CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 185Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureNumerical Solvers for Ordinary Differential EquationsQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Solving nonlinear differential equations with differentiable quantum circuits

Open access
Kyriienko, Oleksandr, Paine, Annie E., Elfving, Vincent E.·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2011.10395arXiv 2011.10395
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We propose a quantum algorithm to solve systems of nonlinear differential equations. Using a quantum feature map encoding, we define functions as expectation values of parametrized quantum circuits. We use automatic differentiation to represent function derivatives in an analytical form as differentiable quantum circuits (DQCs), thus avoiding inaccurate finite difference procedures for calculating gradients. We describe a hybrid quantum-classical workflow where DQCs are trained to satisfy differential equations and specified boundary conditions. As a particular example setting, we show how this approach can implement a spectral method for solving differential equations in a high-dimensional feature space. From a technical perspective, we design a Chebyshev quantum feature map that offers a powerful basis set of fitting polynomials and possesses rich expressivity. We simulate the algorithm to solve an instance of Navier-Stokes equations, and compute density, temperature and velocity profiles for the fluid flow in a convergent-divergent nozzle.

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.2011.10395

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?

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: 172

  1. G. F. Simmons, Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes (McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1972).
  2. J. D. Anderson, Jr., Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Ba- sics with Applications (McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1995).
  3. J. C. Butcher, Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2016).
  4. E. Hairer and G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equa- tions II: Stiff and differential-Algebraic Problems, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996).
  5. C. W. Gear, Numerical solution of ordinary differential equa- tions: Is there anything left to do?, SIAM Rev. 23, 10 (1981). · DOI
  6. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010).
  7. A. Montanaro, Quantum algorithms: An overview, npj Quant. Inf. 2, 15023 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  8. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algo- rithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  9. A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum al- gorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, SIAM J. Comput. 46, 1920 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  10. L. Wossnig, Z. Zhao, and A. Prakash, Quantum Linear System Algorithm for Dense Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 050502 (2018). · DOI
  11. Y. Subasi, R. D. Somma, and D. Orsucci, Quantum Algorithms for Systems of Linear Equations Inspired by Adiabatic Quan- tum Computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 060504 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  12. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Optimal quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems, Quantum 4, 361 (2020). · DOI
  13. A. C. Vazquez, R. Hiptmair, and S. Woerner, Enhancing the quantum linear systems algorithm using richardson extrapola- tion, arXiv:2009.04484. · arXiv
  14. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  15. M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An introduction to quantum machine learning, Contemp. Phys. 56, 172 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  16. S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, and P. Rebentrost, Quantum principal component analysis, Nat. Phys. 10, 631 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  17. P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Support Vector Machine for Big Data Classification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  18. S. Lloyd, S. Garnerone, and P. Zanardi, Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of data, Nat. Commun. 7, 10138 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  19. V. Dunjko, J. M. Taylor, and H. J. Briegel, Quantum-Enhanced Machine Learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 130501 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  20. M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022342 (2016). · DOI
  21. N. Liu and P. Rebentrost, Quantum machine learning for quantum anomaly detection, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042315 (2018). · DOI
  22. 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
  23. C. Blank, D. K. Park, J.-K. K. Rhee, and F. Petruccione, Quantum classifier with tailored quantum kernel, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 41 (2020). · DOI
  24. S. K. Leyton and T. J. Osborne, A quantum algorithm to solve nonlinear differential equations, arXiv:0812.4423. · arXiv
  25. Yudong Cao, A. Daskin, S. Frankel, and S. Kais, Quan- tum circuit design for solving linear systems of equations, Mol. Phys. 110, 1675 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  26. D. W. Berry, High-order quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 105301 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  27. A. Montanaro and S. Pallister, Quantum algorithms and the finite element method, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032324 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  28. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, A. Ostrander, and G. Wang, Quantum algorithm for linear differential equations with expo- nentially improved dependence on precision, Commun. Math. Phys. 356, 1057 (2017). · DOI
  29. P. C. S. Costa, S. Jordan, and A. Ostrander, Quantum al- gorithm for simulating the wave equation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012323 (2019). · DOI
  30. A. M. Childs, J.-P. Liu, and A. Ostrander, High-precision quantum algorithms for partial differential equations, arXiv:2002.07868. · arXiv
  31. S. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Li, L. Fan, G. Cui, Z. Wei, and Y. Gu, A quantum Poisson solver implementable on NISQ devices, arXiv:2005.00256. · arXiv
  32. N. Linden, A. Montanaro, and C. Shao, Quantum vs. classical algorithms for solving the heat equation, arXiv:2004.06516. · arXiv
  33. A. M. Childs and J.-P. Liu, Quantum spectral methods for dif- ferential equations, Commun. Math. Phys. 375, 1427 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  34. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum Random Access Memory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160501 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  35. A. Scherer, B. Valiron, S.-C. Mau, S. Alexander, E. van den Berg, and T. E. Chapuran, Concrete resource analysis of the quantum linear system algorithm used to compute the electro- magnetic scattering cross section of a 2D target, Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 60 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  36. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  37. F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  38. 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
  39. 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 chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  40. V. E. Elfving, B. W. Broer, M. Webber, J. Gavartin, M. D. Halls, K. P. Lorton, and A. Bochevarov, How will quantum computers provide an industrially relevant computational ad- vantage in quantum chemistry?, arXiv:2009.12472. · arXiv
  41. 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
  42. J. 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
  43. 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, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A.G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J.Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Love, H. Neven, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. M. Martinis, Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  44. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient varia- tional quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  45. 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
  46. C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of the lattice Schwinger model, Nature (London) 569, 355 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  47. M. Ganzhorn, D. J. Egger, P. Barkoutsos, P. Ollitrault, G. Salis, N. Moll, M. Roth, A. Fuhrer, P. Mueller, S. Woerner, I. Tavernelli, and S. Filipp, Gate-Efficient Simulation of Molec- ular Eigenstates on a Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044092 (2019). · DOI
  48. A. J. McCaskey, Z. P. Parks, J. Jakowski, S. V. Moore, T. Morris, T. S. Humble, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum chemistry as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 99 (2019). · DOI
  49. Y. Nam, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, K. Wright, C. Delaney, D. Maslov, K. R. Brown, S. Allen, J. M. Amini, J. Apisdorf, K. M. Beck, A. Blinov, V. Chaplin, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, S. Debnath, A. M. Ducore, K. M. Hudek, M. Keesan, S. M. Kreikemeier et al., Ground-state energy estimation of the wa- ter molecule on a trapped ion quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 33 (2020). · DOI
  50. Q. Gao, H. Nakamura, T. P. Gujarati, G. O. Jones, J. E. Rice, S. P. Wood, M. Pistoia, J. M. Garcia, and N. Yamamoto, Computational investigations of the lithium superoxide dimer rearrangement on noisy quantum devices, J. Phys. Chem. A 125, 1827 (2021). · DOI
  51. F. Arute et al. (Google AI Quantum and Collaborators), Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369, 1084 (2020). · DOI
  52. B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigen- solver algorithm, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 10 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  53. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simula- tions on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  54. 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 ansatze on a quantum processor, arXiv:1911.10205. · arXiv
  55. D. Claudino, J. Wright, A. J. McCaskey, and T. S. Humble, Benchmarking adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers, Front. Chem. 8, 606863 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  56. W. J. Huggins, J. McClean, N. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 23 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  57. T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measuring all compatible operators in one series of single-qubit mea- surements using unitary transformations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2400 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  58. J. M. Kübler, A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, An adaptive optimizer for measurement-frugal variational algo- rithms, Quantum 4, 263 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  59. K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver for excited states, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033062 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  60. M. Metcalf, N. P. Bauman, K. Kowalski, and W. A. de Jong, Resource efficient chemistry on quantum computers with the variational quantum eigensolver and the double unitary coupled-cluster approach, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 6165 (2020). · DOI
  61. N. P. Bauman, J. Chládek, L. Veis, J. Pittner, and K. Kowalski, Variational quantum eigensolver for approximate diagonaliza- tion of downfolded Hamiltonians using generalized unitary coupled cluster ansatz, quantum, arXiv:2011.01985. · arXiv
  62. T. E. O'Brien, B. Senjean, R. Sagastizabal, X. Bonet-Monroig, A. Dutkiewicz, F. Buda, L. DiCarlo, and L. Visscher, Calcu- lating energy derivatives for quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 113 (2019). · DOI
  63. R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Martinez, Quantum Computation of Electronic Transitions Using a Variational Quantum Eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230401 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  64. S. Yalouz, B. Senjean, J. Günther, F. Buda, T. E. O'Brien, and L. Visscher, A state-averaged orbital-optimized hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for a democratic description of ground and excited states, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 024004 (2021). · DOI
  65. V. E. Elfving, J. A. Gámez, and C. Gogolin, Simulating quantum chemistry in the restricted Hartree-Fock space on a qubit-based quantum computing device, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032605 (2021). · DOI
  66. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parameter- ized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 043001 (2019). · DOI
  67. A. Perdomo-Ortiz, M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-Gomez, and R. Biswas, Opportunities and challenges for quantum-assisted machine learning in near-term quantum computers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 030502 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  68. W. Huggins, P. Patel, K. B. Whaley, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Towards quantum machine learning with tensor networks, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 024001 (2019). · DOI
  69. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost-function-dependent barren plateaus in shallow quantum neural networks, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  70. L. Lamata, Quantum machine learning and quantum biomimetics: A perspective, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 1, 033002 (2020). · DOI
  71. E. Farhi and H. Neven, Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors, arXiv:1802.06002. · arXiv
  72. K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  73. V. Havliček, A. D. Corcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature (London) 567, 209 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  74. M. Schuld, A. Bocharov, K. M. Svore, and N. Wiebe, Circuit- centric quantum classifiers, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032308 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  75. Y. Suzuki, H. Yano, Q. Gao, S. Uno, T. Tanaka, M. Akiyama, and N. Yamamoto, Analysis and synthesis of feature map for kernel-based quantum classifier, Quantum Mach. Intell. 2, 1 (2020). · DOI
  76. H. Yano, Y. Suzuki, R. Raymond, and N. Yamamoto, Efficient discrete feature encoding for variational quantum classifier, arXiv:2005.14382. · arXiv
  77. Y. Du, M.-H. Hsieh, T. Liu, D. Tao, and N. Liu, Quan- tum noise protects quantum classifiers against adversaries, arXiv:2003.09416. · arXiv
  78. J.-G. Liu and L. Wang, Differentiable learning of quantum circuit born machine, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062324 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  79. S. Lloyd and C. Weedbrook, Quantum Generative Adversarial Learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 040502 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  80. J. Zeng, Y. Wu, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and J. Hu, Learn- ing and inference on generative adversarial quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052306 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  81. G. Verdon, M. Broughton, and J. Biamonte, A quantum al- gorithm to train neural networks using low-depth circuits, arXiv:1712.05304. · arXiv
  82. M. Benedetti, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, and S. Severini, Adver- sarial quantum circuit learning for pure state approximation, New J. Phys. 21, 043023 (2019). · DOI
  83. M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V. Leyton- Ortega, Y. Nam, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, A generative model- ing approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 45 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  84. C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, and S. Woerner, Quantum generative adversarial networks for learning and loading random distri- butions, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 103 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  85. J. Romero and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Variational quantum gen- erators: Generative adversarial quantum machine learning for continuous distributions, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2000003 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  86. B. Coyle, D. Mills, V. Danos, and E. Kashefi, The Born supremacy: quantum advantage and training of an Ising Born machine, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 60 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  87. J. S. Otterbach et al., Unsupervised machine learning on a hybrid quantum computer, arXiv:1712.05771. · arXiv
  88. S. S. Mendelson, R. W. Strand, G. B. Oldaker IV, and J. M. Farinholt, Quantum-assisted clustering algorithms for NISQ- era devices, arXiv:1904.08992. · arXiv
  89. V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Machine learning & artificial in- telligence in the quantum domain: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074001 (2018). · DOI
  90. A. A. Melnikov, H. Poulsen Nautrup, M. Krenn, V. Dunjko, M. Tiersch, A. Zeilinger, and H. J. Briegel, Active learning ma- chine learns to create new quantum experiments, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1221 (2018). · DOI
  91. F. Albarran-Arriagada, J. C. Retamal, E. Solano, and L. Lamata, Measurement-based adaptation protocol with quan- tum reinforcement learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042315 (2018). · DOI
  92. A. A. Melnikov, P. Sekatski, and N. Sangouard, Setting Up Experimental Bell Tests with Reinforcement Learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 160401 (2020). · DOI
  93. J. Wallnöfer, A. A. Melnikov, W. Dür, and H. J. Briegel, Machine learning for long-distance quantum communication, PRX Quantum 1, 010301 (2020). · DOI
  94. J. Olivares-Sanchez, J. Casanova, E. Solano, and L. Lamata, Measurement-based adaptation protocol with quantum rein- forcement learning in a rigetti quantum computer, Quantum Rep. 2, 293 (2020). · DOI
  95. J. M. Kreula, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, Non-linear quantum- classical scheme to simulate non-equilibrium strongly cor- related fermionic many-body dynamics, Sci. Rep. 6, 32940 (2016). · DOI
  96. C. Cirstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum sim- ulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  97. S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Varia- tional Quantum Simulation of General Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010501 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  98. D. Paulson, L. Dellantonio, J. F. Haase, A. Celi, A. Kan, A. Jena, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, K. Jansen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Towards simulating 2D effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, arXiv:2008.09252. · arXiv
  99. J. J. Meyer, J. Borregaard, and J. Eisert, A variational toolbox for quantum multi-parameter estimation, arXiv:2006.06303. · arXiv
  100. Y. Ouyang, N. Shettell, and D. Markham, Robust quantum metrology with explicit symmetric states, arXiv:1908.02378. · arXiv
  101. 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
  102. M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  103. K. Mitarai, Y. O. Nakagawa, and W. Mizukami, Theory of analytical energy derivatives for the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013129 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  104. R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Martinez, Hybrid quantum/classical derivative theory: analyti- cal gradients and excited-state dynamics for the multistate con- tracted variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv:1906.08728. · arXiv
  105. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imagi- nary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 75 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  106. J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natu- ral gradient, Quantum 4, 269 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  107. N. Yamamoto, On the natural gradient for variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv:1909.05074. · arXiv
  108. B. Koczor and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum natural gradient generalised to non-unitary circuits, arXiv:1912.08660. · arXiv
  109. 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
  110. B. Koczor and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum analytic descent, arXiv:2008.13774. · arXiv
  111. G. Verdon, J. Pye, and M. Broughton, A universal training algorithm for quantum deep learning, arXiv:1806.09729. · arXiv
  112. K. Beer, D. Bondarenko, T. Farrelly, T. J. Osborne, R. Salzmann, D. Scheiermann, and R. Wolf, Training deep quan- tum neural networks, Nat. Commun. 11, 808 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  113. S. Garg and G. Ramakrishnan, Advances in quantum deep learning: An overview, arXiv:2005.04316. · arXiv
  114. Iris Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat. Phys. 15, 1273 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  115. M. Cerezo and P. J. Coles, Impact of barren plateaus on the hessian and higher order derivatives, arXiv:2008.07454. · arXiv
  116. Y. Herasymenko and T. E. O'Brien, A diagrammatic approach to variational quantum ansatz construction, arXiv:1907.08157. · arXiv
  117. A. Skolik, J. R. McClean, M. Mohseni, P. van der Smagt, and M. Leib, Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks, Quantum Mach. Intell. 3, 5 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  118. S. Sim, J. Romero, J. F. Gonthier, and A. A. Kunitsa, Adap- tive pruning-based optimization of parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025019 (2021). · DOI
  119. Y. Du, T. Huang, S. You, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao, Quantum circuit architecture search: error mitigation and trainability enhancement for variational quantum solvers, arXiv:2010.10217. · arXiv
  120. Shi-Xin Zhang, Chang-Yu Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao, Dif- ferentiable quantum architecture search, arXiv:2010.08561. · arXiv
  121. Kaining Zhang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, L. Liu, and D. Tao, Toward trainability of quantum neural networks, arXiv:2007.11921. · arXiv
  122. D. Zhu, N. M. Linke, M. Benedetti, K. A. Landsman, N. H. Nguyen, C. H. Alderete, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Korda, A. Garfoot, C. Brecque, L. Egan, O. Perdomo, and C. Monroe, Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw9918 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  123. He-Liang Huang, Y. Du, M. Gong, Y. Zhao, Y. Wu, C. Wang, S. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, R. Yang, T. Liu, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, H. Deng, H. Rong, Cheng-Zhi Peng, Chao-Yang Lu, Yu-Ao Chen, D. Tao, X. Zhu, and Jian-Wei Pan, Experimental quantum generative adversarial networks for image genera- tion, arXiv:2010.06201. · arXiv
  124. Ying Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quan- tum Simulator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  125. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  126. S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical Quantum Er- ror Mitigation for Near-Future Applications, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  127. X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. O'Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062339 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  128. S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin, Error-Mitigated Digital Quantum Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 180501 (2019). · DOI
  129. M. Otten and S. K. Gray, Accounting for errors in quantum algorithms via individual error reduction, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 11 (2019). · DOI
  130. D. Bondarenko and P. Feldmann, Quantum Autoencoders to Denoise Quantum Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 130502 (2020). · DOI
  131. T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error miti- gation, arXiv:2005.10921. · arXiv
  132. Hsin-Yuan Huang, K. Bharti, and P. Rebentrost, Near- term quantum algorithms for linear systems of equations, arXiv:1909.07344. · arXiv
  133. C. Bravo-Prieto, R. LaRose, M. Cerezo, Y. Subasi, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum linear solver, arXiv:1909.05820. · arXiv
  134. X. Xu, J. Sun, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational algorithms for linear algebra, arXiv:1909.03898. · arXiv
  135. Chih-Chieh Chen, Shiue-Yuan Shiau, Ming-Feng Wu, and Yuh-Renn Wu, Hybrid classical-quantum linear solver us- ing noisy intermediate-scale quantum machines, Sci. Rep. 9, 16251 (2019). · DOI
  136. M. R. Perelshtein, A. I. Pakhomchik, A. A. Melnikov, A. A. Novikov, A. Glatz, G. S. Paraoanu, V. M. Vinokur, G. B. Lesovik, Advanced quantum supremacy using a hybrid algo- rithm for linear systems of equations, arXiv:2003.12770. · arXiv
  137. A. Borle, V. E. Elfving, and S. J. Lomonaco, Quantum ap- proximate optimization for hard problems in linear algebra, arXiv:2006.15438. · arXiv
  138. J. Pan, Y. Cao, X. Yao, Z. Li, C. Ju, H. Chen, X. Peng, S. Kais, and J. Du, Experimental realization of quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022313 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  139. T. Xin, S. Wei, J. Cui, J. Xiao, I. Arrazola, L. Lamata, X. Kong, D. Lu, E. Solano, and G. Long, Quantum algorithm for solving linear differential equations: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032307 (2020). · DOI
  140. 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
  141. F. Gaitan, Finding flows of a Navier-Stokes fluid through quan- tum computing, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 61 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  142. J. Sirignano and K. Spiliopoulos, DGM: A deep learning algo- rithm for solving partial differential equations, J. Comp. Phys. 375, 1339 (2018). · DOI
  143. I. E. Lagaris, A. Likas, and D. I. Fotiadis, Artificial neural net- works for solving ordinary and partial differential equations, IEEE Trans. Neural. Netw. Learn. Syst. 9, 987 (1998). · DOI
  144. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear par- tial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  145. M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, and G. E. Karniadakis, Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations, Science 367, 1026 (2020). · DOI
  146. Zongyi Li, N. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. Liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandkumar, Fourier neu- ral operator for parametric partial differential equations, arXiv:2010.08895. · arXiv
  147. C. Rackauckas, Y. Ma, J. Martensen, C. Warner, K. Zubov, R. Supekar, D. Skinner, A. Ramadhan, and A. Edelman, Uni- versal differential equations for scientific machine learning, arXiv:2001.04385v3. · arXiv
  148. C. Rackauckas, M. Innes, Y. Ma, J. Bettencourt, L. White, and V. Dixit, DiffEqFlux.jl -A julia library for neural differential equations, arXiv:1902.02376v1. · arXiv
  149. M. Bachmayr, R. Schneider, and A. Uschmajew, Tensor networks and hierarchical tensors for the solution of high- dimensional partial differential equations, Found. Comput. Math. 16, 1423 (2016). · DOI
  150. J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, Quantum-inspired algorithms for mul- tivariate analysis: From interpolation to partial differential equations, Quantum 5, 431 (2021). · DOI
  151. M. Schuld and N. Killoran, Quantum Machine Learning in Feature Hilbert Spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040504 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  152. S. Lloyd, M. Schuld, A. Ijaz, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Quan- tum embeddings for machine learning, arXiv:2001.03622. · arXiv
  153. M. Schuld, R. Sweke, and J. J. Meyer, The effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum ma- chine learning models, Phys. Rev. A 103, 032430 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  154. A. Mari, T. R. Bromley, and N. Killoran, Estimating the gradient and higher-order derivatives on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012405 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  155. J. G. Vidal and D. O. Theis, Input redundancy for parameter- ized quantum circuits, Front. Phys. 8, 297 (2020). · DOI
  156. K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Methodology for replacing indirect measurements with direct measurements, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 013006 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  157. O. Kyriienko, Quantum inverse iteration algorithm for pro- grammable quantum simulators, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 7 (2020). · DOI
  158. E. Ya. Remez and V. T. Gavrilyuk, Computer development of certain approaches to the approximate construction of solutions of Chebyshev problems nonlinearly depending on parameters, Ukr. Mat. Zh. 12, 324 (1960). · DOI
  159. M. J. D. Powell, Approximation Theory and Methods (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1981).
  160. 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
  161. K. Nakaji and N. Yamamoto, Expressibility of the alternating layered ansatz for quantum computation, Quantum 5, 434 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  162. D. Chivilikhin, A. Samarin, V. Ulyantsev, I. Iorsh, A. R. Oganov, and O. Kyriienko, MoG-VQE: Multiobjective genetic variational quantum eigensolver, arXiv:2007.04424. · arXiv
  163. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (ICLR), (ICLR, San Diego, 2015).
  164. A. Neumaier, Solving ill-conditioned and singular linear sys- tems: A tutorial on regularization, SIAM Rev. 40, 636 (1998). · DOI
  165. F. Girosi, M. Jones, and T. Poggio, Regularization theory and neural networks architectures, Neural Comput. 7, 219 (1995). · DOI
  166. X.-Z. Luo, J.-G. Liu, P. Zhang, and L. Wang, Yao.jl: Ex- tensible, efficient framework for quantum algorithm design, Quantum 4, 341 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  167. J.-G. Liu, Y.-H. Zhang, Y. Wan, and L. Wang, Variational quantum eigensolver with fewer qubits, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 023025 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  168. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  169. T. A. Bespalova and O. Kyriienko, Hamiltonian operator approximation for energy measurement and ground state preparation, arXiv:2009.03351. · arXiv
  170. T. Goto, Q. H. Tran, and K. Nakajima, Universal approxima- tion property of quantum feature map, arXiv:2009.00298. · arXiv
  171. S. Y.-C. Chen, T.-C. Wei, C. Zhang, H. Yu, and S. Yoo, Quan- tum convolutional neural networks for high energy physics data analysis, arXiv:2012.12177. · arXiv
  172. A. Pesah, M. Cerezo, S. Wang, T. Volkoff, Andrew T. Sornborger, Patrick J. Coles, Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks, arXiv:2011.02966. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kyriienko, O., Paine, A. E., & Elfving, V. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Qu & Co. (Netherlands) (NL)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
103
Issue
5
ISSN
0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2011.10395
arXiv
2011.10395
OpenAlex
W3108818881
Cited by
185
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Numerical Analysis › Numerical Solvers for Ordinary Differential Equations
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
nonlinear differential equations, quantum feature maps, automatic differentiation, hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, spectral methods, Navier-Stokes equations, convergent-divergent nozzle, fluid flow, boundary conditions

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