CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 54Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Robust quantum compilation and circuit optimisation via energy minimisation

Open access
Jones, Tyson, Benjamin, Simon C·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1811.03147arXiv 1811.03147
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We explore a method for automatically recompiling a quantum circuit A into a target circuit B, with the goal that both circuits have the same action on a specific input i.e. B|in> = A|in>. This is of particular relevance to hybrid, NISQ-era algorithms for dynamical simulation or eigensolving. The user initially specifies B as a blank template: a layout of parameterised unitary gates configured to the identity. The compilation then proceeds using quantum hardware to perform an isomorphic energy-minimisation task, and an optional gate elimination phase to compress the circuit. If B is insufficient for perfect recompilation then the method will result in an approximate solution. We optimise using imaginary time evolution, and a recent extension of quantum natural gradient for noisy settings. We successfully recompile a 7-qubit circuit involving 186 gates of multiple types into an alternative form with a different topology, far fewer two-qubit gates, and a smaller family of gate types. Moreover we verify that the process is robust, finding that per-gate noise of up to 1% can still yield near-perfect recompilation. We test the scaling of our algorithm on up to 20 qubits, recompiling into circuits with up to 400 parameterized gates, and incorporate a custom adaptive timestep technique. We note that a classical simulation of the process can be useful to optimise circuits for today's prototypes, and more generally the method may enable 'blind' compilation i.e. harnessing a device whose response to control parameters is deterministic but unknown.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.03147

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several VQAs have been introduced to extract the entanglement spectrum of a quantum state.

    “Several VQAs have been introduced to extract the entanglement spectrum of a quantum state [113, 147, 189].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [147]

    Section 2, “Variational Simulation” (page unavailable), identifies the paper’s method as a VQA for circuit recompilation. Searches for “entanglement spectrum” and for reduced-density-matrix eigenvalues or Schmidt coefficients found no passage in our copy describing a VQA that extracts an entanglement spectrum. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ref [147] proposed a variational quantum state diagonalization algorithm where the cost function quantifies the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between the state rho~(theta)=U(theta) rho U(theta)† and Z(rho~(theta)), with Z the dephasing channel.

    “To potentially make this application more nearterm, Ref. [147] proposed a variational quantum state diagonalization algorithm, where the cost function C ( θ ) quantifies the Hilbert-Schmidt distance between the state ˜ ρ ( θ ) = U ( θ ) ρU ( θ ) † and Z (˜ ρ ( θ )) , and where Z is the dephasing channel.”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [147]

    The Introduction and §6 Numerical scaling describe circuit recompilation with a fictitious-Hamiltonian energy cost, not state diagonalization. Searches for state diagonalization, a dephasing-channel cost, and Hilbert–Schmidt distance found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed algorithm; the Introduction mentions a Hilbert–Schmidt test only when discussing another recompilation method. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. John Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  2. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ying Li, A magic state's fidelity can be superior to the operations that created it, New J. Phys. 17, 023037 (2015). · DOI
  4. E. T. Campbell and M. Howard, Unified framework for magic state distillation and multiqubit gate synthesis with reduced resource cost, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022316 (2017). · DOI
  5. David Gosset, Vadym Kliuchnikov, Michele Mosca, and Vincent Russo, An algorithm for the T-count, Quantum Information & Computation 14, 1261 (2014). · DOI
  6. Neil J. Ross and Peter Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free Clifford+T approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Information & Computation 16, 0901 (2016).
  7. Matthew Amy and Michele Mosca, T-count optimization and Reed-Muller codes, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 65, 8 (2019) · DOI · Paper page
  8. Luke E. Heyfron and Earl T. Campbell, An Efficient Quantum Compiler that reduces T count, Qantum Sci. Technol. 4, 015004 (2019). · DOI
  9. Yunseong Nam, Neil J. Ross, Yuan Su, Andrew M. Childs and Dmitri Maslov, Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters, npj Quantum Information 4, 23 (2018). · DOI
  10. R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O'Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance, Nature 508, 500 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  11. T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220501 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  12. C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates using trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  13. J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, High-fidelity universal gate set for 9 Be + ion qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060505 (2016). · DOI
  14. Naomi H. Nickerson, Joseph F. Fitzsimons and Simon C. Benjamin, Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5-to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041041 (2014). · DOI
  15. Kentaro Heya, Yasunari Suzuki, Yasunobu Nakamura, and Keisuke Fujii, Variational Quantum Gate Op- timization, arxiv:1810.12745 (2018). · arXiv
  16. Harper R. Grimsley, Sophia E. Economou, Edwin Barnes and Nicholas J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature Comms. 10 3007 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Arthur G. Rattew, Shaohan Hu, Marco Pistoia, Richard Chen and Steve Wood, A Domain-agnostic, Noise- resistant, Hardware-efficient Evolutionary Variational Quantum Eigensolver, arXiv:1910.09694 (2019). · arXiv
  18. M. Bilkis, M. Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, A semi-agnostic ansatz with variable structure for quantum machine learning, arXiv:2103.06712 (2021). · arXiv
  19. P. Wocjan, D. Janzing, and T. Beth, Two QCMA-complete problems, Quant. Inf. & Comp., 3, 6 (2003). · DOI
  20. For a recent review describing hybrid variational techniques in chemistry, see e.g. Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Simon Benjamin and Xiao Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Sumeet Khatri, Ryan LaRose, Alexander Poremba1, Lukasz Cincio1, Andrew T. Sornborger, and Patrick J. Coles, Quantum-assisted quantum compiling, Quantum 3, 140 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jacques Carolan, Masoud Mohseni, Jonathan P. Olson, Mihika Prabhu, Changchen Chen, Darius Bunandar, Murphy Yuezhen Niu, Nicholas C. Harris, Franco N. C. Wong, Michael Hochberg, Seth Lloyd and Dirk Englund, Variational quantum unsampling on a quantum photonic processor, Nat. Phys. (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  23. M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, Patrick J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3(9), pp.625-644 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Suguru Endo, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C. Benjamin, Xiao Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 90, 032001 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  25. Xiao Yuan, Suguru Endo, Qi Zhao, Ying Li, and Simon C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  26. Sam McArdle, Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Simon Benjamin and Xiao Yuan, Variational ansatz- based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Information 5, 75 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Bálint Koczor, Simon C. Benjamin, Quantum natural gradient generalised to non-unitary circuits, arXiv:1912.08660v2 (2020). · arXiv
  28. James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, Giuseppe Carleo, Quantum Natural Gradient, Quantum 4, 269 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  29. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  30. Tyson Jones & Suguru Endo, Sam McArdle, Xiao Yuan and Simon Benjamin, Variational quantum algo- rithms for discovering Hamiltonian spectra, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062304 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  31. Barnaby van Straaten, Bálint Koczor, Measurement cost of metric-aware variational quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 030324 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lukasz Cincio, Yigit Subasi, Andrew T Sornborger and Patrick J Coles, Learning the quantum algorithm for state overlap, New J. Phys. 20 113022 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Sang Min Lee, Jinhyoung Lee and Jeongho Bang, Learning unknown pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 98, 052302 (2018). · DOI
  34. Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ming-Cheng Chen, Ming Gong, Xiaosi Xu, Xiao Yuan, Jian-Wen Wang, Can Wang, Chong Ying, Jin Lin, Yu Xu, Yulin Wu, Shiyu Wang, Hui Deng, Futian Liang, Cheng-Zhi Peng, Simon C. Benjamin, Xiaobo Zhu, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan, Demonstration of Adiabatic Variational Quantum Computing with a Superconducting Quantum Coprocessor, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 180501 (2020). · DOI
  36. Grippo, Luigi, Francesco Lampariello, and Stephano Lucidi, A nonmonotone line search technique for Newton's method. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 23, 4 (1986). · DOI
  37. Hale F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 4 (1959). · DOI
  38. Seth Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 1073-1078 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  39. Kunal Sharma, Sumeet Khatri, M Cerezo, Patrick J Coles, Noise resilience of variational quantum com- piling, New J. Phys. 22 043006 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi and Jay M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  41. Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. Córcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow & Jay M. Gambetta Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor, Nature 567, 491 (2019). · DOI
  42. Suguru Endo, Simon Benjamin and Ying Li, Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Appli- cations, Phys. Rev. X, 8,031027 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  43. M. Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler Volkoff, Lukasz Cincio and Patrick J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Comms. 12, 1791 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Jonas M. KÃŒbler, Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio and Patrick J. Coles, An Adaptive Optimizer for Measurement-Frugal Variational Algorithms, Quantum 4, 263 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Andrew Arrasmith, Lukasz Cincio, Rolando D. Somma and Patrick J. Coles, Operator Sampling for Shot- frugal Optimization in Variational Algorithms, arXiv:2004.06252 (2020). · arXiv
  46. Jian Ma, Xiaoguang Wang, C. P. Sun, Franco Nori, Quantum spin squeezing, Physics Reports 509, 2-3 (2011). · DOI
  47. Duger Ulam-Orgikh and Masahiro Kitagawa, Spin squeezing and decoherence limit in Ramsey spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052106 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  48. Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Mateusz Ostaszewski, and Marcello Benedetti, An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits, Quantum 3, 214 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  49. K. Temme, T. J. Osborne, K. G. Vollbrecht, D. Poulin and F. Verstraete, Quantum Metropolis sampling, Nature 471, 87 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  50. Man-Hong Yung and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, A quantum-quantum Metropolis algorithm, PNAS 109, 754 (2012). · DOI
  51. Mohammad H. Amin, Evgeny Andriyash, Jason Rolfe, Bohdan Kulchytskyy and Roger Melko, Quantum Boltzmann Machine Phys. Rev. X 8, 021050 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  52. Fernando G.S.L. Brandao and Krysta Svore, Quantum Speed-ups for Semidefinite Programming, Proceed- ings FOCS 2017 (2017) and arXiv:1609.05537 (2016). · arXiv
  53. Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Improvements in Quantum SDP-Solving with Applications, arXiv:1804.05058 (2018). · arXiv
  54. Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K. Clark, Chetan Nayak and Matthias Troyer, Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Lukasz Cincio, Kenneth Rudinger, Mohan Sarovar and Patrick J. Coles, Machine Learning of Noise- Resilient Quantum Circuits, PRX Quantum 2 010324 (2021). · DOI
  56. Artur K. Ekert, Carolina Moura Alves, Daniel K. L. Oi, Michal Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, and L. C. Kwek, Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear functionals of a quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 217901 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  57. Andrew M. Childs, Aaron Ostrander and Yuan Su, Faster quantum simulation by randomization Quantum 3, 182 (2019). · DOI
  58. Earl Campbell, A random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019). · DOI
  59. Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush and Simon Benjamin, QuEST and High Performance Simulation of Quantum Computers, Scientific Reports 9, 10736 (2019). · DOI
  60. Tyson Jones, and Simon C Benjamin, QuESTlink -Mathematica embiggened by a hardware-optimised quantum emulator, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5 034012 (2020). · DOI
  61. Gene Golub and Charles Van Loan, Matrix computations, The Mathematical Gazette 83, 498 (1999). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jones, T., & Benjamin, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Volume
6
Pages
628-628
ISSN
2521-327X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1811.03147
arXiv
1811.03147
OpenAlex
W4206940161
Cited by
54
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
lv
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Quantum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Oxford (EP/M013243/1)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU‐H2020, 820495)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (820495, EU H2020, M013243/1, EP/M013243/1, T001062, H2020, EP/T001062/1)
  • Army Research Office (820495, W911NF-16-1-0070, W911NF-16-1-, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
quantum circuit compilation, quantum circuit optimization, energy minimization, imaginary time evolution, quantum natural gradient, noisy quantum hardware, NISQ algorithms, quantum dynamical simulation, adaptive time stepping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review