CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 258Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesQuantum many-body systems

Quantum computing enhanced computational catalysis

Open access
von Burg, Vera, Low, Guang Hao, Häner, Thomas, Steiger, Damian S., Reiher, Markus, Roetteler, Martin, Troyer, Matthias·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2007.14460arXiv 2007.14460
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The quantum computation of electronic energies can break the curse of dimensionality that plagues many-particle quantum mechanics. It is for this reason that a universal quantum computer has the potential to fundamentally change computational chemistry and materials science, areas in which strong electron correlations present severe hurdles for traditional electronic structure methods. Here, we present a state-of-the-art analysis of accurate energy measurements on a quantum computer for computational catalysis, using improved quantum algorithms with more than an order of magnitude improvement over the best previous algorithms. As a prototypical example of local catalytic chemical reactivity we consider the case of a ruthenium catalyst that can bind, activate, and transform carbon dioxide to the high-value chemical methanol. We aim at accurate resource estimates for the quantum computing steps required for assessing the electronic energy of key intermediates and transition states of its catalytic cycle. In particular, we present new quantum algorithms for double-factorized representations of the four-index integrals that can significantly reduce the computational cost over previous algorithms, and we discuss the challenges of increasing active space sizes to accurately deal with dynamical correlations. We address the requirements for future quantum hardware in order to make a universal quantum computer a successful and reliable tool for quantum computing enhanced computational materials science and chemistry, and identify open questions for further research.

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.2007.14460

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.

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?

  • Quantum computers offer a way to simulate even large-scale many-body systems.

    “Owing to their quantum-mechanical nature, quantum computers offer a way to simulate even large-scale manybody systems (von Burg et al. , 2020; Feynman, 1982).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as von Burg et al. , 2020

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  2. K. M. Svore and M. Troyer, The quantum future of computa- tion, IEEE Comput. 49, 21 (2016). · DOI
  3. Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chem- istry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  4. 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
  5. D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of Many-Body Fermi Systems on a Universal Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2586 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  6. A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  7. L. Veis and J. Pittner, Quantum computing applied to calcula- tions of molecular energies: CH2 benchmark, J. Chem. Phys. 133, 194106 (2010). · DOI
  8. L. Veis, J. Višňák, T. Fleig, S. Knecht, T. Saue, L. Visscher, and J. Pittner, Relativistic quantum chemistry on quantum comput- ers, Phys. Rev. A 85, 030304(R) (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  9. L. Veis and J. Pittner, Quantum computing approach to non- relativistic and relativistic molecular energy calculations, in Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2014), pp. 107.
  10. K. Bourzac, Chemistry is quantum computing's killer app, C&EN 95, 27 (2017).
  11. M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 7555 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  12. S. R. White, Density Matrix Formulation for Quantum Renor- malization Groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992). · DOI · Paper page
  13. A. Baiardi and M. Reiher, The density matrix renormalization group in chemistry and molecular physics: recent develop- ments and new challenges, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 040903 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  14. G. H. Booth, A. J. W. Thom, and A. Alavi, Fermion Monte Carlo without fixed nodes: A game of life, death, and annihi- lation in Slater determinant space, J. Chem. Phys. 131, 054106 (2009). · DOI
  15. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubiti- zation, Quantum 3, 163 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  16. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017). · DOI
  17. J. Haah, M. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamil- tonians, in 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), FOCS '18 (IEEE, Washington, DC, 2018), pp. 350.
  18. G. H. Low and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation in the inter- action picture, arXiv:1805.00675. · arXiv
  19. A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, A Theory of Trotter Error, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021). · DOI
  20. R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding Electronic Spectra in Quantum Circuits with Linear T Complexity, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041015 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  21. G. H. Low, V. Kliuchnikov, and L. Schaeffer, Trading T-gates for dirty qubits in state preparation and unitary synthesis, arXiv:1812.00954. · arXiv
  22. D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Qubitization of arbitrary basis quantum chemistry leveraging sparsity and low rank factorization, Quantum 3, 208 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  23. C. Hepburn, E. Adlen, J. Beddington, E. A. Carter, S. Fuss, N. M. Dowell, J. C. Minx, P. Smith, and C. K. Williams, The technological and economic prospects for CO 2 utilization and removal, Nature (London) 575, 87 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Y. Wu, Z. Jiang, X. Lu, Y. Liang, and H. Wang, Domino elec- troreduction of CO 2 to methanol on a molecular catalyst, Nature (London) 575, 639 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  25. F. Li, A. Thevenon, A. Rosas-Hernández, Z. Wang, Y. Li, C. M. Gabardo, A. Ozden, C. T. Dinh, J. Li, Y. Wang, J. P. Edwards, Y. Xu, C. McCallum, L. Tao, Z.-Q. Liang, M. Luo, X. Wang, H. Li, C. P. O'Brien, C.-S. Tan, D.-H. Nam, R. Quintero-Bermudez, T.-T. Zhuang, Y. C. Li, Z. Han, R. D. Britt, D. Sinton, T. Agapie, J. C. Peters, and E. H. Sargent, Molecular tuning of CO 2 -to- ethylene conversion, Nature (London) 577, 509 (2020). · DOI
  26. S. Kar, J. Kothandaraman, A. Goeppert, and G. K. S. Prakash, Advances in catalytic homogeneous hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to methanol, J. CO 2 Util. 23, 212 (2018). · DOI
  27. S. Wesselbaum, V. Moha, M. Meuresch, S. Brosinski, K. M. Thenert, J. Kothe, T. vom Stein, U. Englert, M. Hölscher, J. Klankermayer, and W. Leitner, Hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to methanol using a homogeneous ruthenium-Triphos catalyst: From mechanistic investigations to multiphase cataly- sis, Chem. Sci. 6, 693 (2015). · DOI
  28. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033055 for details on the elec- tronic structure calculations and the qubitization algorithm presented in this work as well as tabulated resource estimates for active spaces up to 250 orbitals. · DOI
  29. A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-Sánchez, and W. Yang, Challenges for density functional theory, Chem. Rev. 112, 289 (2012). · DOI
  30. N. Mardirossian and M. Head-Gordon, Thirty years of density functional theory in computational chemistry: An overview and extensive assessment of 200 density functionals, Mol. Phys. 115, 2315 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  31. T. Weymuth, E. P. A. Couzijn, P. Chen, and M. Reiher, New benchmark set of transition-metal coordination reactions for the assessment of density functionals, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10, 3092 (2014). · DOI
  32. G. N. Simm and M. Reiher, Systematic error estimation for chemical reaction energies, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 2762 (2016). · DOI
  33. T. Husch, L. Freitag, and M. Reiher, Calculation of ligand dis- sociation energies in large transition-metal complexes, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14, 2456 (2018). · DOI
  34. J. Proppe, T. Husch, G. N. Simm, and M. Reiher, Uncertainty quantification for quantum chemical models of complex reac- tion networks, Faraday Discuss. 195, 497 (2016). · DOI
  35. Y. Zhao and D. G. Truhlar, A new local density functional for main-group thermochemistry, transition metal bonding, thermo- chemical kinetics, and noncovalent interactions, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 194101 (2006). · DOI
  36. J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  37. J. P. Perdew, M. Ernzerhof, and K. Burke, Rationale for mix- ing exact exchange with density functional approximations, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 9982 (1996). · DOI
  38. C. J. Cramer, Essentials of Computational Chemistry: Theories and Models, 2nd ed. (Wiley, Chichester, 2006).
  39. F. Jensen, Introduction to Computational Chemistry (Wiley, New York, 2007).
  40. G. N. Simm, A. C. Vaucher, and M. Reiher, Exploration of reaction pathways and chemical transformation networks, J. Phys. Chem. A 123, 385 (2019). · DOI
  41. Q. Ma and H.-J. Werner, Explicitly correlated local coupled- cluster methods using pair natural orbitals, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 8, e1371 (2018). · DOI
  42. I. Fdez. Galván, M. Vacher, A. Alavi, C. Angeli, F. Aquilante, J. Autschbach, J. J. Bao, S. I. Bokarev, N. A. Bogdanov, R. K. Carlson, L. F. Chibotaru, J. Creutzberg, N. Dattani, M. G. Delcey, S. S. Dong, A. Dreuw, L. Freitag, L. M. Frutos, L. Gagliardi, F. Gendron, A. Giussani, L. González, G. Grell, M. Guo, C. E. Hoyer, M. Johansson, S. Keller, S. Knecht, G. Kovačević, E. Källman, G. Li Manni, M. Lundberg, Y. Ma, S. Mai, J. P. Malhado, P. Å. Malmqvist, P. Marquetand, S. A. Mewes, J. Norell, M. Olivucci, M. Oppel, Q. M. Phung, K. Pierloot, F. Plasser, M. Reiher, A. M. Sand, I. Schapiro, P. Sharma, C. J. Stein, L. K. Sørensen, D. G. Truhlar, M. Ugandi, L. Ungur, A. Valentini, S. Vancoillie, V. Veryazov, O. Weser, T. A. Wesołowski, P.-O. Widmark, S. Wouters, A. Zech, J. P. Zobel, and R. Lindh, OpenMolcas: From source code to insight, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 11 (2019). · DOI
  43. K. D. Vogiatzis, D. Ma, J. Olsen, L. Gagliardi, and W. A. de Jong, Pushing configuration-interaction to the limit: Towards massively parallel MCSCF calculations, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 184111 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  44. B. O. Roos, P. R. Taylor, and P. E. M. Siegbahn, A com- plete active space SCF method (CASSCF) using a density matrix formulated super-CI approach, Chem. Phys. 48, 157 (1980). · DOI
  45. K. Ruedenberg, M. W. Schmidt, M. M. Gilbert, and S. T. Elbert, Are atoms intrinsic to molecular electronic wavefunctions? I. The FORS model, Chem. Phys. 71, 41 (1982). · DOI
  46. S. Keller, K. Boguslawski, T. Janowski, M. Reiher, and P. Pulay, Selection of active spaces for multiconfigurational wavefunc- tions, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 244104 (2015). · DOI
  47. C. J. Stein and M. Reiher, Automated selection of active orbital spaces, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 1760 (2016). · DOI
  48. C. J. Stein, V. von Burg, and M. Reiher, The delicate balance of static and dynamic electron correlation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 3764 (2016). · DOI
  49. C. J. Stein and M. Reiher, autoCAS: A program for fully auto- mated multiconfigurational calculations, J. Comput. Chem. 40, 2216 (2019). · DOI
  50. L. González and R. Lindh, Quantum Chemistry and Dynamics of Excited States: Methods and Applications (Wiley, New York, 2020).
  51. E. Fromager, J. Toulouse, and H. J. A. Jensen, On the universal- ity of the long-/short-range separation in multiconfigurational density-functional theory, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 074111 (2007). · DOI
  52. E. D. Hedegård, S. Knecht, J. S. Kielberg, H. J. Aagaard Jensen, and M. Reiher, Density matrix renormalization group with effi- cient dynamical electron correlation through range separation, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 224108 (2015). · DOI
  53. E. D. Hedegård, J. Toulouse, and H. J. A. Jensen, Multiconfig- urational short-range density-functional theory for open-shell systems, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 214103 (2018). · DOI
  54. H. Luo and A. Alavi, Combining the transcorrelated method with full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo: Application to the homogeneous electron gas, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14, 1403 (2018). · DOI
  55. B. Peng and K. Kowalski, Highly efficient and scalable com- pound decomposition of two-electron integral tensor and its application in coupled cluster calculations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 4179 (2017). · DOI
  56. F. Aquilante, L. Boman, J. Boström, H. Koch, R. Lindh, A. S. de Merás, and T. B. Pedersen, Cholesky decomposition techniques in electronic structure theory, in Linear-Scaling Techniques in Computational Chemistry and Physics: Methods and Applica- tions, Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics, edited by R. Zalesny, M. G. Papadopoulos, P. G. Mezey, and J. Leszczynski (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011), pp. 301.
  57. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 1 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  58. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecu- lar simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  59. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  60. M. Kühn, S. Zanker, P. Deglmann, M. Marthaler, and H. Weiß, Accuracy and resource estimations for quantum chemistry on a near-term quantum computer, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 4764 (2019). · DOI
  61. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  62. N. Wiebe and C. Granade, Efficient Bayesian Phase Estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 010503 (2016). · DOI
  63. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
  64. W. Górecki, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, H. M. Wiseman, and D. W. Berry, π -Corrected Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 030501 (2020). · DOI
  65. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  66. M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simula- tions, Phys. Lett. A 146, 319 (1990). · DOI
  67. G. H. Low, Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal depen- dence on spectral norm, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing -STOC '19 (ACM, New York, 2019), pp. 491.
  68. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using lin- ear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Info. Comput. 12, 901 (2012). · DOI
  69. M. Reiher and A. Wolf, Relativistic Quantum Chemistry: The Fundamental Theory of Molecular Science, 2nd ed. (Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, 2015).
  70. D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Quantum Algorithm for Spectral Measurement with a Lower Gate Count, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 010501 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  71. D. W. Berry, M. Kieferová, A. Scherer, Y. R. Sanders, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, and R. Babbush, Improved tech- niques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic Hamiltonians, npj Quantum Inf 4, 22 (2018). · DOI
  72. D. Maslov, Optimal and asymptotically optimal NCT reversible circuits by the gate types, Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1096 (2016). · DOI
  73. C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state factories with a catalyzed |CCZ to 2|T transformation, Quantum 3, 135 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  74. D. Poulin, M. B. Hastings, D. Wecker, N. Wiebe, A. C. Doberty, and M. Troyer, The trotter step size required for accurate quan- tum simulation of quantum chemistry, Quantum Info. Comput. 15, 361 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  75. M. Motta, E. Ye, J. R. McClean, Z. Li, A. J. Minnich, R. Babbush, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low rank representations for quantum simulation of electronic structure, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 83 (2021). · DOI
  76. M. Motta, J. Shee, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Efficient ab initio auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo calculations in Gaussian bases via low-rank tensor decomposition, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 3510 (2019), pMID: 31091103. · DOI
  77. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics with a Truncated Taylor Series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  78. A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  79. P. Pham and K. M. Svore, A 2D nearest-neighbor quantum architecture for factoring in polylogarithmic depth, Quantum Info. Comput. 13, 937 (2013). · DOI
  80. K. Boguslawski, K. H. Marti, and M. Reiher, Construction of CASCI-type wave functions for very large active spaces, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 224101 (2011). · DOI
  81. N. M. Tubman, C. Mejuto-Zaera, J. M. Epstein, D. Hait, D. S. Levine, W. Huggins, Z. Jiang, J. R. McClean, R. Babbush, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Postponing the orthogonality catastrophe: efficient state preparation for electronic structure simulations on quantum devices, arXiv:1809.05523. · arXiv
  82. N. H. F. Beebe and J. Linderberg, Simplifications in the gener- ation and transformation of two-electron integrals in molecular calculations, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 12, 683 (1977). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Burg, V., Low, G. H., Häner, T., Steiger, D. S., Reiher, M., Roetteler, M., & Troyer, M.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Microsoft (Switzerland) (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
3
Issue
3
ISSN
2643-1564 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2007.14460
arXiv
2007.14460
OpenAlex
W3045800111
Cited by
258
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 4
FWCI
14.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (182400, 200021)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
quantum computing, computational catalysis, quantum algorithms, ruthenium catalysts, CO2 activation, methanol synthesis, transition state, active space size, dynamic correlation, curse of dimensionality

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