More Quantum

I’ve just finished writing yet another referee report. It’s not fun. It’s duty. Which got me wondering: am I doing my part, or am I a parasite? I get much more referee requests than I have the time to do, and I always feel a bit guilty to decline one. So the question has a practical implication, can I decline with a clear conscience, or should I grit my teeth and try to get more refereeing done?

To answer that, first I have to find out how many papers I have refereed. That’s impossible, I’m not German. My records are spotty and chaotic. After a couple of hours of searching, I managed to find 77 papers. These are certainly not all, but I can’t be missing much, so let’s stick with 77.

Now, I need to compute the refereeing burden I have generated. I have submitted 33 papers for publication, and each paper usually gets 2 or 3 referees. Let’s call it 2.5. Then the burden is 82.5, right? Well, not so fast, because my coauthors share the responsibility for generating this refereeing burden. Should I divide by the average number of coauthors then? Again, not so fast, because I can’t put this responsibility on the shoulders of coauthors that are still not experienced enough to referee. On the same light, I should exclude from my own burden the papers I published when I shouldn’t be refereeing. Therefore I exclude 3 papers. From the remaining 30, I count 130 experienced coauthors, making my burden $30*2.5/(130/30) \approx 17.3$.

Wow. That’s quite the discrepancy. I feel like a fool. I’m doing more than 4 times my fair share. Now I’m curious: am I the only one with such a unbalance, or does the physics community consists 20% of suckers and 80% parasites?

More importantly, is there anything that can be done about it? This was one of the questions that were discussed in a session about publishing in the last Benasque conference, but we couldn’t find a practicable solution. Even from the point of view of a journal it’s very hard to know who the parasites are, because people usually publish with several different journals, and the numbers of papers in any given journal is too small for proper statistics.

For example, let’s say you published 3 papers in Quantum, with 4 (experienced) coauthors on average, and each paper got 2 referee reports. This makes your refereeing burden 1.5. Now let’s imagine that during this time the editors of Quantum asked you to referee 2 papers. You declined them both, claiming once that you were too busy, and another time that it was out of your area of expertise. Does this make you a parasite? Only you know.

Let’s imagine then an egregious case, of someone that published 10 papers with Quantum, got 20 requests for refereeing from them, and declined every single one. That’s a $5\sigma$ parasite. What do you do about it? Desk reject their next submission, on the grounds of parasitism? But what about their coauthors? Maybe they are doing their duty, why should they be punished as well? Perhaps one should compute a global parasitism score from the entire set of authors, and desk reject the paper if it is above a certain threshold? It sounds like a lot of work for something that would rarely happen.

I’ve just been to the amazing Quantum Redemption conference in Sweden, organized by my friend Armin Tavakoli. I had a great time, attended plenty of interesting talks, and had plenty of productive discussions outside the talks as well. I’m not going to write about any of that, though. Having a relentlessly negative personality, I’m going to write about the talk that I didn’t like. Or rather, about its background. The talk was presenting some developing ideas and preliminary results, it was explicitly not ready for publication, so I’m not going to publish it here1I have presented several times preliminary results that included embarrassing mistakes, and I’d be mortified if someone in the audience decided to preserve them for posterity.. But the talk didn’t make sense because its background doesn’t make sense, and that is well-published, so it’s fair game.

I’m talking about the paper Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames by my friends Flaminia, Esteban, and Časlav. The basic idea is that if you can describe a particle in a superposition from the laboratory’s reference frame, you can just as well jump to the particle’s reference frame, from which the particle is well-localized and the laboratory is in a superposition. The motivations for doing this are impeccable: the universality of quantum mechanics, and the idea that reference frames must be embodied in physical systems. The problem is that you can’t really attribute a single point of view to a superposition.

By linearity, the members of a superposition will evolve independently, so why would they have a joint identity? In general you affect some members of a superposition without affecting the others, there is no mechanism transmitting information across the superposition so that a common point of view could be achieved. The only sort of “interaction” possible is interference, and that necessitates erasing all information that differentiates the members of the superposition, so it’s rather unsatisfactory.

In any case, any reference frame worth of the name will be a complex quantum system, composed of a huge amount of atoms. It will decohere very very quickly, so any talk of interfering a superposition of reference frames is science fiction. Such gedankenexperimente can nevertheless be rather illuminating, so I’d be curious about how they describe a Wigner’s friend scenario, as there the friend is commonly described as splitting in two, and I don’t see a sensible of attributing a single point of view to the two versions. Alas, as far as I understand their quantum reference frames formalism was not meant to describe such scenarios, and as far as I can tell they have never done so.

This is all about interpretations, of course. Flaminia, Esteban, and Časlav are all devout single-worlders, and pursue with religious zeal the idea of folding back the superpositions into a single narrative. I, on the other hand, pray at the Church of the Larger Hilbert Space, so I find it heresy to see these highly-decohered independently-evolving members of a superposition as anything other than many worlds.

People often complain that all this interpretations talk has no consequences whatsoever. Well, here is a case where it unquestionably does: the choice of interpretation was crucial to their approach to quantum reference frames, which is crucial to their ultimate goal of tackling quantum gravity. Good ideas tend to be fruitful, and bad ideas sterile, so whether this research direction ultimately succeeds is an indirect test of the underlying interpretation.

You might complain that this is still on the metatheoretical level, and is anyway just a weak test. It is a weak test indeed: the Big Bang theory was famously created by a Catholic priest, presumably looking for a fiat lux moment. Notwithstanding its success, I’m still an atheist. Nevertheless, weak evidence is still evidence, and hey, if you don’t like metaphysics interpretations are really not for you. If you do like metaphysics, however, you might also be interest in metatheory ;)

A couple of days ago I finally released the first Julia project I had alluded to, a technique to compute key rates in QKD using proper conic methods. The paper is out, and the github repository is now public. It’s the first paper from my new research group in Valladolid, and I’m very happy about it. First because of the paper, and secondly because now I have students to do the hard work for me.

The inspiration for this paper came from the Prado museum in Madrid. I was forced to go there as a part of a group retreat (at the time I was part of Miguel Navascués’ group in Vienna), and I was bored out of my mind looking at painting after painting2Don’t get me wrong, the museum has some interesting stuff like Goya’s The Executions, but if you go there you realize that the vast majority of painting consisted of rich people paying to get their own portraits. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s just not interesting to look at. Oh, a 17th century nobleman. Oh, another 17th century nobleman. Now a 18th century noblewoman. Argh.. I then went to the museum cafe and started reading some papers on conic optimization to pass the time. To my great surprise, I found out that there was an algorithm capable of handling the relative entropy cone, and moreover it had already been implemented in the solver Hypatia, which to top it off was written in Julia! Sounded like Christmas had come early. ¿Or maybe I had a jamón overdose?

Life wasn’t so easy, though: the relative entropy cone was implemented only for real matrices, and the complex case is the only one that matters2One day I need to find out why mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers seem to have such an allergy of complex numbers. Only physicists seem to care about them. And it’s not even our fault, the guy who invented Hermitian matrices, Charles Hermite, was a mathematician, not a physicist.. I thought no problem, I can just do the generalization myself. Then I opened the source code, and I changed my mind. This cone is a really nasty beast. The PSD cone is a child’s birthday in comparison. I was too busy with other projects at the time to seriously dedicate to it, so I wrote to the developers of Hypatia, Chris Coey and Lea Kapelevich, asking whether they were interested in doing the complex case. And they were! I just helped a little bit with testing and benchmarking.

Now I can’t really publish a paper based only on doing this, but luckily the problem turned out to be much more difficult: I realized that the relative entropy cone couldn’t actually be used to compute key rates. The reason is somewhat technical: in order to solve the problem reliably one cannot have singular matrices, it needs to be formulated in terms of their support only (the technical details are in the paper). But if one reformulates the problem in terms of the support of the matrices, it’s no longer possible to write it in terms of the relative entropy cone3This is not the case for the positive semidefinite cone; if you reformulate the problem in terms of the support of the matrices it is still an SDP, and life is easy..

I had to come up with a new cone, and implement it from scratch. Now that’s enough material for a paper. To make things better, by this time I was already in Valladolid, so my students could do the hard work. Now it’s done. ¡Thanks Andrés, thanks Pablo, thanks Miguel!

I’m quite happy, this is pretty much the best grant available in Spain, it gives me a lot of money for 5 years, including a PhD student and a postdoc. But the reason I’m posting about it here is to share some information about the grant system that I believe is not widely known.

My grant proposal was evaluated with 98.73 points out of 100. Sounds very high, until you learn that the cutoff was 97.27. I sincerely believe that my grant proposal was excellent and deserved to be funded, as self-serving as this belief may be, but I can’t believe there was a meaningful difference between my proposal and one that got 97 points. There was clearly too many good proposals, and the reviewers had to somehow divide a bounded budget between them. I think it’s unavoidable that the result is somewhat random.

I have been on the other side before: I’ve had before grants that had been highly evaluated and nevertheless rejected. I think now I can say that it was just bad luck. I have also been on the reviewing side: twice I received some excellent grants to evaluate, and gave very positive evaluations to them, sure that they would be funded. They weren’t.

Everyone that has applied to a grant knows how much work it is, and how frustrating is it to be rejected after all. Still, one should keep in mind that rejection doesn’t mean you are a bad researcher. It is the norm, there’s just way too little money available to fund everyone that deserves it.

Since I’ve first used MATLAB I have dreamt of finding a replacement for it. Not only it is expensive, proprietary software, but also a terrible programming language. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it was amazing when it was invented, but this was in the 70s. We know better now. I’ve had to deal with so many fascinating bugs due to its poor design decisions!

Most recently, I had code that was failing because 'asdf' and "asdf" are very similar, but not exactly the same. The former is a character vector, and the latter is a string. Almost always you can use them interchangeably, but as it turns out, not always. Another insane design decision is that you don’t need to declare variables to work on them. I declared a matrix called constraints, worked on it a bit, and then made an assignment with a typo contraints(:,1) = v. Instead of throwing an error like any sane programming language, MATLAB just silently created a new variable contraints. Perhaps more seriously, MATLAB does not support namespaces. If you are using two packages that both define a function called square, you have to be careful about the order in which they appear in the MATLAB path to get the correct one. If you need both versions? You’re just out of luck.

Perhaps I should stop ranting at this point, but I just can’t. Another thing that drives me mad is that loop indices are always global, so you must be very careful about reusing index names. This interacts greatly with another “feature” of MATLAB, that i is both the imaginary unity and a valid variable name. If you have for i=1:3, i, end followed by a = 2+3*i you’re not getting a complex number, you’re getting 114To be fair MATLAB does provide a sane imaginary unity, 1i, but there’s no deprecation warning if i is used instead.. The parser is downright stone age, it can’t handle simple operators like +=, or double indexing like a(2)(4). To vectorize a matrix there’s no function, just the operator :, so if you want to vectorize a(2) you have to either call reshape(a(2),[],1), or define x = a(2) and then do x(:). Which of course leads to everyone and their dog defining a function vec() for convenience, which then all conflict with each other because of the lack of namespaces.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the person that designed the function length() tortured little animals as a child. If you call it on a vector, it works as expected. But if you call it on an $m \times n$ matrix, what should it do? I think the most sensible option is to give the number of elements, $mn$, but it’s also defensible to give $m$ or $n$. MATLAB takes of course the fourth option, $\max(m,n)$. I could also mention the lack of support for types, Kafkaesque support for optional function arguments, mixing row and column vectors… It would keep me ranting forever. But enough about MATLAB. What are the alternatives?

The first one I looked at is Octave. It is open source, great, but its fundamental goal is to be compatible with MATLAB, so it cannot fix its uncountable design flaws. Furthermore, it isn’t 100% compatible with MATLAB2Which is of course impossible, as MATLAB is a moving target developed by an extremely wealthy company., so almost always when I have to use MATLAB because of a library, this library doesn’t work with Octave. If I give up on compatibility, then I can use the Octave extensions that make the programming language more tolerable. But it’s still a terrible programming language, and is even slower than MATLAB, so there isn’t much point.

Then came Python. No hope of compatibility here, but I accept that, no pain no gain. The language is a joy to program with, but I absolutely need some optimization libraries (that I’m not going to write myself). There are two available, CVXPY and PICOS. Back when I first looked at them, about a decade ago, neither supported complex numbers, so Python was immediately discarded. In the meanwhile they have both added support, so a few years ago I gave it a shot. It turns out both are unbearably slow. CVXPY gets an extra negative point for demanding its own version of partial trace and partial transposition3Because of the cursed Disciplined Convex Programming., but that’s beside the point, I can’t use them for any serious problem anyway. I did end up publishing a paper using Python code, but it was only because the optimization problem I was solving was so simple that performance wasn’t an issue.

After that I gave up for several years, resigned to my fate of programming with MATLAB until it drove me to suicide. But then Sébastien Designolle came to visit Vienna, and told me of a programming language called Julia that was even nicer to program than Python, almost as fast as C++, and had an optimization library supporting every solver under the Sun, JuMP. I couldn’t believe my ears. Had the promised land been there all along? After all, I knew Julia, it just had never occurred to me that I could do optimization with it.

I immediately asked Sébastien if it supported complex numbers, and if it needed funny business to accept partial transpositions. Yes, and no, respectively. Amazing! To my relief JuMP had just added support for complex numbers, so I hadn’t suffered all these years for nothing. I started testing the support for complex numbers, and it turned out to be rather buggy. However, the developers Benoît Legat and Oscar Dowson fixed the bugs as fast as I could report them, so now it’s rock solid. Dowson in particular seemed to never sleep, but as it turned out he just lives in New Zealand.

Since then I have been learning Julia and writing serious code with it, and I can confirm, the language is all that Sébastien promised and more. Another big advantage is the extensive package ecosystem, where apparently half of academia has been busy solving the problems I need. The packages can be easily installed from within Julia itself and have proper support for versions and dependencies4The difference to MATLAB’s File Exchange is like wine to water.. Also worth mentioning is the powerful type system, that makes it easy to write functions that work differently for different types, and switch at runtime between floats and complex floats and double floats and quadruple floats and arbitrary precision floats. This makes it easy to do optimization with arbitrary precision, as JuMP in fact allows for the solvers that support it (as far as I know they are Hypatia, COSMO, and Clarabel). As you might know this is a nightmare in MATLAB.5Since MATLAB only has double floats if the coefficients of your problem involve numbers that cannot be represented exactly, like 0.1, precision will be ruined. Hopefully the problem can be rescaled to eliminate them, otherwise you’re just fucked.

Now Julia is not perfect. It has some design flaws. Some are because it wants to be familiar to MATLAB users, such as having 1-indexed arrays and col-major orientation. Some are incomprehensible (why is Real not a subtype of Complex? Why is M[:,1] a copy instead of a view?). It’s not an ideal language, it’s merely the best that exists. Maybe in a couple of decades someone will release a 0-indexed version called Giulia and we’ll finally have flying cars and world peace.

It’s a bit ironic to write this blog post after I have released a paper that is based on a major MATLAB library that I wrote together with Andy, Moment6So I’m contributing to the inertia that keeps MATLAB going long after its “best before” date.. In my defence, Andy wrote almost all of the code, the vast majority is in C++, and we started it before Sébastien’s visit. And it demonstrated beyond any doubt that MATLAB is completely unsuitable for any serious programming7As Andy remarked as we were fixing a particularly arcane bug: “When you shovel shit onto a pile of shit for twenty years, eventually you end up with a giant tower of shit swaying in the wind.”. I promise that when I have time (haha) I’ll rewrite it in Julia.

But the time for irony is over. My new projects are all in Julia, and I’ll start releasing them very soon. In the meanwhile, I wrote a tutorial to help refugees from MATLAB to settle in the promised land.

A well-known joke/theorem is that all natural numbers are interesting. The proof goes as follows: assume that there exists a non-empty set of uninteresting natural numbers. Then this set has a smallest element. But that makes it interesting, so we have a contradiction. Incidentally, this proof applies to the integers and, with a bit of a stretch, to the rationals. It definitely does not applies to the reals, though, no matter how hard you believe in the axiom of choice.8If you take the axiom of choice the reals are well-ordered, so any subset of the reals would have a smallest element. The problem is that this “well-order” only exists in the lamest possible sense, it’s not possible to actually write it down.

I was wondering, though, what is the smallest uninteresting number. It must exist, because we fallible humans are undeterred by the mathematical impossibility and simply do not find most natural numbers interesting.

Luckily, there is a objective criterion to determine whether a natural number is interesting: is there a Wikipedia article written about it? I then went through the Wikipedia articles about numbers, and found the first gap at 198. But now since this number became interesting, surely we should write a Wikipedia article about it?

This gives rise to another paradox: if we do write a Wikipedia article about 198 it will cease to be interesting, and of course we should delete the Wikipedia article about it. But this will make it interesting again, and we should again write the article.

You can see this paradox playing out in the revision history of the Wikipedia page: the article is indeed being repeatedly created and deleted.

For mysterious reasons, some time ago I found myself reading SeDuMi’s manual. To my surprise, it claimed to support SDPs with complex numbers. More specifically, it could handle positive semidefiniteness constraints on complex Hermitian matrices, instead of only real symmetric matrices as all other solvers.

I was very excited, because this promised a massive increase in performance for such problems, and in my latest paper I’m solving a massive SDP with complex Hermitian matrices.

The usual way to handle complex problems is to map them into real ones via the transformation
\[ f(M) = \begin{pmatrix} \Re(M) & \Im(M) \\ \Im(M)^T & \Re(M) \end{pmatrix}. \]The spectrum of the $f(M)$ consists of two copies of the spectrum of $M$, and $f(MN) = f(M)f(N)$, so you can see that one can do an exact mapping. The problem is that the matrix is now twice as big: the number of parameters it needs is roughly twice what was needed for the original complex matrix2 Not four times, because a $d \times d$ complex Hermitian matrix has $d^2$ parameters and a $d \times d$ real symmetric matrix has $d(d+1)/2$ parameters., so this wastes a bit of memory. More problematic, the interior-point algorithm needs to calculate the Cholesky decomposition, which has complexity $O(d^3)$, so we are slowing the algorithm down by a factor of 8!

I wrote then a trivial SDP to test SeDuMi, and of course it failed. A more careful reading of the documentation showed that I was formatting the input incorrectly, so I fixed that, and it failed again. Reading the documentation again and again convinced me that the input was now correct: it must have been a bug in SeDuMi itself.

Lured by the promise of a 8 times speedup, I decided to dare the dragon, and looked into the source code of SeDuMi. It was written more than 20 years ago, and the original developer is dead, so you might understand why I was afraid. Luckily the code had comments, otherwise how could I figure out what it was supposed to do when it wasn’t doing it?

It turned out to be a simple fix, the real challenge was only understanding what was going on. And the original developer wasn’t to blame, the bug had been introduced by another person in 2017.

Now with SeDuMi working, I proceeded to benchmarking. To my despair, the promised land wasn’t there: there was no difference at all in speed between the complex version and the real version. I was at the point of giving up, when Johan Löfberg, the developer of YALMIP kindly pointed out to me that SeDuMi also needs to do a Cholesky decomposition of the Hessian, a $m \times m$ matrix where $m$ is the number of constraints. The complexity of Sedumi is then roughly $O(m^3 + d^3)$ using complex numbers, and $O(m^3 + 8d^3)$ when solving the equivalent real version. In my test problem I had $m=d^2$ constraints, so no wonder I couldn’t see any speedup.

I wrote then another test SDP, this time with a single constraint, and voilà! There was a speedup of roughly 4 times! Not 8, probably because computing the Cholesky decomposition of a complex matrix is harder than of a real matrix, and there is plenty of other stuff going on, but no matter, a 4 times speedup is nothing to sneer at.

The problem now that this was only when calling SeDuMi directly, which requires writing the SDP in canonical form. I wasn’t going to do that for any nontrivial problem. It’s not hard per se, but requires the patience of a monk. This is why we have preprocessors like YALMIP.

To take advantage of the speedup, I had to adapt YALMIP to handle complex problems. Löfberg is very much alive, which makes things much easier.

As it turned out, YALMIP already supported complex numbers but had it disabled, presumably because of the bug in SeDuMi. What was missing was support for dualization of complex problems, which is important because sometimes the dualized version is much more efficient than the primal one. I went to work on that.

Today Löberg accepted the pull request, so right now you can enjoy the speedup if you use the latest git of SeDuMi and YALMIP. If that’s useful to you please test and report any bugs.

What about my original problem? I benchmarked it, and using the complex version of SeDuMi did give me a speedup of roughly 30%. Not so impressive, but definitely welcome. The problem is that SeDuMi is rather slow, and even using the real mapping MOSEK can solve my problem faster than it.

I don’t think it was pointless going through all that, though. First because there are plenty of people that use SeDuMi, as it’s open source, unlike MOSEK. Second because now the groundwork is laid down, and if another solver appears that can handle complex problems, we will be able to use that capability just by flipping a switch.

I usually say the opposite to my students: that SDPs are the cheat codes of quantum information. That if you can formulate your problem as an SDP you’re in heaven: there will be an efficient algorithm for finding numerical solutions, and duality theory will often allow you to find analytical solutions. Indeed in the 00s and early 10s one problem after the other was solved via this technique, and a lot of people got good papers of out it. Now the low-hanging fruit has been picked, but SDPs remain a powerful tool that is routinely used.

I’m just afraid that people have started to believe this literally, and use SDPs blindly. But they don’t always work, you need to be careful about their limitations. It’s hard to blame them, though, as the textbooks don’t help. The usually careful The Theory of Quantum Information by Watrous is silent on the subject. It simply states Slater’s condition, which is bound to mislead students into believing that if Slater’s condition is satisfied the SDP will work. The standard textbook, Boyd and Vandenberghe’s Convex Optimization is much worse. It explicitly states

Another advantage of primal-dual algorithms over the barrier method is that they can work when the problem is feasible, but not strictly feasible (although we will not pursue this).

Which is outright false. I contacted Boyd about it, and he insisted that it was true. I then gave him examples of problems where primal-dual algorithms fail, and he replied “that’s simply a case of a poorly specified problem”. Now that made me angry. First of all because it amounted to admitting that his book is incorrect, as it has no such qualification about “poorly specified problems”, and secondly because “poorly specified problems” is rather poorly specified. I think it’s really important to tell the students for which problems SDPs will fail.

One problem I told Boyd about was to minimize $x$ under the constraint that
\[ \begin{pmatrix} x & 1 \\ 1 & t \end{pmatrix} \ge 0.\]Now this problem satisfies Slater’s condition. The primal and dual objectives are bounded, and the problem is strictly feasible, i.e., there are values for $x,t$ such that the matrix there is positive semidefinite (e.g. $x=t=2$). Still, numerical solvers cannot handle it. Nothing wrong with Slater, he just claimed that if this holds then we have strong duality, that is, the primal and dual optimal values will match. And they do.

The issue is very simple: the optimal value is 0, but there is no $x,t$ where it is attained, you only get it in the limit of $x\to 0$ with $t=1/x$. And no numerical solver will be able to handle infinity.

Now this problem is so simple that the failure is not very dramatic. SeDuMi gives something around $10^{-4}$ as an answer. Clearly wrong, as usually it gets within $10^{-8}$ of the right answer, but still, that’s an engineer’s zero.

One can get a much more nasty failure with a slightly more complicated problem (from here): let $X$ by a $3\times 3$ matrix, and minimize $X_{22}$ under the constraints that $X \ge 0, X_{33} = 0$, and $X_{22} + 2X_{13} = 1$. It’s easy enough to solve it by hand: the constraint $X_{33} = 0$ implies that the entire column $(X_{13},X_{23},X_{33})$ must be equal to zero, otherwise $X$ cannot be positive semidefinite2To see why, remember that $X$ is positive semidefinite iff $X = A^\dagger A$ for some matrix $A$. Then $X_{ii} =: \langle v_i, X v_i\rangle = \langle v_i, A^\dagger A v_i\rangle = \|A v_i\|_2^2$, so $X_{ii} = 0$ implies $A v_i = 0$, which implies $A^\dagger A v_i = X v_i = 0$. And $X v_i$ is the column we were talking about.. In turns this implies that $X_{22} = 1$, and we’re done. That’s nothing to optimize. If you give this to SeDuMi it goes crazy, and gives 0.1319 as an answer, together with the message that it had numerical problems.

Now my point is not that SeDuMi should be able to solve nasty problems like this. It’s that we should teach the students to identify this nastiness so they don’t get bitten in the ass when it’s not so obvious.

And they are being bitten in the ass. I’m writing about this because I just posted a comment on the arXiv, correcting a paper that had mistakenly believed that when you add constraints to the NPA hierarchy the answers are still trustworthy. Don’t worry, it’s still possible to solve the constrained NPA hierarchy, you just need to be careful. To learn how, read the comment. Here I want to talk about how to identify nasty problems.

One might think that looking at the manual of a specific solver would help. After all, who could better tell which problems can’t be solved than the people who actually implemented the algorithm? Indeed it does help a bit. In the MOSEK Cookbook they give several examples of nasty problems it cannot handle. At least this dispels Boyd’s naïveté that everything can be solved. But they are rather vague, there’s no characterization of nasty or well-behaved problems.

The best I could find was a theorem in Nesterov and Nemirovskii’s ancient book “Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming”, which says that if the primal is strictly feasible and its feasible region is bounded, or if both the primal and the dual are strictly feasible, then there will exist primal and dual solutions that reproduce the optimal value (i.e., the optimum will not be reached only in the limit). Barring the usual limitations of floating point numbers, this should indeed be a sufficient condition for the SDP to be well-behaved. Hopefully.

It’s not a necessary condition, though. To see that, consider a primal-dual pair in standard form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\min_X \quad & \langle C,X \rangle \\
\text{s.t.} \quad & \langle \Gamma_i, X \rangle = -b_i \quad \forall i,\\
& X \ge 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{y} \quad & \langle b, y \rangle \\
\text{s.t.} \quad & C + \sum_i y_i \Gamma_i \ge 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}and assume that they are both strictly feasible, so that there exist primal and dual optimal solutions $X^*,y^*$ such that $\langle C,X^* \rangle = \langle b, y^* \rangle$. We can then define a new SDP by redefining $C’ = C \oplus \mathbf{0}$ and $\Gamma_i’ = \Gamma_i \oplus \mathbf{0}$, where $\oplus$ is the direct sum, and $\mathbf{0}$ is an all-zeros matrix of any size you want. Now the dual SDP is not strictly feasible anymore2Nothing special about the dual, by playing around a bit more we can make both the primal and dual stop being strictly feasible., but it remains as well-behaved as before; the optimal dual solution doesn’t change, and an optimal primal solution is simply $X^* \oplus \mathbf{0}$. We can also do a change of basis to mix this all-zero subspace around, so the cases where it’s not necessary are not so obvious.

Still, I like this condition. It’s rather useful, and simple enough to teach. So kids, eat your vegetables, and check whether your primal and dual SDPs are strictly feasible.

I’m in a terrible mood. Maybe it’s just the relentless blackness of Austrian winter, but I do have rational reasons to be annoyed. First is the firehose of nonsense coming from the wormhole-in-a-quantum-computer people, that I wrote about in my previous post. Second are two talks that I attended to here in Vienna in the past couple of weeks. One by Spekkens, claiming that he can explain interference phenomena classically, and another by Perche, claiming that a classical field can transmit entanglement, and therefore that the Bose-Marletto-Vedral proposed experiment wouldn’t demonstrate that the gravitational field must be quantized.

These talks were about very different subjects, but both were based on redefining “classical” to be something completely divorced from our understanding of classicality in order to reach their absurd conclusions. One might object that this is just semantics, you can define “classical” to be whatever you want, but I’d like to emphasize that semantics was the whole point of these talks. They were not trying to propose a physically plausible model, they only wanted to claim that some effect previously understood as quantum was actually classical.

The problem is that “classical” is not well-defined, so each author has a lot of freedom in adapting the notion to their purposes. One could define “classical” to strictly mean classical physics, in the sense of Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell’s equations, or general relativity. That’s not an interesting definition, though, first because you can’t explain even a rock with classical physics, and secondly because the context of these discussion is whether one could explain some specific physical effect with a new, classical-like theory, not whether current classical physics explains it (as the answer is always no).

One then needs to choose the features one wishes this classical-like theory to have. Popular choices are to have local dynamics, deterministic evolution, and trivial measurements (i.e., you can just read off the entire state without complications).

Spekkens’s “classical” theory violates two of these desiderata, it’s not local and you can’t measure the state. The entire theory is based on an “epistemic restriction”, that you have some incompatible variables that by fiat you can’t measure simultaneously. For me that already kills the motivation for studying such a theory: you’re copying the least appealing feature of quantum mechanics! And quantum mechanics at least has an elegant theory of measurement to determine what you can or can’t measure simultaneously, here you have just a bare postulate. But what makes the whole thing farcical is the nonlocality of the theory. In the model of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, the “classical” state must pick up the phase of the right arm of the interferometer even if it actually went through the left arm. This makes the cure worse than the disease, quantum mechanics is local and if the particle went through the left it won’t pick up any phase from the right.

When I complained to Spekkens about this, he replied that one couldn’t interpret the vacuum state as implying that the particle was not there, that we should interpret the occupation number as just an abstract degree of freedom without consequence to whether the mode is occupied or not. Yeah, you can do that, but can you seriously call that classical? And again, this makes the theory stranger than quantum mechanics.

Let’s turn to Perche’s theory now. Here the situation is more subtle: we’re not trying to define what a classical theory is, but what a hybrid quantum-classical theory is. In a nutshell, the Bose-Marletto-Vedral proposal is that if we entangle two particles via the gravitational interaction, this implies that the gravitational field must be quantized, because classical fields cannot transmit entanglement.

The difficulty with this argument is that there’s no such thing as a hybrid quantum-classical theory where everything is quantum but the gravitational field is classical (except in the case of a fixed background gravitational field). Some such Frankesteins have been proposed, but always as strawmen that fail spectacularly. To get around this, what people always do is abstract away from the physics and examine the scenario with quantum information theory. Then it’s easy to prove that it’s not possible to create entanglement with local operations and classical communication (LOCC). The classical gravitational field plays the role of classical communication, and we’re done.

Perche wanted to do a theory with more meat, including all the physical degrees of freedom and their dynamics. A commendable goal. What he did was to calculate the Green function from the classical gravitational interaction (which subsumes the fields), and postulate that it should also be the Green function when everything else is quantum. The problem is that you don’t have a gravitational field anymore, and no direct way to determine whether it is quantum or classical. The result he got, however, was that this classical Green function was better at producing entanglement than the quantum one. I think that’s a dead giveaway that his (implicit) field was not classical.

The audience would have none of that, and complained several times that his classical field was anything but. Perche would agree that “quantum-controlled classical” would better describe his gravitational field, but would defend anyway calling it just “classical field” as an informal description.

If you want a theory with more meat, my humble proposal is to not treat classical systems as fundamentally classical, but accept reality: the world is quantum, and “classical” systems are quantum systems that are in a state that is invariant under decoherence. And to make them invariant under decoherence we simply decohere them. In this way we can start with a well-motivated and non-pathological quantum theory for the whole system, and simply decohere the “classical” subsystems as often as needed.

It’s easy to prove that the classical subsystems cannot transmit entanglement in such a theory. Let’s say you have a quantum system $|\psi\rangle$ and a classical mediator $|C\rangle$. After letting them interact via any unitary whatsoever, you end up in the state
\[ \sum_{ij} \alpha_{ij}|\psi_i\rangle|C_j\rangle. \] Now we decohere the classical subsystem (in the $\{|C_j\rangle\}$ basis, without loss of generality), obtaining
\[ \sum_{ijk} \alpha_{ij}\alpha_{kj}^*|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_k|\otimes|C_j\rangle\langle C_j|. \] This is equal to
\[ \sum_j p_j \rho_j \otimes |C_j\rangle\langle C_j|,\] where $p_j := \sum_i |\alpha_{ij}|^2$ and $\rho_j := \frac1{p_j}\sum_{ik} \alpha_{ij}\alpha_{kj}^*|\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_k|$, which is an explicitly separable state, which therefore has no entanglement to transmit to anyone.

Yesterday Quanta Magazine published an article written by Natalie Wolchover, Physicists Create a Wormhole Using a Quantum Computer. I’m shocked and disappointed. I thought Quanta Magazine was the most respectable source of science news, they have published several quality, in-depth articles in difficult topics. But this? It falls so far below any journalistic standard that the magazine is dead to me. The problem is, if they write such bullshit about topics that I do understand, how can I trust their reporting on topics that I do not?

Let’s start with the title. No, scientists haven’t created a wormhole using a quantum computer. They haven’t even simulated one. They simulated some aspects of wormhole dynamics under the crucial assumption that the holographic correspondence of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model holds. Without this assumption they just have a bunch of qubits being entangled, no relation to wormholes.

The article just takes this assumption for granted, and cavalierly goes on to say nonsense like “by manipulating the qubits, the physicists then sent information through the wormhole”. Shortly afterwards, though, it claims that “the experiment can be seen as evidence for the holographic principle”. But didn’t you just assume it was true? And how on Earth can this test the holographic principle? It’s not as if we can do experiments with actual wormholes in order to check if their dynamics match the holographic description.

The deeper problem, though, is that the article never mentions that this simulation can easily be done in a classical computer. Much better, in fact, than in a quantum computer. The scientific content of the paper is not about creating wormholes or investigating the holographic principle, but about getting the quantum computer to work.

As bizarre and over-the-top the article is, it is downright sober compared to the cringeworthy video they released. While the article correctly points out that one needs negative energy to make a wormhole traversable, and that negative energy does not exist, and that the experiment merely simulated a negative energy pulse, the video has no such qualms. It directly stated that the experiment created a negative energy shockwave and used it to transmit qubits through the wormhole.

For me the worst part of the video was at 11:53, where they showed a graph with a bright point labelled “negative energy peak” on it. The problem is that this is not a plot of data, it’s just a drawing, with no connection to the experiment. Lay people will think they are seeing actual data, so this is straightforward disinformation.

Now how did this happen? It seems that Wolchover just published uncritically whatever bullshit Spiropulu told her. Instead of, you know, checking with other people whether it made sense? The article does quote two critics, Woit and Loll. Woit mentions that the holographic correspondence simulates an anti-de Sitter space, whereas our universe is a de Sitter space. Loll mentions that the experiment simulates 2d spacetime, whereas our universe is 4d. Both criticisms are true, of course, but they don’t touch the reason why the Quanta article is nonsense.

EDIT: Quanta has since then changed the title of the article to add the qualification that the wormhole is holographic, and deleted the tweet that said “Physicists have built a wormhole and successfully sent information from one end to the other”. I commend them for taking a step in the right direction, but they haven’t addressed the main problem, which is the content of the article and the video, so this is not enough to get back on my list of reliable sources. Wolchover herself is unrepentant, explicitly denying that she was fooled by the scientists behind the research. Well, the bullshit is her fault then.