polynomial time than classical computers), and if not why not.  The answer is no: the paper proves an unconditional separation, but one that’s a long long way from P≠BQP, or anything else that would entail solving the central open problems of complexity theory like P vs. PSPACE.  Basically, it shows there are problems solvable in constant time with a quantum computer that aren’t solvable in constant time classically, for suitable meanings of “problem” (namely, a relation problem) and “in constant time” (namely, NC0 circuits, in which each output bit depends on only a constant number of input bits).  I understand that a stronger separation has since been achieved, between quantum NC0 and classical AC0, in work that’s not yet on the arXiv.  The problems in question, however, are all easy to solve in P, or even in classical logarithmic time, given a polynomial number of parallel processors.

5. A bunch of people also asked me about the paper by Xun Gao and Luming Duan, Efficient classical simulation of noisy quantum computation.  This paper tries to formalize something that many of us have suspected/feared for years, namely that random quantum circuits (the whole thing is specific to random circuits) can tolerate only a tiny amount of noise and decoherence before they become efficiently simulable classically.  If true, this has obvious implications for the sampling-based quantum supremacy experiments that Google and others are planning for the next few years: namely, that all the engineering effort they’ve already been investing anyway to push down the noise rate, will actually be necessary!  However, correspondence with the authors revealed that there’s a significant gap in the analysis as it currently stands: namely, the current proof applies only to closed quantum systems, which would (for example) rule out all the techniques that people eventually hope to use to achieve quantum fault-tolerance—all of which are based on constantly measuring subsets of the qubits, doing essentially error-free classical computation on the measurement outcomes, throwing away noisy qubits, and pumping in fresh qubits.  Xun and Duan say that they’re currently working on an extension to open systems; in my personal view, such an extension seems essential for this interesting result to have the informal interpretation that the authors want.

6. My friend Bram Cohen asked me to announce that his company, Chia, has launched a competition for best implementation of its Verifiable Delay Functions (VDFs), with real money rewards.  You can find the details at this Github page.

7. The second Q2B (“Quantum 2 Business”) conference, organized by QC Ware Corp., will be held this coming December 10-12, at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View.  There will be two keynote addresses, one by John Preskill and the other by me.  I hope I’ll get a chance to meet some of you there!

8. Longtime colleague and friend-of-the-blog Ashwin Nayak asked me to announce that the 2019 Conference on Computational Complexity, to be held July 18-20 in exciting New Brunswick, NJ, is now accepting submissions.  I hope to be there!

9. OK, what the hell: the 21st annual, and nearly impossible to capitalize correctly, SQuInT (Southwest Quantum Information and Technology) workshop will be held February 2019 in Albuquerque, NM.  UT Austin is now a node of the SQuInT network, and I’ll hopefully be attending along with a posse of students and postdocs.  The deadline for abstract submission is coming up soon: Monday November 12!

10. I went to morning Shabbat services in Austin this past weekend, exactly one week after the tragedy in Pittsburgh.  There was massively increased security, with armed guards interrogating us, Israeli-style, about why we had no membership sticker on our car, whether we knew the name of the rabbi, etc.  Attendance was maybe a factor of three higher than usual.  About thirty priests, ministers, and Christian seminary students, and one Muslim, came up to the bima to say a prayer of solidarity with Jews.  The mayor of Austin, Steve Adler, was also on hand to give a speech.  Then the rabbi read a letter to the synagogue by Sen. Ted Cruz denouncing antisemitism (well, parts of it; he said the letter was really long).  There were murmurs of disapproval from the crowd when Cruz’s name was mentioned, but then everyone quieted down and listened.  The thing is, the US and large parts of the world are now so far outside the norms of liberal democracy, in territory so terrifyingly uncharted since the end of World War II, that shooting up synagogues is bad is actually something that it’s better than not for powerful people to affirm explicitly.  Anyway, while I’m neither a believer nor much of a synagogue-goer, I found the show of unity moving.

### Boof

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018

(Just a few politics-related comments to get off my chest.  Feel free to skip if American politics isn’t your 5-liter bottle of Coke.)

FiveThirtyEight currently gives Beto O’Rourke a ~29% chance of winning Ted Cruz’s Senate seat.  I wish it were higher, but I think this will be such a spectacular upset if it happens, and so transformative for Texas, that it’s well worth our support.  I’ve also been impressed by the enthusiasm of Beto’s campaign—including a rally in Austin this weekend where the 85-year-old Willie Nelson, headlining the first political event of his 60-year music career, performed a new song (“Vote ‘Em Out”).  I’ll tell you what: if anyone donates to Beto’s campaign within the next two days as a result of reading this post, and emails or leaves a comment to tell me about it, I’ll match their donation, up to my personal Tsirelson bound of $853. Speaking of which, if you’re a US citizen and are not currently registered to vote, please do so! And then show up and vote in the midterms! My personal preference is to treat voting as simply a categorical imperative. But if you’d like a mathematical discussion of the expected utility of voting, then check out this, by my former MIT undergraduate advisee Shaunak Kishore. But what about the highest questions currently facing the American republic: namely, the exact meanings of “boofing,” “Devil’s triangle,” and “Renate alumnius”? I’ve been reading the same articles and analyses as everybody else, and have no privileged insight. For what it’s worth, though, I think it’s likely that Blasey Ford is teling the truth. And I think it’s likely that Kavanaugh is lying—if not about the assault itself (which he might genuinely have no memory of—blackout is a real phenomenon), then certainly about his teenage drinking and other matters. And while, absent some breakthrough in the FBI investigation, none of this rises to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, I think it likely should be seen as disqualifying for the Supreme Court. (Admittedly, I’m not a good arbiter of that question, since there are about 200 unrelated reasons why I don’t want Kavanaugh near the Court.) I also think it’s perfectly reasonable of Senate Democrats to fight this one to the bitter end, particularly after what the Republicans did to Merrick Garland, and what Kavanaugh himself did to Bill Clinton. If you’re worried about the scorched-earth, all-defect equilibrium that seems to prevail in Congress—well, the Democrats are not the ones who started it. All of that would be one thing, coming from some hardened social-justice type who might have happily convicted Kavanaugh of aggravated white male douchiness even before his umbilical cord was cut. But I daresay that it means a bit more, coming from an individual who hundreds of online activists once denounced just as fervently as they now denounce Kavanaugh—someone who understands perfectly well that not even the allegation of wrongdoing is needed any longer for a person to be marked for flattening by the steamroller of Progress. What can I say? The enemy of my enemy is sometimes still my enemy. My friend is anybody, of whatever party or creed, who puts their humanity above their ideology. Justice is no respecter of persons. Sometimes those who earn the mob’s ire are nevertheless guilty. I was actually in the DC area the week of the Kavanaugh hearings, to speak at a quantum information panel on Capitol Hill convened by the House Science Committee, to participate in a quantum machine learning workshop at UMD, and to deliver the Nathan Krasnopoler Memorial Lecture at Johns Hopkins, which included the incredibly moving experience of meeting Nathan’s parents. The panel went fine, I think. Twenty or thirty Congressional staffers attended, including many of those involved in the National Quantum Initiative bill. They asked us about the US’s standing relative to China in QIS; the relations among academia, industry, and national labs; and how to train a ‘quantum workforce.’ We panelists came prepared with a slide about what qubits and interference are, but ended up never needing it: the focus was emphatically on policy, not science. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the leader in the Senate for what’s now called the Quantum Computing Research Act. One of Sen. Harris’s staffers conveyed to me that, given her great enthusiasm for quantum computing, the Senator would have been delighted to meet with me, but was unfortunately too busy with Kavanaugh-related matters. This was better than what I’d feared, namely: “following the lead of various keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit, Sen. Harris denounces you, Dr. Aaronson, as a privileged white male techbro and STEMlord, and an enemy of the people.” So once again I was face-to-face with the question: is it conceivable that social-media discourse is a bit … unrepresentative of the wider world? ### CS and quantum information at UT Austin: come join us! Wednesday, September 19th, 2018 Merry Yom Kippur! This is my annual post where I tell you about opportunities available at UT Austin, which has long been a safe space for CS research, and which we hope will rapidly become (or return to its historical role as…) a safe space for quantum computing and information. If you’re interested in faculty positions in computer science at UT, I have some great news: we plan to do a lot of hiring this year! Because of the sheer volume of interviews we’ll be doing, we’d like to start our recruiting season already in the fall. So we’re extending an unusual invitation: if you already have your materials ready, we encourage you to apply for faculty positions right now. If you’re chosen for an interview, we could schedule it for the next few months. We’ll be looking for great candidates across all parts of CS, but one particular interest is hiring another quantum computing theorist in CS (i.e., besides me), most likely a junior person. While not everyone who reads this blog is a plausible candidate, and not every plausible candidate reads this blog, the intersection is surely non-negligible! So again: we encourage you to apply right now, so we can start scheduling interviews already. I’m also on the lookout for postdocs, mainly in theoretical quantum computing and information. (I, and others in the theory group, are also collectively interested in postdocs in classical computational complexity.) If you’re interested in doing a postdoc with me starting in Fall 2019, the procedure, like in previous years, is this: • Email me introducing yourself (if I don’t already know you), and include your CV and up to three representative papers. Do this even if you already emailed me before. • Arrange for two recommendation letters to be emailed to me. We’ll set a deadline for this of December 15. Finally, if you’re interested in pursuing a PhD in CS at UT, please apply here! The deadline, again, is December 15. Just like every year, I’m on the lookout for superb, complexity-loving, quantum- or quantum-curious, lower-bound-hungry students of every background, and if you specify that you want to work with me, I’ll be sure to see your application. Emailing me won’t help: everything is done through the application process. As we like to say down here in Texas, hook ’em Hadamards! (Well OK, no, we don’t especially like to say that. It’s just a slogan that I found amusing a few years ago.) ### Summer recapitulates life Tuesday, July 24th, 2018 Last week, I was back at the IAS in Princeton, to speak at a wonderful PITP summer school entitled “From Qubits to Spacetime,” co-organized by Juan Maldacena and Edward Witten. This week, I’ll be back in Waterloo, to visit old and new friends at the Perimeter Institute and Institute for Quantum Computing and give a couple talks. Then, over the weekend, I’ll be back in Boston to see old friends, colleagues, and students. After some other miscellaneous travel, I’ll then return to Austin in late August when the semester begins. The particular sequence IAS → Waterloo → Boston → Austin is of course one that I’ve followed before, over a longer timescale. Two quick announcements: First, at the suggestion of reader Sanketh Menda, I’m thinking of holding a Shtetl-Optimized meetup in Waterloo this week. Please send me an email if you’re interested, and we’ll figure out a time and place that work for everyone. Second, many of the videos from the IAS summer school are now available, including mine: Part I and Part II. I cover some basics of complexity theory, the complexity of quantum states and unitary transformations, the Harlow-Hayden argument about the complexity of turning a black hole event horizon into a firewall (with my refinement), and my and Lenny Susskind’s work on circuit complexity, wormholes, and AdS/CFT. As a special bonus, check out the super-embarrassing goof at the beginning of my first lecture—claiming a mistaken symmetry of conditional entropy and even attributing it to Edward Witten’s lecture! (But Witten, who I met for the first time on this visit, was kind enough to call my talk “lots of fun” anyway, and give me other positive comments, which I should put on my CV or something.) Addendum: Many of the PITP videos are well worth watching! As one example, I found Witten’s talks to be shockingly accessible. I’d been to a previous talk of his involving Khovanov homology, but beyond the first few minutes, it went so far over my head that I couldn’t tell you how it was for its intended audience. I’d also been to a popular talk of Witten’s on string theory, but that’s something he could do with only 3 awake brain cells. In these talks, by contrast, Witten proves some basic inequalities of classical and quantum information theory, then proves the Reeh-Schlieder Theorem of quantum field theory and the Hawking and Penrose singularity theorems of GR, and finally uses quantum information theory to prove positive energy conditions from quantum field theory that are often needed to make statements about GR. ### Customers who liked this quantum recommendation engine might also like its dequantization Thursday, July 12th, 2018 I’m in Boulder, CO right now for the wonderful Boulder summer school on quantum information, where I’ll be lecturing today and tomorrow on introductory quantum algorithms. But I now face the happy obligation of taking a break from all the lecture-preparing and schmoozing, to blog about a striking new result by a student of mine—a result that will probably make an appearance in my lectures as well. Yesterday, Ewin Tang—an 18-year-old who just finished a bachelor’s at UT Austin, and who will be starting a PhD in CS at the University of Washington in the fall—posted a preprint entitled A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for recommendation systems. Ewin’s new algorithm solves the following problem, very loosely stated: given m users and n products, and incomplete data about which users like which products, organized into a convenient binary tree data structure; and given also the assumption that the full m×n preference matrix is low-rank (i.e., that there are not too many ways the users vary in their preferences), sample some products that a given user is likely to want to buy. This is an abstraction of the problem that’s famously faced by Amazon and Netflix, every time they tell you which books or movies you “might enjoy.” What’s striking about Ewin’s algorithm is that it uses only polylogarithmic time: that is, time polynomial in log(m), log(n), the matrix rank, and the inverses of the relevant error parameters. Admittedly, the polynomial involves exponents of 33 and 24: so, not exactly “practical”! But it seems likely to me that the algorithm will run much, much faster in practice than it can be guaranteed to run in theory. Indeed, if any readers would like to implement the thing and test it out, please let us know in the comments section! As the title suggests, Ewin’s algorithm was directly inspired by a quantum algorithm for the same problem, which Kerenidis and Prakash (henceforth KP) gave in 2016, and whose claim to fame was that it, too, ran in polylog(m,n) time. Prior to Ewin’s result, the KP algorithm was arguably the strongest candidate there was for an exponential quantum speedup for a real-world machine learning problem. The new result thus, I think, significantly changes the landscape of quantum machine learning, by killing off one of its flagship applications. (Note that whether KP gives a real exponential speedup was one of the main open problems mentioned in John Preskill’s survey on the applications of near-term quantum computers.) At the same time, Ewin’s result yields a new algorithm that can be run on today’s computers, that could conceivably be useful to those who need to recommend products to customers, and that was only discovered by exploiting intuition that came from quantum computing. So I’d consider this both a defeat and a victory for quantum algorithms research. This result was the outcome of Ewin’s undergraduate thesis project (!), which I supervised. A year and a half ago, Ewin took my intro quantum information class, whereupon it quickly became clear that I should offer this person an independent project. So I gave Ewin the problem of proving a poly(m,n) lower bound on the number of queries that any classical randomized algorithm would need to make to the user preference data, in order to generate product recommendations for a given user, in exactly the same setting that KP had studied. This seemed obvious to me: in their algorithm, KP made essential use of quantum phase estimation, the same primitive used in Shor’s factoring algorithm. Without phase estimation, you seemed to be stuck doing linear algebra on the full m×n matrix, which of course would take poly(m,n) time. But KP had left the problem open, I didn’t know how to solve it either, and nailing it down seemed like an obvious challenge, if we wanted to establish the reality of quantum speedups for at least one practical machine learning problem. (For the difficulties in finding such speedups, see my essay for Nature Physics, much of which is still relevant even though it was written prior to KP.) Anyway, for a year, Ewin tried and failed to rule out a superfast classical algorithm for the KP problem—eventually, of course, discovering the unexpected reason for the failure! Throughout this journey, I served as Ewin’s occasional sounding board, but can take no further credit for the result. Indeed, I admit that I was initially skeptical when Ewin told me that phase estimation did not look essential after all for generating superfast recommendations—that a classical algorithm could get a similar effect by randomly sampling a tiny submatrix of the user preference matrix, and then carefully exploiting a variant of a 2004 result by Frieze, Kannan, and Vempala. So when I was in Berkeley a few weeks ago for the Simons quantum computing program, I had the idea of flying Ewin over to explain the new result to the experts, including Kerenidis and Prakash themselves. After four hours of lectures and Q&A, a consensus emerged that the thing looked solid. Only after that gauntlet did I advise Ewin to put the preprint online. So what’s next? Well, one obvious challenge is to bring down the running time of Ewin’s algorithm, and (as I mentioned before) to investigate whether or not it could give a practical benefit today. A different challenge is to find some other example of a quantum algorithm that solves a real-world machine learning problem with only a polylogarithmic number of queries … one for which the exponential quantum speedup will hopefully be Ewin-proof, ideally even provably so! The field is now wide open. It’s possible that my Forrelation problem, which Raz and Tal recently used for their breakthrough oracle separation between BQP and PH, could be an ingredient in such a separation. Anyway, there’s much more to say about Ewin’s achievement, but I now need to run to lecture about quantum algorithms like Simon’s and Shor’s, which do achieve provable exponential speedups in query complexity! Please join me in offering hearty congratulations, see Ewin’s nicely-written paper for details, and if you have any questions for me or (better yet) Ewin, feel free to ask in the comments. Update: On the Hacker News thread, some commenters are lamenting that such a brilliant mind as Ewin’s would spend its time figuring out how to entice consumers to buy even more products that they don’t need. I confess that that’s an angle that hadn’t even occurred to me: I simply thought that it was a beautiful question whether you actually need a quantum computer to sample the rows of a partially-specified low-rank matrix in polylogarithmic time, and if the application to recommendation systems helped to motivate that question, then so much the better. Now, though, I feel compelled to point out that, in addition to the potentially lucrative application to Amazon and Netflix, research on low-rank matrix sampling algorithms might someday find many other, more economically worthless applications as well. Another Update: For those who are interested, streaming video of my quantum algorithms lectures in Boulder are now available: You can also see all the other lectures here. ### My Y Combinator podcast Friday, June 29th, 2018 Here it is, recorded last week at Y Combinator’s office in San Francisco. For regular readers of this blog, there will be a few things that are new—research projects I’ve been working on this year—and many things that are old. Hope you enjoy it! Thanks so much to Craig Cannon of Y Combinator for inviting me. Associated with the podcast, Hacker News will be doing an AMA with me later today. I’ll post a link to that when it’s available. Update: here it is. I’m at STOC’2018 TheoryFest in Los Angeles right now, where theoretical computer scientists celebrated the 50th anniversary of the conference that in some sense was the birthplace of the P vs. NP problem. (Two participants in the very first STOC in 1969, Richard Karp and Allan Borodin, were on a panel to share their memories, along with Ronitt Rubinfeld and Avrim Blum, who joined the action in the 1980s.) There’s been a great program this year—if you’d like to ask me about it, maybe do so in the comments of this post rather than in the AMA. ### Five announcements Tuesday, June 12th, 2018 1. For the next two weeks, I’m in Berkeley for the Simons program “Challenges in Quantum Computation” (awesome program, by the way). If you’re in the Bay Area and wanted to meet, feel free to shoot me an email (easiest for me if you come to Berkeley, though I do have a couple planned trips to SF). If enough people wanted, we could even do a first-ever dedicated Shtetl-Optimized meetup. 2. More broadly: I’m finally finished my yearlong sabbatical in Israel. At some point I’ll do a post with my reflections on the experience. I’ll now be traveling around North America all summer, then returning to UT Austin in the fall. 3. Longtime friend-of-the-blog Boaz Barak, from a university in Cambridge, MA known as Harvard, asks me to invite readers to check out his new free draft textbook Introduction to Theoretical Computer Science, and to post comments about “typos, bugs, confusing explanations and such” in the book’s GitHub repository. It looks great! 4. This is already almost a month old, but if you enjoy the quantum computing content on this blog and wish to see related content from our carefully selected partners, check out John Preskill’s Y Combinator interview. 5. Here’s the text of Senator Kamala Harris’s bill, currently working its way through the Senate, to create a US Quantum Computing Research Consortium. Apparently there’s now also a second, competing quantum computing bill (!)—has anyone seen the text of that one? Update (June 16): Even though I said there wouldn’t be a meetup, enough people eventually emailed wanting to have coffee that we did do the first-ever dedicated Shtetl-Optimized meetup after all—appropriately, given the title of the blog, at Saul’s Delicatessen in Berkeley. It was awesome. I met people working on fascinating and important things, from cheap nuclear energy to data analytics for downballot Democrats, and who I felt very proud to count as readers. Thanks so much to everyone who came; we’ll have to do another one sometime! ### Amazing progress on longstanding open problems Wednesday, April 11th, 2018 For those who haven’t seen it: 1. Aubrey de Grey, better known to the world as a radical life extension researcher, on Sunday posted a preprint on the arXiv claiming to prove that the chromatic number of the plane is at least 5—the first significant progress on the Hadwiger-Nelson problem since 1950. If you’re tuning in from home, the Hadwiger-Nelson problem asks: what’s the minimum number of colors that you need to color the Euclidean plane, in order to ensure that every two points at distance exactly 1 from each other are colored differently? It’s not hard to show that at least 4 colors are necessary, or that 7 colors suffice: try convincing yourself by staring at the figure below. Until a few days ago, nothing better was known. This is a problem that’s intrigued me ever since I learned about it at a math camp in 1996, and that I spent at least a day of my teenagerhood trying to solve. De Grey constructs an explicit graph with unit distances—originally with 1567 vertices, now with 1585 vertices after after a bug was fixed—and then verifies by computer search (which takes a few hours) that 5 colors are needed for it. Update: My good friend Marijn Heule, at UT Austin, has now apparently found a smaller such graph, with “only” 874 vertices. See here. So, can we be confident that the proof will stand—i.e., that there are no further bugs? See the comments of Gil Kalai’s post for discussion. Briefly, though, it’s now been independently verified, using different SAT-solvers, that the chromatic number of de Grey’s corrected graph is indeed 5. Paul Phillips emailed to tell me that he’s now independently verified that the graph is unit distance as well. So I think it’s time to declare the result correct. Question for experts: is there a general principle by which we can show that, if the chromatic number of the plane is at least 6, or is 7, then there exists a finite subgraph that witnesses it? (This is closely related to asking, what’s the logical complexity of the Hadwiger-Nelson problem: is it Π1?) Update: As de Grey and a commenter pointed out to me, this is the de Bruijn-Erdös Theorem from 1951. But the proofs inherently require the Axiom of Choice. Assuming AC, this also gives you that Hadwiger-Nslson is a Π1 statement, since the coordinates of the points in any finite counterexample can be assumed to be algebraic. However, this also raises the strange possibility that the chromatic number of the plane could be smaller assuming AC than not assuming it. 2. Last week, Urmila Mahadev, a student (as was I, oh so many years ago) of Umesh Vazirani at Berkeley, posted a preprint on the arXiv giving a protocol for a quantum computer to prove the results of any computation it performs to a classical skeptic—assuming a relatively standard cryptographic assumption, namely the quantum hardness of the Learning With Errors (LWE) problem, and requiring only classical communication between the skeptic and the QC. I don’t know how many readers remember, but way back in 2006, inspired by a$25,000 prize offered by Stephen Wolfram, I decided to offer a $25 prize to anyone who could solve the problem of proving the results of an arbitrary quantum computation to a classical skeptic, or who could give oracle evidence that a solution was impossible. I had first learned this fundamental problem from Daniel Gottesman. Just a year or two later, independent work of Aharonov, Ben-Or, and Eban, and of Broadbent, Fitzsimons, and Kashefi made a major advance on the problem, by giving protocols that were information-theoretically secure. The downside was that, in contrast to Mahadev’s new protocol, these earlier protocols required the verifier to be a little bit quantum: in particular, to exchange individual unentangled qubits with the QC. Or, as shown by later work, the verifier could be completely classical, but only if it could send challenges to two or more quantum computers that were entangled but unable to communicate with each other. In light of these achievements, I decided to award both groups their own checks for half the prize amount ($12.50), to be split among themselves however they chose.
Neither with Broadbent et al.’s or Aharonov et al.’s earlier work, nor with Mahadev’s new work, is it immediately clear whether the protocols relativize (that is, whether they work relative to an arbitrary oracle), but it’s plausible that they don’t.
Anyway, assuming that her breakthrough result stands, I look forward to awarding Urmila the full \$25 prize when I see her at the Simons Institute in Berkeley this June.

Huge congratulations to Aubrey and Urmila for their achievements!

Update (April 12): My friend Virgi Vassilevska Williams asked me to announce a theoretical computer science women event, which will take during the upcoming STOC in LA.

Another Update: Another friend, Holden Karnofsky of the Open Philanthropy Project, asked me to advertise that OpenPhil is looking to hire a Research Analyst and Senior Research Analyst. See also this Medium piece (“Hiring Analytical Thinkers to Help Give Away Billions”) to learn more about what the job would involve.