Circuit Complexity through phase transitions: consequences in quantum state preparation
Abstract: In this paper, we analyze the circuit complexity for preparing ground states of quantum many-body systems. In particular, how this complexity grows as the ground state approaches a quantum phase transition. We discuss different definitions of complexity, namely the one following the Fubini-Study metric or the Nielsen complexity. We also explore different models: Ising, ZZXZ or Dicke. In addition, different forms of state preparation are investigated: analytic or exact diagonalization techniques, adiabatic algorithms (with and without shortcuts), and Quantum Variational Eigensolvers. We find that the divergence (or lack thereof) of the complexity near a phase transition depends on the non-local character of the operations used to reach the ground state. For Fubini-Study based complexity, we extract the universal properties and their critical exponents. In practical algorithms, we find that the complexity depends crucially on whether or not the system passes close to a quantum critical point when preparing the state. For both VQE and Adiabatic algorithms, we provide explicit expressions and bound the growth of complexity with respect to the system size and the execution time, respectively.
- M. Dowling and M. Nielsen, Quantum Inf. Comput. 8, 861 (2008).
- R. A. Jefferson and R. C. Myers, J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 1 (2017).
- L. Hackl and R. C. Myers, J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 1 (2018).
- L. Susskind, Fortschr. Phys. 64, 24 (2016a).
- L. Susskind, Fortschr. Phys. 64, 44 (2016b).
- W.-H. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 065002 (2021a).
- S. Chapman and G. Policastro, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1 (2022).
- G. Di Giulio and E. Tonni, J. High Energy Phys. 2020, 1 (2020).
- M. Ghodrati, Phys. Rev. D 98, 106011 (2018).
- W.-H. Huang, arXiv:2112.13066 (2021b).
- P. Caputa and S. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 106, 195125 (2022).
- N. Argaman and G. Makov, Am. J. Phys. 68, 69 (2000).
- U. Schollwöck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005).
- R. Orús, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014).
- M. Troyer and P. Werner, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1162 (American Institute of Physics, 2009) pp. 98–173.
- G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Science 355, 602 (2017).
- T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
- P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006).
- H.-Q. Zhou and J. P. Barjaktarevič, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 41, 412001 (2008).
- H.-Q. Zhou, arXiv:0704.2945 (2007).
- S.-J. Gu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 4371 (2010).
- R. Cheng, arXiv:1012.1337 (2010).
- L. C. Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 095701 (2007).
- K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, Ann. Phys 76, 360 (1973a).
- Y. K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Phys. Rev. A 7, 831 (1973).
- K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. A 8, 2517 (1973b).
- C. Emary and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. E 67, 066203 (2003).
- M. V. Berry, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 42, 365303 (2009).
- D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, E3909 (2017).
- K. Adhikari and S. Choudhury, Fortschr. Phys. 70, 2200126 (2022).
- N. C. Jayarama and V. Svensson, Phys. Rev. B 107, 075122 (2023).
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.