Noise-Resilient Quantum Dynamics Using Symmetry-Preserving Ansatzes
Open accessAbstract
We describe and demonstrate a method for the computation of quantum dynamics on small, noisy universal quantum computers. This method relies on the idea of `restarting' the dynamics; at least one approximate time step is taken on the quantum computer and then a parameterized quantum circuit ansatz is optimized to produce a state that well approximates the time-stepped results. The simulation is then restarted from the optimized state. By encoding knowledge of the form of the solution in the ansatz, such as ensuring that the ansatz has the appropriate symmetries of the Hamiltonian, the optimized ansatz can recover from the effects of decoherence. This allows for the quantum dynamics to proceed far beyond the standard gate depth limits of the underlying hardware, albeit incurring some error from the optimization, the quality of the ansatz, and the typical time step error. We demonstrate this methods on the Aubry-André model with interactions at half-filling, which shows interesting many-body localization effects in the long time limit. Our method is capable of performing high-fidelity Hamiltonian simulation hundred of time steps longer than the standard Trotter approach. These results demonstrate a path towards using small, lossy devices to calculate quantum dynamics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The UCC ansatz for VQE and the quantum alternating operator ansatz for optimization are problem-inspired ansatzes which are usually trainable even when randomly initialized.
“As discussed in the section on ansatzes, the UCC ansatz for VQE of the quantum alternating operator ansatz [23, 24] for optimization are problem-inspired ansatzes which are usually trainable even when randomly initialized.”
From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
The discussion on p. 4 says problem-specific ansatz design could make optimization easier. It does not identify the UCC or quantum alternating operator ansatz, or say that either is usually trainable from random initialization. The Results (p. 3) instead examine number-conserving and oracle ansatzes for quantum dynamics. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe variational Hamiltonian ansatz has been implemented for quantum chemistry, optimization, and quantum simulation problems.
“Due to its versatility, the variational Hamiltonian ansatz has been implemented for quantum chemistry [21, 29], optimization [24], and for quantum simulation problems [30].”
From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
The Method (p. 1) describes optimizing a parameterized circuit for quantum dynamics, and the Results (p. 3) apply it to simulations of the Aubry–André model. This supports the quantum-simulation application attributed to this citation, but the paper describes a number-conserving ansatz and an idealized propagator ansatz, not an implementation it identifies as the variational Hamiltonian ansatz. The chemistry and optimization applications have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 30
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [3]S. Debnath, N. Linke, S.-T. Wang, C. Figgatt, K. Landsman, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Physical review letters 120 , 073001 (2018).
- [6]P. OMalley, R. Babbush, I. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, et al. , Physical Review X 6 , 031007 (2016).
- [11]Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X 7 , 021050 (2017).
- [12]K. Heya, K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08566 (2019). · arXiv
- [14]C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.04292 (2019). · arXiv
- [15]L. Cincio, Y. Suba¸ sı, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, New Journal of Physics 20 , 113022 (2018).
- [17]S. Iyer, V. Oganesyan, G. Refael, and D. A. Huse, Physical Review B 87 , 134202 (2013).
- [18]V. Khemani, D. Sheng, and D. A. Huse, Physical review letters 119 , 075702 (2017).
- [19]G. A. D. Castro and R. Paredes, European Journal of Physics (2019).
- [20]N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Physical review letters 100 , 030504 (2008).
- [23]F. Andraschko, T. Enss, and J. Sirker, Physical review letters 113 , 217201 (2014).
- [24]B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10910 (2019). · arXiv
- [26]M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Physical Review A 99 , 032331 (2019).
- [27]M. Otten, J. Larson, M. Min, S. M. Wild, M. Pelton, and S. K. Gray, Physical Review A 94 , 022312 (2016).
- [28]M. Otten, R. A. Shah, N. F. Scherer, M. Min, M. Pelton, and S. K. Gray, Physical Review B 92 , 125432 (2015).
- [30]M. Otten and S. K. Gray, Physical Review A 99 , 012338 (2019).
- [33]K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical review letters 119 , 180509 (2017).
- [34]G. Verdon, M. Broughton, J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, R. Babbush, Z. Jiang, H. Neven, and M. Mohseni, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05415 (2019). · arXiv
- [35]R. Shaydulin, I. Safro, and J. Larson, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08768 (2019). · arXiv
- [37]J. R. McClean, I. D. Kivlichan, D. S. Steiger, Y. Cao, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, T. H¨ aner, V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, Z. Jiang, M. Neeley, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.07629 (2017). · arXiv
- Authors
- Otten, M., Cortes, C. L., & Gray, S. K.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1910.06284
- OpenAlex
- W2980075761
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- quantum dynamics simulation, noisy quantum computers, variational quantum circuits, Hamiltonian simulation, Aubry-André model, many-body localization, Trotter error, time integration
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
