Entanglement-assisted phase estimation algorithm for calculating dynamical response functions
Abstract: Dynamical response functions are fundamental quantities to describe the excited-state properties in quantum many-body systems. Quantum algorithms have been proposed to evaluate these quantities by means of quantum phase estimation (QPE), where the energy spectra are directly extracted from the QPE measurement outcomes in the frequency domain. Accurate estimation of excitation energies and transition probabilities with these QPE-based approaches is, however, challenging because of the problem of spectral leakage (or peak broadening) which is inherent in the QPE algorithm. To overcome this issue, in this work we consider an extension of the QPE-based approach adopting the optimal entangled input states, which is known to achieve the Heisenberg-limited scaling for the estimation precision. We show that with this method the peaks in the calculated energy spectra are more localized than those calculated by the original QPE-based approaches, suggesting the mitigation of the spectral leakage problem. By analyzing the probability distribution with the entangled phase estimation, we propose a simple scheme to better estimate both the transition energies and the corresponding transition probabilities of the peaks of interest in the spectra. The validity of our prescription is demonstrated by numerical simulations in various quantum many-body problems: the spectral function of a simple electron-plasmon model in condensed-matter physics, the dipole transitions of the H$_2$O molecule in quantum chemistry, and the electromagnetic transitions of the $6$Li nucleus in nuclear physics.
- P.-L. Dallaire-Demers and F. K. Wilhelm, Method to efficiently simulate the thermodynamic properties of the Fermi-Hubbard model on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032303 (2016).
- S. Endo, I. Kurata, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Calculation of the Green’s function on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033281 (2020).
- T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Construction of Green’s functions on a quantum computer: Quasiparticle spectra of molecules, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012330 (2020a).
- T. Keen, E. Dumitrescu, and Y. Wang, Quantum algorithms for ground-state preparation and Green’s function calculation (2021), arXiv:2112.05731 [quant-ph] .
- T. E. Baker, Lanczos recursion on a quantum computer for the Green’s function and ground state, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032404 (2021).
- F. Jamet, A. Agarwal, and I. Rungger, Quantum subspace expansion algorithm for Green’s functions (2022), arXiv:2205.00094 [quant-ph] .
- N. Gomes, D. B. Williams-Young, and W. A. de Jong, Computing the many-body Green’s function with adaptive variational quantum dynamics, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 3313 (2023).
- D. Cruz and D. Magano, Superresolution of Green’s functions on noisy quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012618 (2023).
- A. Roggero and J. Carlson, Dynamic linear response quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034610 (2019).
- T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Linear-response functions of molecules on a quantum computer: Charge and spin responses and optical absorption, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033043 (2020b).
- A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph] .
- D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5162 (1999).
- D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Preparing ground states of quantum many-body systems on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130503 (2009).
- Y. Ge, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits, J. Math. Phys 60, 022202 (2019).
- L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state preparation, Quantum 4, 372 (2020).
- Y. Dong, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Ground-state preparation and energy estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices, PRX Quantum 3, 040305 (2022).
- Z. Ding, C.-F. Chen, and L. Lin, Single-ancilla ground state preparation via Lindbladians (2023), arXiv:2308.15676 [quant-ph] .
- D. Nagaj, P. Wocjan, and Y. Zhang, Fast amplification of QMA, Quantum Info. Comput. 9, 1053–1068 (2009).
- N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient Bayesian phase estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016).
- A. Luis and J. Peřina, Optimum phase-shift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4564 (1996).
- V. Bužek, R. Derka, and S. Massar, Optimal quantum clocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2207 (1999).
- K. Sugisaki, Projective measurement-based quantum phase difference estimation algorithm for the direct computation of eigenenergy differences on a quantum computer, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 7617 (2023).
- A. Fetter and J. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-particle Systems, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2003).
- A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Info. Comput. 12, 901 (2012).
- P. Najafi, P. C. S. Costa, and D. W. Berry, Optimum phase estimation with two control qubits, AVS Quantum Science 5, 023802 (2023).
- G. Rendon, T. Izubuchi, and Y. Kikuchi, Effects of cosine tapering window on quantum phase estimation, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034503 (2022).
- H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959).
- M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems, Comm. Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976).
- D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (2015) pp. 792–809.
- G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
- G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
- B. I. Lundqvist, Single-particle spectrum of the degenerate electron gas, Phys. Kondens. Mater. 6, 193 (1967).
- D. C. Langreth, Singularities in the X-ray spectra of metals, Phys. Rev. B 1, 471 (1970).
- L. Hedin, On correlation effects in electron spectroscopies and the GW𝐺𝑊{GW}italic_G italic_W approximation, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11, R489 (1999).
- L. Grover and T. Rudolph, Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distributions (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0208112 [quant-ph] .
- A. Kitaev and W. A. Webb, Wavefunction preparation and resampling using a quantum computer (2009), arXiv:0801.0342 [quant-ph] .
- C. A. Ullrich, Time-Dependent Density-Functional Theory: Concepts and Applications (Oxford University Press, 2011).
- N. P. Sawaya and J. Huh, Improved resource-tunable near-term quantum algorithms for transition probabilities, with applications in physics and variational quantum linear algebra, Adv. Quantum Technol. 6, 2300042 (2023).
- A. Obertelli and H. Sagawa, Modern Nuclear Physics (Springer, 2021).
- S. Cohen and D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1p shell, Nucl. Phys. 73, 1 (1965).
- N. Shimizu, Nuclear shell-model code for massive parallel computation, “KSHELL” (2013), arXiv:1310.5431 [nucl-th] .
- S. Greenaway, W. Pol, and S. Sim, A case study against QSVT: assessment of quantum phase estimation improved by signal processing techniques (2024), arXiv:2404.01396 [quant-ph] .
- S. Lu, M. C. Bañuls, and J. I. Cirac, Algorithms for quantum simulation at finite energies, PRX Quantum 2, 020321 (2021).
- M.-Q. He, D.-B. Zhang, and Z. D. Wang, Quantum Gaussian filter for exploring ground-state properties, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032420 (2022).
- P. Zeng, J. Sun, and X. Yuan, Universal quantum algorithmic cooling on a quantum computer (2022), arXiv:2109.15304 [quant-ph] .
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.