CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 176Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Mechanics and Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Hardware-efficient variational quantum algorithms for time evolution

Open access
Benedetti, Marcello, Fiorentini, Mattia, Lubasch, Michael·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2009.12361arXiv 2009.12361
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Parameterized quantum circuits are a promising technology for achieving a quantum advantage. An important application is the variational simulation of time evolution of quantum systems. To make the most of quantum hardware, variational algorithms need to be as hardware-efficient as possible. Here we present alternatives to the time-dependent variational principle that are hardware-efficient and do not require matrix inversion. In relation to imaginary time evolution, our approach significantly reduces the hardware requirements. With regards to real time evolution, where high precision can be important, we present algorithms of systematically increasing accuracy and hardware requirements. We numerically analyze the performance of our algorithms using quantum Hamiltonians with local interactions.

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.2009.12361

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?

  • Using the hardware-efficient structure of the PQC, it is possible to reduce the cost of measuring the A and C matrices.

    “Using the hardware-efficient structure of the PQC, it is possible to reduce the cost of measuring the A and C matrices (Benedetti et al. , 2020).”

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

    The comparison of hardware requirements (page unavailable) reports that the paper’s update methods use fewer circuits per sweep than the TDVP method and avoid matrix inversion. The discussion of TDVP measurement costs (page unavailable) identifies A and C as quantities measured for TDVP, but does not say that the hardware-efficient PQC structure reduces the cost of measuring those quantities specifically. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    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: 66

  1. S. Wiesner, Simulations of many-body quantum systems by a quantum computer, arXiv:quant-ph/9603028 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  2. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  3. 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
  4. C. Zalka, Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 313 (1998). · DOI
  5. I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18681 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials sci- ence, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  10. A. Smith, M. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simulating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 106 (2019). · DOI
  11. E. Gustafson, P. Dreher, Z. Hang, and Y. Meurice, Benchmark- ing quantum computers for real-time evolution of a (1 + 1) field theory with error mitigation, arXiv:1910.09478 [hep-lat]. · arXiv
  12. B. Fauseweh and J.-X. Zhu, Digital quantum simulation of non- equilibrium quantum many-body systems, Quant. Info. Proc. 20 (2021). · DOI
  13. 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, 4213 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  14. 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
  15. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Simu- lator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  16. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  17. S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real-and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021). · DOI
  18. C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum simulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  19. M. Lubasch, P. Moinier, and D. Jaksch, Multigrid renormaliza- tion, J. Comput. Phys. 372, 587 (2018). · DOI
  20. M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Variational quantum algorithms for nonlinear problems, Phys. Rev. A 101, 010301(R) (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  21. B. Jaderberg, A. Agarwal, K. Leonhardt, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, Minimum hardware requirements for hybrid quantum- classical DMFT, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 034015 (2020). · DOI
  22. I. Rungger, N. Fitzpatrick, H. Chen, C. H. Alderete, H. Apel, A. Cowtan, A. Patterson, D. M. Ramo, Y. Zhu, N. H. Nguyen, E. Grant, S. Chretien, L. Wossnig, N. M. Linke, and R. Duncan, Dynamical mean field theory algorithm and experiment on quantum computers, arXiv:1910.04735 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  23. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parame- terized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 043001 (2019). · DOI
  24. G. Vidal, Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  25. G. Vidal, Efficient Simulation of One-Dimensional Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  26. A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollwöck, and G. Vidal, Time- dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effective hilbert spaces, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2004) P04005. · DOI
  27. G. Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007). · DOI
  28. J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in Two Spatial Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  29. M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, Unifying projected entangled pair state contractions, New J. Phys. 16, 033014 (2014). · DOI
  30. M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, Algorithms for finite projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 90, 064425 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  31. G. Vidal, Class of Quantum Many-Body States that Can be Efficiently Simulated, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008). · DOI
  32. G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Algorithms for entanglement renor- malization, Phys. Rev. B 79, 144108 (2009). · DOI
  33. M. B. Hastings, Light-cone matrix product, J. Math. Phys. 50, 095207 (2009). · DOI
  34. I. H. Kim and B. Swingle, Robust entanglement renor- malization on a noisy quantum computer, arXiv:1711.07500 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  35. F. Barratt, J. Dborin, M. Bal, V. Stojevic, F. Pollmann, and A. G. Green, Parallel quantum simulation of large systems on small nisq computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  36. J. G. Vidal and D. O. Theis, Calculus on parameterized quantum circuits, arXiv:1812.06323 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  37. K. M. Nakanishi, K. Fujii, and S. Todo, Sequential minimal op- timization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043158 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  38. R. M. Parrish, J. T. Iosue, A. Ozaeta, and P. L. McMahon, A jacobi diagonalization and anderson acceleration algorithm for variational quantum algorithm parameter optimization, arXiv:1904.03206 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  39. M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti, Structure opti- mization for parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum 5, 391 (2021). · DOI
  40. F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys. 57, 143 (2008). · DOI
  41. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  42. 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
  43. P. J. Ollitrault, A. Baiardi, M. Reiher, and I. Tavernelli, Hard- ware efficient quantum algorithms for vibrational structure calculations, Chem. Sci. 11, 6842 (2020). · DOI
  44. H. L. Tang, V. O. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt- vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  45. W. Huggins, P. Patil, B. Mitchell, K. B. Whaley, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Towards quantum machine learning with tensor networks, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 024001 (2019). · DOI
  46. M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, and A. C. Potter, Holographic quantum algorithms for simulating correlated spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033002 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  47. E. Chertkov, J. Bohnet, D. Francois, J. Gaebler, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, K. Lee, R. Tobey, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, A. C. Potter, and M. Foss-Feig, Holographic dynamics simula- tions with a trapped ion quantum computer, arXiv:2105.09324 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  48. J. Liu, L. Wan, Z. Li, and J. Yang, Simulating periodic systems on quantum computer, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 6904 (2020). · DOI
  49. D. Z. Manrique, I. T. Khan, K. Yamamoto, V. Wichitwechkarn, and D. M. Ramo, Momentum-space unitary couple cluster and translational quantum subspace expansion for periodic systems on quantum computers, arXiv:2008.08694 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  50. D. Amaro, C. Modica, M. Rosenkranz, M. Fiorentini, M. Benedetti, and M. Lubasch, Filtering variational quantum al- gorithms for combinatorial optimization, arXiv:2106.10055 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  51. N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product for- mulas of higher orders, in Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005), pp. 37-68.
  52. J. Li, X. Yang, X. Peng, and C.-P. Sun, Hybrid Quantum- Classical Approach to Quantum Optimal Control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150503 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  53. K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Methodology for replacing indirect measurements with direct measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 013006 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  54. A. A. Zhukov and W. V. Pogosov, Quantum error reduction with deep neural network applied at the post-processing stage, arXiv:2105.07793 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  55. C. Cao, Z. An, S.-Y. Hou, D. L. Zhou, and B. Zeng, Quantum imaginary time evolution steered by reinforcement learning, arXiv:2105.08696 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  56. J. J. García-Ripoll, Time evolution of matrix product states, New J. Phys. 8, 305 (2006). · DOI
  57. G. H. Golub and C. F. V. Loan, Matrix Computa- tions, 3rd ed. (Johns Hopkins University Press, USA, 1996).
  58. J. C. Garcia-Escartin and P. Chamorro-Posada, Swap test and hong-ou-mandel effect are equivalent, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052330 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  59. L. Cincio, Y. Subaşı, A. T. Sornborger, and P. J. Coles, Learn- ing the quantum algorithm for state overlap, New J. Phys. 20, 113022 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  60. E. Grant, M. Benedetti, S. Cao, A. Hallam, J. Lockhart, V. Stojevic, A. G. Green, and S. Severini, Hierarchical quantum classifiers, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 65 (2018). · DOI
  61. A. Smith, B. Jobst, A. G. Green, and F. Pollmann, Cross- ing a topological phase transition with a quantum computer, arXiv:1910.05351 [cond-mat.str-el]. · arXiv
  62. R. Mansuroglu, S. Wilkinson, L. Nützel, and M. J. Hartmann, Classical variational optimization of gate sequences for time evolution of large quantum systems, arXiv:2106.03680 [quant- ph]. · arXiv
  63. I. H. Kim, Noise-resilient preparation of quantum many-body ground states, arXiv:1703.00032 [quant-ph]. · arXiv
  64. J. Borregaard, M. Christandl, and D. Stilck França, Noise- robust exploration of many-body quantum states on near-term quantum devices, npj Quantum Inf. 7 (2021). · DOI
  65. V. V. Shende, I. L. Markov, and S. S. Bullock, Minimal uni- versal two-qubit controlled-not-based circuits, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062321 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  66. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Benedetti, M., Fiorentini, M., & Lubasch, M.
Affiliations
Cambridge Quantum Computing (United Kingdom) (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
3
Issue
3
ISSN
2643-1564 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2009.12361
arXiv
2009.12361
OpenAlex
W3088357939
Cited by
176
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (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
variational quantum algorithms, time evolution simulation, hardware efficiency, variational quantum circuits, time-dependent variational principle, imaginary time evolution, real-time evolution, matrix inversion avoidance, quantum advantage, local Hamiltonians

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