Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Variational simulation of $d$-level systems on qubit-based quantum simulators

Published 8 May 2024 in quant-ph | (2405.05051v2)

Abstract: Current quantum simulators are primarily qubit-based, making them naturally suitable for simulating 2-level quantum systems. However, many systems in nature are inherently $d$-level, including higher spins, bosons, vibrational modes, and itinerant electrons. To simulate $d$-level systems on qubit-based quantum simulators, an encoding method is required to map the $d$-level system onto a qubit basis. Such mapping may introduce illegitimate states in the Hilbert space which makes the simulation more sophisticated. In this paper, we develop a systematic method to address the illegitimate states. In addition, we compare two different mappings, namely binary and symmetry encoding methods, and compare their performance through variational simulation of the ground state and time evolution of various many-body systems. While binary encoding is very efficient with respect to the number of qubits it cannot easily incorporate the symmetries of the original Hamiltonian in its circuit design. On the other hand, the symmetry encoding facilitates the implementation of symmetries in the circuit design, though it comes with an overhead for the number of qubits. Our analysis shows that the symmetry encoding significantly outperforms the binary encoding, despite requiring extra qubits. Their advantage is indicated by requiring fewer two-qubit gates, converging faster, and being far more resilient to Barren plateaus. We have performed variational ground state simulations of spin-1, spin-3/2, and bosonic systems as well as variational time evolution of spin-1 systems. Our proposal can be implemented on existing quantum simulators and its potential is extendable to a broad class of physical models.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  2. R. P. Feynman, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982).
  3. S. Lloyd, Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal (2018), arXiv:1812.11075 [quant-ph] .
  4. C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science 357, 995 (2017).
  5. M. H. Levitt, Spin dynamics: basics of nuclear magnetic resonance (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).
  6. M. Shimizu, Reports on Progress in Physics 44, 329 (1981).
  7. L.-A. Wu and D. A. Lidar, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4506 (2002), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/43/9/4506/19183159/4506_1_online.pdf .
  8. C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Advances in Physics 53, 1 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018730310001642086 .
  9. R. H. Dicke, Physical Review 93, 99 (1954).
  10. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 .
  11. S. Arunachalam and R. de Wolf, A survey of quantum learning theory (2017), arXiv:1701.06806 .
  12. V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074001 (2018).
  13. E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors (2018), arXiv:1802.06002 .
  14. M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019).
  15. Z. Hu, R. Xia, and S. Kais, Sci. Rep. 10, 1 (2020).
  16. T. Haug and K. Bharti, Generalized quantum assisted simulator (2020), arXiv:2011.14737 .
  17. J. J. Meyer, J. Borregaard, and J. Eisert, Npj Quantum Inf. 7, 1 (2021).
  18. J. J. Meyer, Quantum 5, 539 (2021).
  19. T. Haug and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052611 (2022).
  20. C. Lyu, V. Montenegro, and A. Bayat, Quantum 4, 324 (2020).
  21. K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033062 (2019).
  22. O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Quantum 3, 156 (2019).
  23. H. Wang, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042335 (2009).
  24. K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, and S. Yunoki, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052340 (2020).
  25. I. G. Ryabinkin, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 249 (2018).
  26. D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, Mathematical Programming 45, 503 (1989).
  27. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  28. F. Vatan and C. Williams, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004).
  29. G. De Chiara, M. Lewenstein, and A. Sanpera, Phys. Rev. B 84, 054451 (2011).

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 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.