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

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Quantum natural gradient generalised to noisy and non-unitary circuits

Open access
Koczor, Bálint, Benjamin, Simon C.·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1912.08660arXiv 1912.08660
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Variational quantum algorithms are promising tools whose efficacy depends on their optimisation method. For noise-free unitary circuits, the quantum generalisation of natural gradient descent has been introduced and shown to be equivalent to imaginary time evolution: the approach is effective due to a metric tensor reconciling the classical parameter space to the device's Hilbert space. Here we generalise quantum natural gradient to consider arbitrary quantum states (both mixed and pure) via completely positive maps; thus our circuits can incorporate both imperfect unitary gates and fundamentally non-unitary operations such as measurements. We employ the quantum Fisher information (QFI) as the core metric in the space of density operators. A modification of the Error Suppression by Derangements (ESD) and Virtual Distillation (VD) techniques enables an accurate and experimentally-efficient approximation of the QFI via the Hilbert-Schmidt metric tensor using prior results on the dominant eigenvector of noisy quantum states. Our rigorous proof also establishes the fundamental observation that the geometry of typical noisy quantum states is (approximately) identical in either the Hilbert-Schmidt metric or as characterised by the QFI. In numerical simulations of noisy quantum circuits we demonstrate the practicality of our approach and confirm it can significantly outperform other variational techniques.

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.1912.08660

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?

  • The quantum natural gradient can be generalized to noisy quantum circuits.

    “It can be generalized to noisy quantum circuits (Koczor and Benjamin, 2019).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Koczor and Benjamin, 2019

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: 75

  1. R. Balian and M. Vénéroni, Static and dynamic variational principles for expectation values of observables, Ann. Phys. 187, 29 (1988). · DOI
  2. F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, The- ory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999). · DOI
  3. J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pižorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-Dependent Variational Principle for Quantum Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  4. T. Shi, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Variational study of fermionic and bosonic systems with non-Gaussian states: Theory and applications, Ann. Phys. 390, 245 (2018). · DOI
  5. L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Tangent- space methods for uniform matrix product states, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 7 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  6. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028 (2014). · arXiv
  7. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigen- value solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Y. Wang, F. Dolde, J. Biamonte, R. Babbush, V. Bergholm, S. Yang, I. Jakobi, P. Neumann, A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. D. Whitfield et al., Quantum simulation of helium hydride cation in a solid- state spin register, ACS Nano 9, 7769 (2015). · DOI
  9. P. J. J. O'Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding et al., Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Y. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, M.-H. Yung, and K. Kim, Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic structure, Phys. Rev. A 95, 020501(R) (2017). · DOI
  11. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  12. S. Paesani, A. A. Gentile, R. Santagati, J. Wang, N. Wiebe, D. P. Tew, J. L. O'Brien, and M. G. Thompson, Experimental Bayesian Quantum Phase Estimation on a Silicon Photonic Chip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 100503 (2017). · DOI
  13. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Simu- lator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  14. J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, Computation of Molecular Spectra on a Quantum Processor with an Error-Resilient Algorithm, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011021 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  15. R. Santagati, J. Wang, A. A. Gentile, S. Paesani, N. Wiebe, J. R. McClean, S. Morley-Short, P. J. Shadbolt, D. Bonneau, J. W. Silverstone et al., Witnessing eigenstates for quantum simula- tion of Hamiltonian spectra, Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9646 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  16. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  17. A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Córcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation extends the com- putational reach of a noisy quantum processor, Nature (London) 567, 491 (2019). · DOI
  18. C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Babbush et al., Quantum Chemistry Calculations on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031022 (2018). · DOI
  19. J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 014008 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  20. O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Variational quantum computation of excited states, Quantum 3, 156 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  21. J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  22. C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos et al., Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature (London) 569, 355 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  23. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  24. I. Kassal, J. D. Whitfield, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, M.-H. Yung, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Simulating chemistry using quantum com- puters, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 62, 185 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  25. D. Lu, B. Xu, N. Xu, Z. Li, H. Chen, X. Peng, R. Xu, and J. Du, Quantum chemistry simulation on quantum computers: Theories and experiments, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 14, 9411 (2012). · DOI
  26. K. B. Whaley, A. R. Dinner, and S. A. Rice, Quantum Infor- mation and Computation for Chemistry (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2014).
  27. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  28. P. Rebentrost, M. Schuld, L. Wossnig, F. Petruccione, and S. Lloyd, Quantum gradient descent and Newton's method for constrained polynomial optimization, New J. Phys. 21, 073023 (2019). · DOI
  29. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imagi- nary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 1 (2019). · DOI
  30. M.-C. Chen, M. Gong, X. Xu, X. Yuan, J.-W. Wang, C. Wang, C. Ying, J. Lin, Y. Xu, Y. Wu et al., Demonstration of Adiabatic Variational Quantum Computing with a Supercon- ducting Quantum Coprocessor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180501 (2020). · DOI
  31. J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natural gradient, Quantum 4, 269 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  32. N. Yamamoto, On the natural gradient for variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv:1909.05074 (2019). · arXiv
  33. S.-I. Amari, Neural learning in structured parameter spaces- natural Riemannian gradient, J. Adv. Neur. Info. Proc. Syst. 127 (1997).
  34. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016).
  35. S.-I. Amari, H. Park, and K. Fukumizu, Adaptive method of realizing natural gradient learning for multilayer perceptrons, Neural Comput. 12, 1399 (2000). · DOI
  36. B. Koczor, Exponential Error Suppression for Near- Term Quantum Devices, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031057 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  37. W. J. Huggins, S. McArdle, T. E. O'Brien, J. Lee, N. C. Rubin, S. Boixo, K. B. Whaley, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Virtual Distillation for Quantum Error Mitigation, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041036 (2021). · DOI
  38. B. van Straaten and B. Koczor, Measurement cost of metric- aware variational quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 030324 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  39. B. Koczor, The dominant eigenvector of a noisy quantum state, New J. Phys. 23, 123047 (2021). · DOI
  40. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  41. E. Study, Kürzeste Wege im komplexen Gebiet, Math. Ann. 60, 321 (1905). · DOI
  42. F. Wilczek and A. Shapere, Geometric Phases in Physics, Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics, Vol. 5 (World Sci- entific, Singapore, 1989).
  43. L. Hackl, T. Guaita, T. Shi, J. Haegeman, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Geometry of variational methods: Dynamics of closed quantum systems, SciPost Phys. 9, 048 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  44. R. Cheng, Quantum geometric tensor (Fubini-study met- ric) in simple quantum system: A pedagogical introduction, arXiv:1012.1337 (2010). · arXiv
  45. M. M. Wolf and J. I. Cirac, Dividing quantum channels, Commun. Math. Phys. 279, 147 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  46. M. Reed and B. Simon, Functional Analysis, Methods of Mod- ern Mathematical Physics, vol. 1 (Academic Press, 1980).
  47. H. Jnane, B. Undseth, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and B. Koczor, Multicore quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Applied 18, 044064 (2022). · DOI
  48. R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015). · DOI
  49. A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 9456 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  50. F. Bao, H. Deng, D. Ding, R. Gao, X. Gao, C. Huang, X. Jiang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Li, X. Ma et al., Fluxonium: An Alternative Qubit Platform for High-Fidelity Operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 010502 (2022). · DOI
  51. Z. Cai, Resource Estimation for quantum variational simu- lations of the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014059 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  52. L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018). · DOI
  53. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Advances in quan- tum metrology, Nat. Photonics 5, 222 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  54. B. Koczor, S. Endo, T. Jones, Y. Matsuzaki, and S. C. Benjamin, Variational-state quantum metrology, New J. Phys. 22, 083038 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  55. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53, 023001 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  56. E. A. Morozova and N. N. Chentsov, Markov invariant geometry on manifolds of states, J. Sov. Math. 56, 2648 (1991). · DOI · Paper page
  57. D. Petz and C. Sudár, Geometries of quantum states, J. Math. Phys. 37, 2662 (1996). · DOI
  58. D. Petz, Information-geometry of quantum states, in Quantum Probability Communications, edited by R. L. Hudson and J. M. Lindsay (World Scientific, 1998), pp. 135-157.
  59. D. Šafránek, Discontinuities of the quantum Fisher information and the Bures metric, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052320 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  60. D. Bures, An extension of Kakutani's theorem on infinite prod- uct measures to the tensor product of semifinite w*-algebras, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 135, 199 (1969). · DOI
  61. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994). · DOI · Paper page
  62. A. Uhlmann, The "transition probability" in the state space of a*-algebra, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976). · DOI · Paper page
  63. D. Šafránek, Simple expression for the quantum Fisher infor- mation matrix, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042322 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  64. B. Koczor and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum analytic descent, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023017 (2022). · DOI
  65. R. Sweke, F. Wilde, J. Meyer, M. Schuld, P. K. Fährmann, B. Meynard-Piganeau, and J. Eisert, Stochastic gradient descent for hybrid quantum-classical optimization, Quantum 4, 314 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  66. D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and M. Kastoryano, Avoiding local minima in variational quantum eigensolvers with the natural gradient optimizer, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043246 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  67. A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. Brandão, Random quantum circuits transform local noise into global white noise, arXiv:2111.14907 (2021). · arXiv
  68. J. Vovrosh, K. E. Khosla, S. Greenaway, C. Self, M. S. Kim, and J. Knolle, Simple mitigation of global depolarizing errors in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. E 104, 035309 (2021). · DOI
  69. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  70. H.-J. Sommers and K. Zyczkowski, Bures volume of the set of mixed quantum states, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36, 10083 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  71. T. Jones and S. C. Benjamin, QuESTlink-Mathematica em- biggened by a hardware-optimised quantum emulator, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 034012 (2020). · DOI
  72. G. Boyd and B. Koczor, Training variational quantum circuits with CoVaR: Covariance root finding with classical shadows, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041022 (2022). · DOI
  73. P. Facchi, R. Kulkarni, V. Man'ko, G. Marmo, E. Sudarshan, and F. Ventriglia, Classical and quantum Fisher information in the geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics, Phys. Lett. A 374, 4801 (2010). · DOI
  74. W. F. Stinespring, Positive functions on C*-algebras, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 6, 211 (1955). · DOI
  75. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Koczor, B., & Benjamin, S. C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
106
Issue
6
ISSN
0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1912.08660
arXiv
1912.08660
OpenAlex
W4311473689
Cited by
54
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • University of Oxford
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M013243/1, EP/T001062/1)
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 natural gradient, quantum Fisher information, noisy quantum circuits, completely positive maps, variational quantum algorithms, imaginary time evolution, mixed quantum states, quantum state geometry

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