CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Cost of Emulating a Small Quantum Annealing Problem in the Circuit-Model

Open access
Gonzalez-Conde, Javier, Morrell, Zachary, Vuffray, Marc, Albash, Tameem, Coffrin, Carleton·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.17667arXiv 2402.17667

Preprint — published as 10.1103/physreva.111.062606

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Demonstrations of quantum advantage for certain sampling problems have generated considerable excitement for quantum computing and have further spurred the development of circuit-model quantum computers, which represent quantum programs as a sequence of quantum gates acting on a finite number of qubits. Amongst this excitement, analog quantum computation has become less prominent, with the expectation that circuit-model quantum computers will eventually be sufficient for emulating analog quantum computation and thus rendering analog quantum computation obsolete. In this work we explore the basic requirements for emulating a specific analog quantum computation in the circuit model: the preparation of a biased superposition of degenerate ground states of an Ising Hamiltonian using an adiabatic evolution. We show that the overhead of emulation is substantial even for this simple problem. This supports using analog quantum computation for solving time-dependent Hamiltonian dynamics in the short term and midterm, assuming analog errors can be made low enough and coherence times long enough to solve problems of practical interest.

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.2402.17667

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?

  • Trotterization methods are commonly employed, and allow discretization errors that are controlled polynomially in dt, with a number of unitary operations that scales linearly in the number of Hamiltonian terms and simulation time.

    “Trotterization methods are commonly employed, and allow discretization errors that are controlled polynomially in dt, with a number of unitary operations that scales linearly in the number of Hamiltonian terms and simulation time IV .”

    From Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

    Section II.A describes a Trotter–Suzuki decomposition into gates, and Appendix D gives approximation errors polynomial in the time step. Section II.A also says the gate count depends on the number of discretization steps and gates per step, but the paper does not establish the claimed general linear scaling with both Hamiltonian-term count and simulation time; its step counts are chosen to meet an accuracy target. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Similar conclusions have been drawn in more detailed analyses of related problems.

    “Similar conclusions have been drawn in more detailed analyses of related problems 106 .”

    From Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

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: 150

  1. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. Brandao, D. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, J. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li et al., Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  3. J. C. Hoke, M. Ippoliti, E. Rosenberg, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell et al., Measurement-induced entanglement and teleportation on a noisy quantum processor, Nature (London) 622, 481 (2023). · DOI
  4. D. Deutsch and R. Penrose, Quantum theory, the church- turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. R. Soc. London A 400, 97 (1985). · DOI · Paper page
  5. A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. A. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  6. A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russ. Math. Surv. 52, 1191 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  7. P. Boykin, T. Mor, M. Pulver, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, A new universal and fault-tolerant quantum basis, Inf. Process. Lett. 75, 101 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Y. Shi, Both Toffoli and Controlled-NOT need little help to do universal quantum computation, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 84 (2003). · DOI
  9. D. Aharonov, A simple proof that Toffoli and Hadamard are quantum universal, arXiv:quant-ph/0301040. · arXiv
  10. A. Mizel, D. A. Lidar, and M. Mitchell, Simple proof of equivalence between adiabatic quantum computation and the circuit model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070502 (2007). · DOI
  11. A. M. Childs, Universal computation by quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180501 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  12. D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equiva- lent to standard quantum computation, in 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Rome, Italy, 2004).
  13. V. E. Zobov and A. S. Ermilov, Realizations of standard quantum computational circuits by adiabatic evolution, Theor. Math. Phys. 150, 393 (2007). · DOI
  14. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  15. J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation, Nat. Phys. 8, 264 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  16. I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  17. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  18. F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, and D. Gerace, Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators: State-of-the- art and perspectives, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900052 (2020). · DOI
  19. D. Camps, E. Kökcü, L. B. Oftelie, W. A. de Jong, A. F. Kemper, and R. V. Beeumen, An algebraic quantum circuit compression algorithm for Hamiltonian simulation, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 43, 1084 (2022). · DOI
  20. L. Clinton, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Hamiltonian simulation algorithms for near-term quantum hardware, Nat. Commun. 12, 4989 (2021). · DOI
  21. E. Kökcü, T. Steckmann, Y. Wang, J. K. Freericks, E. F. Dumitrescu, and A. F. Kemper, Fixed depth Hamiltonian sim- ulation via cartan decomposition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070501 (2022). · DOI
  22. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using lin- ear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 12, 901 (2012). · DOI
  23. R. Barends, A. Shabani, L. Lamata, J. Kelly, A. Mezzacapo, U. L. Heras, R. Babbush, A. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, P. O'Malley et al., Digitized adiabatic quantum computing with a superconduct- ing circuit, Nature (London) 534, 222 (2016). · DOI
  24. H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, in Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society (Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1959), Vol. 10, pp. 545-551.
  25. M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter's formula and systematic ap- proximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many body problems, Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976). · DOI · Paper page
  26. D. Layden, First-order trotter error from a second-order per- spective, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 210501 (2022). · DOI
  27. L. Pastori, T. Olsacher, C. Kokail, and P. Zoller, Characteriza- tion and verification of trotterized digital quantum simulation via Hamiltonian and liouvillian learning, PRX Quantum 3, 030324 (2022). · DOI
  28. Y. Dong, K. B. Whaley, and L. Lin, A quantum Hamiltonian simulation benchmark, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 131 (2022). · DOI
  29. E. Campbell, Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian simula- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019). · DOI
  30. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  31. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, Y. Su, X. Wang, and N. Wiebe, Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation with l 1 -norm scaling, Quantum 4, 254 (2020). · DOI
  32. J. Watkins, N. Wiebe, A. Roggero, and D. Lee, Time- dependent Hamiltonian simulation using discrete clock con- structions, PRX Quantum 5, 040316 (2024). · DOI
  33. Y.-H. Chen, A. Kalev, and I. Hen, Quantum algorithm for time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation by permutation ex- pansion, PRX Quantum 2, 030342 (2021). · DOI
  34. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamiltonian sim- ulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2015).
  35. D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Effi- cient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys. 270, 359 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  36. J. Gonzalez-Conde and A. T. Sornborger, Mixed Quantum- Semiclassical Simulation, arXiv:2308.16147. · arXiv
  37. A. M. Childs, E. Farhi, and J. Preskill, Robustness of adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012322 (2001). · DOI
  38. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm ap- plied to random instances of an NP-complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  39. K. Sugisaki, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Adiabatic state preparation of correlated wave functions with nonlinear scheduling functions and broken-symmetry wave functions, Commun. Chem. 5, 84 (2022). · DOI
  40. E. A. Coello Pérez, J. Bonitati, D. Lee, S. Quaglioni, and K. A. Wendt, Quantum state preparation by adiabatic evolution with custom gates, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032403 (2022). · DOI
  41. J. Du, N. Xu, X. Peng, P. Wang, S. Wu, and D. Lu, NMR implementation of a molecular hydrogen quantum simulation with adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 030502 (2010). · DOI
  42. K. Wan and I. H. Kim, Fast digital methods for adiabatic state preparation, arXiv:2004.04164. · arXiv
  43. R. T. Brierley, C. Creatore, P. B. Littlewood, and P. R. Eastham, Adiabatic state preparation of interacting two-level systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 043002 (2012). · DOI
  44. A. Kantian, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, η condensate of fermionic atom pairs via adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 240406 (2010). · DOI
  45. U. Farooq, A. Bayat, S. Mancini, and S. Bose, Adiabatic many-body state preparation and information transfer in quan- tum dot arrays, Phys. Rev. B 91, 134303 (2015). · DOI
  46. R. G. Unanyan, N. V. Vitanov, and K. Bergmann, Preparation of entangled states by adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 137902 (2001). · DOI
  47. A. S. Sørensen, E. Altman, M. Gullans, J. V. Porto, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Adiabatic preparation of many- body states in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 81, 061603(R) (2010). · DOI
  48. A. Finnila, M. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, and J. Doll, Quantum annealing: A new method for minimizing multidi- mensional functions, Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343 (1994). · DOI
  49. T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  50. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106. · arXiv
  51. S. Boixo, T. Albash, F. M. Spedalieri, N. Chancellor, and D. A. Lidar, Experimental signature of programmable quantum an- nealing, Nat. Commun. 4, 2067 (2013). · DOI
  52. G. E. Santoro, R. Martoňák, E. Tosatti, and R. Car, Theory of quantum annealing of an ising spin glass, Science 295, 2427 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  53. S. Boixo, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, Z. Wang, D. Wecker, D. A. Lidar, J. M. Martinis, and M. Troyer, Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits, Nat. Phys. 10, 218 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  54. M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolkacheva et al., Quantum an- nealing with manufactured spins, Nature (London) 473, 194 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  55. A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum Annealing and Re- lated Optimization Methods (Springer, Berlin, 2005), Vol. 679.
  56. P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations, Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 054401 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  57. S. Morita and H. Nishimori, Mathematical foundation of quan- tum annealing, J. Math. Phys. 49, 125210 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  58. G. Bigan Mbeng, R. Fazio, and G. Santoro, Quantum an- nealing: A journey through digitalization, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes, arXiv:1906.08948. · arXiv
  59. R. D. Somma, D. Nagaj, and M. Kieferová, Quantum speedup by quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050501 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  60. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  61. K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Error-corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits, Nat. Commun. 5, 3243 (2014). · DOI
  62. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Demonstration of a scaling advan- tage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031016 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  63. T. Albash, W. Vinci, A. Mishra, P. A. Warburton, and D. A. Lidar, Consistency tests of classical and quantum models for a quantum annealer, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042314 (2015). · DOI
  64. I. Hen, J. Job, T. Albash, T. F. Rønnow, M. Troyer, and D. A. Lidar, Probing for quantum speedup in spin-glass problems with planted solutions, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042325 (2015). · DOI
  65. M. Vuffray, C. Coffrin, Y. A. Kharkov, and A. Y. Lokhov, Programmable quantum annealers as noisy Gibbs samplers, PRX Quantum 3, 020317 (2022). · DOI
  66. J. Nelson, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, and C. Coffrin, Single- qubit fidelity assessment of quantum annealing hardware, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 2, 1 (2021). · DOI
  67. J. Nelson, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, T. Albash, and C. Coffrin, High-quality thermal Gibbs sampling with quantum annealing hardware, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044046 (2022). · DOI
  68. Z. Morrell, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, A. Bärtschi, T. Albash, and C. Coffrin, Signatures of open and noisy quantum sys- tems in single-qubit quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034053 (2023). · DOI
  69. E. Kapit and V. Oganesyan, Noise-tolerant quantum speedups in quantum annealing without fine tuning, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025013 (2021). · DOI
  70. 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. USA 115, 9456 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  71. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, in Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM, New York, 2014).
  72. 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
  73. J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamil- tonians, SIAM J. Comput. 52, FOCS18 (2021). · DOI
  74. A. Kalev and I. Hen, Quantum algorithm for simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with an off-diagonal series expansion, Quantum 5, 426 (2021). · DOI
  75. B. Şahinoglu and R. D. Somma, Hamiltonian simulation in the low-energy subspace, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 119 (2021). · DOI
  76. A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021). · DOI
  77. J. M. Martyn, Y. Liu, Z. E. Chin, and I. L. Chuang, Effi- cient fully-coherent quantum signal processing algorithms for real-time dynamics simulation, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 024106 (2023). · DOI
  78. D. Poulin, A. Qarry, R. Somma, and F. Verstraete, Quantum simulation of time-dependent Hamiltonians and the conve- nient illusion of Hilbert space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 170501 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  79. T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Defining and detecting quantum speedup, Science 345, 420 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  80. B. A. Cipra, An introduction to the ising model, Am. Math. Mon. 94, 937 (1987). · DOI
  81. R. J. Glauber, Time-dependent statistics of the Ising model, J. Math. Phys. 4, 294 (1963). · DOI
  82. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017). · DOI
  83. G. H. Low and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation in the inter- action picture, arXiv:1805.00675. · arXiv
  84. D. An, D. Fang, and L. Lin, Time-dependent unbounded Hamiltonian simulation with vector norm scaling, Quantum 5, 459 (2021). · DOI
  85. C.-F. Chen and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Average-case speedup for product formulas, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 32 (2024). · DOI
  86. S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, Magnus and fer expansions for matrix differential equations: The convergence problem, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 259 (1998). · DOI
  87. C. Yi, Success of digital adiabatic simulation with large Trotter step, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052603 (2021). · DOI
  88. C. Yi and E. Crosson, Spectral analysis of product formulas for quantum simulation, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 37 (2022). · DOI
  89. L. K. Kovalsky, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, M. D. Grace, A. B. Magann, J. B. Larsen, A. D. Baczewski, and M. Sarovar, Self- healing of Trotter error in digital adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060602 (2023). · DOI
  90. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011).
  91. W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equa- tions for a linear operator, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954). · DOI
  92. S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The magnus ex- pansion and some of its applications, Phys. Rep. 470, 151 (2009). · DOI
  93. N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product for- mulas of higher orders, in Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 37-68.
  94. S. Zhuk, N. Robertson, and S. Bravyi, Trotter error bounds and dynamic multi-product formulas for Hamiltonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033309 (2024). · DOI
  95. T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 5, 435 (1950). · DOI
  96. R. B. Stinchcombe, Ising model in a transverse field. I. Basic theory, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6, 2459 (1973). · DOI
  97. F. Barahona, On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 15, 3241 (1982). · DOI
  98. E. Grant, T. S. Humble, and B. Stump, Benchmarking quan- tum annealing controls with portfolio optimization, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 014012 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  99. J. Côté, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, M. Jonsson, L. Cincio, and T. Albash, Diabatic quantum annealing for the frus- trated ring model, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 045033 (2023). · DOI
  100. Y. Matsuda, H. Nishimori, and H. G. Katzgraber, Ground-state statistics from annealing algorithms: quantum versus classical approaches, New J. Phys. 11, 073021 (2009). · DOI
  101. S. W. Shin, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and U. Vazirani, How "quantum" is the D-wave machine? arXiv:1401.7087. · arXiv
  102. J. A. Smolin and G. Smith, Classical signature of quantum annealing, Front. Phys. 2 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  103. I. H. Deutsch, Harnessing the power of the second quantum revolution, PRX Quantum 1, 020101 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  104. Z. Morrell, M. Vuffray, S. Misra, and C. Coffrin, Quantuman- nealing: A julia package for simulating dynamics of transverse field ising models, in IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2024), Vol. 1, pp. 764-773.
  105. G. Mauro D'Ariano, M. G. Paris, and M. F. Sacchi, Quan- tum tomography, in Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, edited by P. W. Hawkes (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003), Vol. 128, pp. 205-308.
  106. I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, A. Aspuru- Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Improved fault-tolerant quantum simulation of condensed-phase correlated electrons via Trotterization, Quantum 4, 296 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  107. A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Influence of dissipation on quantum tunneling in macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 211 (1981). · DOI
  108. H. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).
  109. S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, G. H. Low, A. Buyskikh, I. Bloch, P. Zoller, M. Troyer, and A. J. Daley, Propagation of errors and quantitative quantum simulation with quantum advantage, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045025 (2022). · DOI
  110. A. Suau, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, L. Cincio, and C. Coffrin, Vector field visualization of single-qubit state tomography, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alami- tos, CA, 2022), pp. 528-534.
  111. N. Ezzell, B. Pokharel, L. Tewala, G. Quiroz, and D. A. Lidar, Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A perfor- mance survey, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 064027 (2023). · DOI
  112. P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein, Can one trust quantum simulators? Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 082401 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  113. Z. Zhu, A. J. Ochoa, S. Schnabel, F. Hamze, and H. G. Katzgraber, Best-case performance of quantum annealers on native spin-glass benchmarks: How chaos can affect success probabilities, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012317 (2016). · DOI
  114. T. Albash, V. Martin-Mayor, and I. Hen, Analog er- rors in Ising machines, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 02LT03 (2019). · DOI
  115. E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations, Commun. Math. Phys. 39, 91 (1974). · DOI · Paper page
  116. T. Albash, S. Boixo, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, Quantum adi- abatic Markovian master equations, New J. Phys. 14, 123016 (2012). · DOI
  117. A. D. King, S. Suzuki, J. Raymond, A. Zucca, T. Lanting, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, S. Ejtemaee, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, J. D. Whittaker, J. Yao, R. Harris et al., Coherent quantum annealing in a programmable 2,000 qubit ising chain, Nat. Phys. 18, 1324 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  118. M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. Hao Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage, arXiv:2211.07629. · arXiv
  119. M. Suchara, J. Kubiatowicz, A. Faruque, F. T. Chong, C.-Y. Lai, and G. Paz, Qure: The quantum resource estimator tool- box, in 2013 IEEE 31st International Conference on Computer Design (ICCD) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2013).
  120. J. Howard, A. Lidiak, C. Jameson, B. Basyildiz, K. Clark, T. Zhao, M. Bal, J. Long, D. P. Pappas, M. Singh, and Z. Gong, Implementing two-qubit gates at the quantum speed limit, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043194 (2023). · DOI
  121. Z. Li, M.-J. Liang, and Z.-Y. Xue, Time-optimal universal quantum gates on superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042617 (2023). · DOI
  122. F. Setiawan, P. Groszkowski, and A. A. Clerk, Fast and robust geometric two-qubit gates for superconducting qubits and be- yond, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034071 (2023). · DOI
  123. X.-Y. Lü, S. Ashhab, W. Cui, R. Wu, and F. Nori, Two- qubit gate operations in superconducting circuits with strong coupling and weak anharmonicity, New J. Phys. 14, 073041 (2012). · DOI
  124. S. Sheldon, L. S. Bishop, E. Magesan, S. Filipp, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Characterizing errors on qubit opera- tions via iterative randomized benchmarking, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012301 (2016). · DOI
  125. J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  126. J. K. Iverson and J. Preskill, Coherence in logical quantum channels, New J. Phys. 22, 073066 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  127. C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Classically optimized Hamil- tonian simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023146 (2023). · DOI
  128. C. Mc Keever and M. Lubasch, Towards adiabatic quantum computing using compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 020362 (2024). · DOI
  129. C. Cîrstoiu, 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
  130. R. Oliveira and B. M. Terhal, The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two-dimensional square lattice, Quantum Inf. Comp., 8, 900 (2008). · DOI
  131. S. P. Jordan and E. Farhi, Perturbative gadgets at arbitrary orders, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062329 (2008). · DOI
  132. Y. Cao and D. Nagaj, Perturbative gadgets without strong interactions, Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 1197 (2015). · DOI
  133. J. Bausch, Perturbation gadgets: Arbitrary energy scales from a single strong interaction, Ann. Henri Poincaré 21, 81 (2020). · DOI
  134. E. Mozgunov, Precision of quantum simulation of all-to-all coupling in a local architecture, arXiv:2302.02458. · arXiv
  135. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum compu- tation with constant error, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '97 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1997), pp. 176-188.
  136. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quan- tum computation: error models and thresholds, Proc. R. Soc. London A 454, 365 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  137. J.-Y. Choi, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauß, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Yefsah, V. Khemani, D. A. Huse, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Exploring the many-body localization transition in two dimen- sions, Science 352, 1547 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  138. C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Bohrdt, M. Xu, M. Knap, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, M. Greiner, and D. Greif, String patterns in the doped hubbard model, Science 365, 251 (2019). · DOI
  139. J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, P. Sompet, F. Grusdt, T. A. Hilker, E. Demler, G. Salomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Imaging magnetic polarons in the doped fermi-hubbard model, Nature (London) 572, 358 (2019). · DOI
  140. G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  141. P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. Läuchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simu- lation of 2d antiferromagnets with hundreds of rydberg atoms, Nature (London) 595, 233 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  142. C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021). · DOI
  143. A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis et al., Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000-qubit pro- grammable spin glass, Nature (London) 617, 61 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  144. V. Kashyap, G. Styliaris, S. Mouradian, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Accuracy guarantees and quantum advantage in ana- logue open quantum simulation with and without noise, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021017 (2025). · DOI
  145. G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976). · DOI · Paper page
  146. A. Redfield, The theory of relaxation processes, in Advances in Magnetic Resonance, Advances in Magnetic and Optical Resonance, edited by J. S. Waugh (Academic, New York, 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 1-32.
  147. R. Kubo, Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible pro- cesses. I. General theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957). · DOI · Paper page
  148. P. C. Martin and J. Schwinger, Theory of many-particle sys- tems. I, Phys. Rev. 115, 1342 (1959). · DOI · Paper page
  149. R. Haag, N. M. Hugenholtz, and M. Winnink, On the equilib- rium states in quantum statistical mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 5, 215 (1967). · DOI
  150. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062320 (2015). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gonzalez-Conde, J., Morrell, Z., Vuffray, M., Albash, T., & Coffrin, C.
Affiliations
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • Sandia National Laboratories California (US)
Corresponding author
Gonzalez-Conde, Javier
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
111
Issue
6
ISSN
0556-2791 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.17667
arXiv
2402.17667
OpenAlex
W4411025155
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review A (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2037755)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DENA0003525)
  • Honeywell
  • European Commission (13039/501100011033, 501100011033, 101113946, HORIZON-CL4-2022)
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (KK-2024/00105, PID2021-125823NA-I00, RYC-2020-030503-I, IT1470- 22)
  • Basque Center for Applied Mathematics
  • Office of Science
  • European Regional Development Fund (13039/501100011033, 501100011033, PID2021-125823NA-I00, IT1470-22)
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (501100011033, 13039, .13039/501100011033, PID2021-125823NA-I00, AEI/10)
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (20240032DR, 20230546DR, 20210114ER)
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 annealing, Ising Hamiltonian, ground state degeneracy, adiabatic evolution, quantum advantage

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