Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Algorithms in Practice: Application to Ground-State Energy Estimation

Published 6 May 2024 in quant-ph | (2405.03754v2)

Abstract: We investigate the feasibility of early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms focusing on ground-state energy estimation problems. In particular, we examine the computation of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the spectral measure of a Hamiltonian and the identification of its discontinuities. Scaling these methods to larger system sizes reveals three key challenges: the smoothness of the CDF for large supports, the lack of tight lower bounds on the overlap with the true ground state, and the difficulty of preparing high-quality initial states. To address these challenges, we propose a signal processing approach to find these estimates automatically, in the regime where the quality of the initial state is unknown. Rather than aiming for exact ground-state energy, we advocate for improving classical estimates by targeting the low-energy support of the initial state. Additionally, we provide quantitative resource estimates, demonstrating a constant-factor improvement in the number of samples required to detect a specified change in CDF. Our numerical experiments, conducted on a 26-qubit fully connected Heisenberg model, leverage a truncated density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) initial state with a low bond dimension. The results show that the predictions from the quantum algorithm align closely with the DMRG-converged energies at larger bond dimensions while requiring several orders of magnitude fewer samples than theoretical estimates suggest. These findings underscore that CDF-based quantum algorithms are a practical and resource-efficient alternative to quantum phase estimation, particularly in resource-constrained scenarios.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (51)
  1. J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, in FSTTCS 2004: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 372–383.
  2. A. Uvarov, J. D. Biamonte, and D. Yudin, Variational quantum eigensolver for frustrated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075104 (2020).
  3. U. Azad and H. Singh, Quantum chemistry calculations using energy derivatives on quantum computers, Chemical Physics 558, 111506 (2022).
  4. S. Sahoo, U. Azad, and H. Singh, Quantum phase recognition using quantum tensor networks, The European Physical Journal Plus 137, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03587-6 (2022).
  5. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015).
  6. E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nature Communications 13, 7760 (2022).
  7. A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, arXiv e-prints  (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph] .
  8. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  9. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Heisenberg-limited ground-state energy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum computers, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/prxquantum.3.010318 (2022).
  10. R. D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, New Journal of Physics 21, 123025 (2019).
  11. O. Kiss, M. Grossi, and A. Roggero, Quantum error mitigation for fourier moment computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13048  (2024).
  12. K. Wan, M. Berta, and E. T. Campbell, A randomized quantum algorithm for statistical phase estimation, Physical Review Letters 129, 030503 (2022), arXiv:2110.12071 [quant-ph].
  13. 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).
  14. D. Gottesman and S. Irani, in 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, 2009) pp. 95–104.
  15. D. Nagaj, Local hamiltonians in quantum computation, arXiv preprint  (2008), arXiv:0808.2117 [quant-ph] .
  16. T. Cubitt and A. Montanaro, Complexity classification of local hamiltonian problems, SIAM Journal on Computing 45, 268 (2016).
  17. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  18. K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975).
  19. N. Gleinig and T. Hoefler, in 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (IEEE, 2021).
  20. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  21. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 10.1103/revmodphys.90.015002 (2018).
  22. M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 365303 (2009).
  23. M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Adiabatic population transfer with control fields, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 107, 9937 (2003).
  24. M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Assisted adiabatic passage revisited, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109, 6838 (2005).
  25. F. Verstraete, M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics 5, 633 (2009).
  26. S. Polla, Y. Herasymenko, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum digital cooling, Physical Review A 104, 012414 (2021).
  27. H.-Y. Su and Y. Li, Quantum algorithm for the simulation of open-system dynamics and thermalization, Physical Review A 101, 012328 (2020).
  28. R. J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 291 (2007).
  29. S.-J. Ran, Encoding of matrix product states into quantum circuits of one- and two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032310 (2020).
  30. G. Wang, S. Sim, and P. D. Johnson, State preparation boosters for early fault-tolerant quantum computation, Quantum 6, 829 (2022).
  31. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  32. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Info. Comput. 12, 901–924 (2012).
  33. M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and monte carlo simulations, Physics Letters A 146, 319 (1990).
  34. E. T. Campbell, Early fault-tolerant simulations of the hubbard model, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 015007 (2021).
  35. K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, and J. M. Arrazola, Better bounds for low-energy product formulas, arXiv e-prints  (2024), arXiv:2402.10362 [quant-ph] .
  36. A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and Y. Su, Faster quantum simulation by randomization, Quantum 3, 10.22331/q-2019-09-02-182 (2019).
  37. C. H. Cho, D. W. Berry, and M.-H. Hsieh, Doubling the order of approximation via the randomized product formula, arXiv e-prints  (2022), arXiv:2210.11281 [quant-ph] .
  38. G. C. Knee and W. J. Munro, Optimal trotterization in universal quantum simulators under faulty control, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052327 (2015).
  39. E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019).
  40. O. Kiss, M. Grossi, and A. Roggero, Importance sampling for stochastic quantum simulations, Quantum 7, 977 (2023).
  41. K. Nakaji, M. Bagherimehrab, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, qswift: High-order randomized compiler for hamiltonian simulation (2023), arXiv:2302.14811 [quant-ph].
  42. A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Hybridized Methods for Quantum Simulation in the Interaction Picture, Quantum 6, 780 (2022).
  43. M. Hagan and N. Wiebe, Composite Quantum Simulations, Quantum 7, 1181 (2023).
  44. P. W. Anderson, Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1049 (1967).
  45. T. Louvet, T. Ayral, and X. Waintal, Go-no go criteria for performing quantum chemistry calculations on quantum computers, arXiv e-prints  (2023), arXiv:2306.02620 [quant-ph] .
  46. S. Arlot, A. Celisse, and Z. Harchaoui, A kernel multiple change-point algorithm via model selection, Journal of Machine Learning Research 20, 1 (2019).
  47. C. Truong, L. Oudre, and N. Vayatis, Selective review of offline change point detection methods, Signal Processing 167, 107299 (2020).
  48. C. S. Jürgen Bortz, Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 7th ed. (Springer, 2010).
  49. T. S. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, and S. Piddock, Universal quantum hamiltonians, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9497 (2018).
  50. J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, Efficient numerical simulations with tensor networks: Tensor network python (tenpy), SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 5 (2018), code available from https://github.com/tenpy/tenpy, arXiv:1805.00055 .
  51. Q. A. Team and Collaborators, qsim (2021).
Citations (3)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 34 likes about this paper.