Arxiv:2007.01582V2 [Quant-Ph] 15 Jul 2020

Preparing symmetry broken ground states with variational quantum algorithms

Nicolas Vogt,∗ Sebastian Zanker, Jan-Michael Reiner, and Michael Marthaler HQS Quantum Simulations GmbH Haid-und-Neu-Straße 7 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

Thomas Eckl and Anika Marusczyk Robert Bosch GmbH Robert-Bosch-Campus 1 71272 Renningen, Germany (Dated: July 16, 2020) One of the most promising applications for near term quantum computers is the simulation of physical quantum systems, particularly many-electron systems in chemistry and condensed matter physics. In solid state physics, finding the correct symmetry broken ground state of an interacting electron system is one of the central challenges. The Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz (VHA), a variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithm especially suited for finding the ground state of a solid state system, will in general not prepare a broken symmetry state unless the initial state is chosen to exhibit the correct symmetry. In this work, we discuss three variations of the VHA designed to find the correct broken symmetry states close to a transition point between different orders. As a test case we use the two-dimensional Hubbard model where we break the symmetry explicitly by means of external fields coupling to the Hamiltonian and calculate the response to these fields. For the calculation we simulate a gate-based quantum computer and also consider the effects of dephasing noise on the algorithms. We find that two of the three algorithms are in good agreement with the exact solution for the considered parameter range. The third algorithm agrees with the exact solution only for a part of the parameter regime, but is more robust with respect to dephasing compared to the other two algorithms.

I. INTRODUCTION systems with broken symmetries. Understanding broken symmetries and the corresponding phase transitions in solid state systems is one of the central problems in con- The simulation of fermionic quantum systems is one densed matter physics. Being able to identify the correct of the most promising applications for near-term noisy order of the ground state of a large simulated system near intermediate scale quantum computers (NISQ). An im- a (quantum) critical phase transition with the help of a portant use-case is computing the ground state and the quantum computer could have an immediate impact on ground state energy of an electron system, for example, a wide ﬁeld of research ranging from high T supercon- the Hamiltonian of a molecule or a condensed matter C ductivity to magnetism. system. The VHA is especially well-suited for condensed mat- The currently most promising algorithms for near term ter problems. The Hamiltonian of a solid state system quantum computers are the Variational Quantum Eigen- 1 without disorder can often be mapped to model Hamilto- solvers (VQE) . These are hybrid quantum-classical al- nians that – due to its lattice structure – can be decom- gorithms combining a quantum computation of the en- posed into a small number of partial Hamiltonians. This ergy expectation value of a parameterized trial state with leads to a small number of classical parameters in the a classical optimization. Due to the combination of classi- Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz. Whether or not the hy- cal parameter optimization and quantum computations, brid quantum classical algorithm can detect the correct the typical circuit width and depth of a VQE are signiﬁ-

arXiv:2007.01582v2 [quant-ph] 15 Jul 2020 order of a ground state depends on the available trial cantly lower than for quantum phase estimation (QPE), states in the Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz. In this another well-known algorithm to find the ground state of 2–4 work, we discuss three variants of the VHA that ensure a quantum system . that the set of possible trial states includes states with Different types of VQE are mainly distinguished by the correct broken symmetries. the ansatz for the trial states. The two most widely used In section II, we give a short overview of the VHA variants are the unitary Coupled Cluster Single Double and the symmetry properties of trial states and intro- ansatz (uCCSD) and the Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz duce the three variants used in this work: VHA with 4,5 (VHA) . In recent years, there has been continuous post-selection (VHAPS), Variational Extended Hamilto- progress in the development of VQE methods including nian Ansatz (VEHA) and Variational Mean Field Hamil- 6–9 extensions to find excited states . For an overview, we tonian Ansatz (VMFHA). In section III, we introduce the refer the reader to Ref.10. two-dimensional Hubbard model as a test case to com- In this work, we focus on the Hamiltonian Ansatz for pare the three approaches. The computationally feasible variational algorithms and its application to solid state system sizes of 3 by 2 Hubbard sites are too small to ob- 2 serve proper phase transitions. We therefore use a model The unitary transformation of the VHA is given by, with explicitly broken symmetries and study the dominant response of order-parameters to external fields. In n N ~ Y Y iθα,kHα section IV, we present the results of full simulations of U(θ) = e , (6) the three algorithms as they would run on a quantum k=1 α=1 computer. For these results, the entire gate-based trial where the N terms of the Hamiltonian are applied n- state preparation including initialization and noise has times to the initial state in a pseudo-time-evolution. been simulated on a classical computer. The quality of the result of the variational approach depends on which states can be reached by the trial states. The set of possible trial states also determines which bro- II. VARIATIONAL ALGORITHMS ken symmetry ground state can be found. In general, the standard VHA cannot break symme- A. The standard VHA and broken symmetries tries of the Hamiltonian H that are also symmetries of the initial state |ψ0i. To illustrate this, consider a Hamil- The Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz4 (VHA) is a vari- tonian H that is invariant under a symmetry transforma- ational algorithm designed to find the ground state of a tion TˆS. By definition the symmetry operator commutes system described by a Hamiltonian H. The key idea of with the full Hamiltonian, variational algorithms is to apply a unitary operator U(θ~) h i to an initial state |ψ0i that is easy to prepare, which gives TˆS,H = 0 . (7) a trial state as a function of the classical parameters θ~, E In many cases of practical interest it will also commute ~ ~ ψ(θ) = U(θ) |ψ0i . (1) with the separate terms of the Hamiltonian, h i The energy of the trial state then also depends on these TˆS,Hα = 0 . (8) parameters, D E One example for the Hubbard model would be the spin- ~ ~ ~ E(θ) = ψ(θ) H ψ(θ) , (2) flip operator that is associated with the broken symmetry in the anti-ferromagnetic state. The spin-flip opera- and has the ground state energy Egs of the Hamiltonian tor commutes with all hopping terms and the interaction H as a lower bound, term of the Hubbard model separately. The symmetry operator also commutes with all the ~ Egs ≤ E(θ) . (3) unitary evolution operators that are applied to the initial state in the VHA algorithm individually in (6), Minimizing the energy yields an optimal parameter set ~ n m θmin such that E Y Y ˆ ˆ ~ ˆ −iHαθα,k TS ψ(θ) = TS e |ψ0i (9) ~ ~ s=1 k=1 E(θmin) = min E(θ) . (4) θ~ n m Y Y −iHˆαθα,k = e TˆS |ψ0i . (10) In the ideal case, the trial states span the whole Hilbert s=1 k=1 space of the problem and the classical optimizer finds the true global minimum of E(θ~). In that case, the trial state If the initial state is invariant under the symmetry corresponding to the optimized parameters, transformation, so is every state created by the VHA,

~ Tˆ |ψ i = |ψ i ⇒ Tˆ |ψ i = |ψ i . (11) ψVHA = ψ(θmin) , (5) S 0 0 S vha vha is the true ground state. In reality both assumptions will The only way to break a general symmetry TˆS of the not hold and ψVHA is merely an approximation of the Hamiltonian H in the standard VHA is to deliberately true ground state. decompose the Hamiltonian into parts Hα that do not in- The choice of the unitary transformation in the Vari- dividually commute with TˆS. We do not expect this to be ational Hamiltonian Ansatz is inspired by the adiabatic a very efficient approach in general as one of the main ad- evolution. The unitary transformations correspond to vantages of the VHA is that the application of physically time-evolutions under partial Hamiltonians of the full motivated unitary transformations to the initial states Hamiltonian H. We assume that the Hamiltonian can be minimizes the number of classical parameters in the op- PN separated into N partial Hamiltonians, H = α=1 Hα. timization problem. Reverting to a very general decom- For example a Hamiltonian could be split into terms ex- position of the Hamiltonian (for example each hopping pressing hopping in x-direction, hopping in y-direction term between two sites as a separate Hamiltonian) would and on-site interaction. bring back the scaling problems with system size that 3 the VHA avoids compared to the general VQE. Choos- superconducting gap, ing a decomposition that only contains a small number c of partial Hamiltonians but breaks symmetries on pur- ∆ij = 0 (14) pose would be at least as complex as using the VEHA * + (Sec:II C) and VMFHA (Sec:II D) algorithms, but would nc X † † ∆ij = δj,iU δk,lcˆkcl , (15) lack the systematic approach to symmetry breaking of k,l the VEHA and VMFHA. nc where δj,i and therefore ∆ij are only non-zero when i and j correspond to states with opposite momentum and spin: i = (m, ↑) and i = (−m, ↓), where m is a momentum. B. VHA with post-selection When the system is close to a phase transition and the correct order of the ground state is not known, we When using the VHA to obtain a ground state energy can still use Mean Field ground states as initial states. estimate for a system with known (broken) symmetries, We assume that we understand the system in question the problem simplifies to preparing an initial state |ψ0i sufficiently well to know the possible order parameters with the correct symmetry. Additionally, the initial state and the corresponding Mean Field operators close to the should have a large overlap with the true ground state, phase transition. We perform an independent VHA run in order to obtain the best possible estimate of the true for each possible order with the self consistent Mean Field ground state from the classical optimizer. A good way ground state as the respective initial state. From the set to achieve a given broken symmetry and a large overlap of results {E1,E2,...} we choose the lowest energy in a with the true ground state is to use the ground state of a post-selection. In accordance with the variational princi- Mean Field approximation of the full interacting Hamil- ple (3), the energy and order chosen by post-selection are tonian as the initial state. All ground states of fermionic our best approximations of the true ground state energy quadratic Mean Field Hamiltonians are Gaussian states and ground state wave function. which can be efficiently prepared on a quantum computer The post-selection approach is similar to the approach with O(M 2) gates and O(M) circuit depth11, where M of Ref.2: start in a ground state of a symmetry breaking is the number of fermionic modes in the Hamiltonian. Hamiltonian, adiabatically evolve to the desired Hamilto- Consider the general interacting, non-particle-number- nian and detect symmetry transitions on the way. When conserving Hamiltonian, no symmetry transition occurs, the starting state had the correct symmetry of the ground state. X † X H = αijci cj + h.c. + βijcicj + h.c. ij ij X † † C. Variational Extended Hamiltonian Ansatz + γijklci cjckcl + h.c. , (12) ijkl As an alternative to post-selection we propose the Vari- ational Extended Hamiltonian Ansatz (VEHA), where where c are fermionic annihilation operators. With i D E compared to the standard VHA in (6) additional explic- c ˆ c the particle conserving mean field ∆ij = ∆ij = itly symmetry breaking terms and optimization parame- D P † E nc ters θ~E are introduced. An approach using set symmetry − k,l γikjlckcl and the non-conserving field ∆ij = D E D E breaking terms without additional variational parameters ˆ nc P † † ∆ij = k,l γijklckcl , the corresponding mean field has recently been used in Ref.12. In the VEHA we start Hamiltonian reads, from an empty or vacuum state |vaci and create particles in the system by applying the symmetry breaking terms. X † X We obtain the VEHA ansatz form the standard VHA (6) H = α c c + h.c. + β c c + h.c. MF ij i j ij i j with the substitutions: ij ij X c † X nc + ∆ijci cj + h.c. + ∆ij cicj + h.c. . (13) |ψ0i → |vaci (16) ij ij E {Hα} → {Hα,Hβ } (17) The values of the mean fields are determined by a simple θ~ → θ,~ θ~E (18) self-consistency loop, repeatedly evaluating the expecta- n !   c/nc Y Y Y E E ˆ ~ ~E iθα,kHα iθβ,kHβ tion values of ∆ij with respect to the the ground state U(θ, θ ) = e  e  . (19) of HMF until the expectation values and the values in k=1 α β HMF converge. The (broken) symmetries of the Mean Field ground The symmetry breaking terms are chosen based on the state depend on the Mean Field operators included at potential ground state phases of the system so that they the start of the self-consistency loop. For example, in would prepare a symmetry broken state starting from an a superconductor the chosen Mean Field would be the empty system. These additional terms must always be 4 able to at least break particle-number conservation to solutions with non-zero expectation values for several leave the vacuum state, mean-fields.

iHE The optimization of the initial state preparation in |ψsym-brokeni = e 1 |vaci . (20) the VMFHA is similar to the approach recently used by Google to run the Hartree-Fock method on a quantum For example, if we suspect that a given system has computer13 a superconducting ground state, we add the explicitly symmetry breaking term,

E X † † H1 = ci↑ci↓ + h.c. , (21) i E. Circuit depths of the Variational Algorithms that creates a Cooper pair on each site. It is important to E note that the explicitly symmetry breaking terms Hβ are The circuit depth of the VHA and VMFHA is deter- in general not the same as the order parameter operators mined by two parts of the algorithm, the initial state c/nc ∆ij . preparation and the unitary evolution of the initial state During the minimization of the energy, the classical in the trial state preparation. Following Ref.11 the circuit optimizer determines how particles are added to the sys- depth of the initialization scales as O(N) with system size tem via the parameters θ~E. If the optimization succeeds, N while the total number of gates scales as O(N 2). The it finds a state with the correct symmetry. scaling of the unitary evolution part strongly depends In principle, non-particle number conserving terms on the available quantum computer topology and the could also be added to a VHA with a traditional ini- type of system Hamiltonian that is decomposed into par- tialization to try to change the symmetry of the initial tial Hamiltonians Hα. We cannot make a general state- state. In this case the optimizer needs to find a set of ment about the scaling behaviour, but taking the two- parameters that first removes population from the sys- dimensional Hubbard model as an example, the unitary tem and then adds population in a way that changes the evolution of the system under the√ full Hubbard Hamil- symmetry. This is difficult and the VEHA encounters tonian can be calculated with O( N) circuit depth and instabilities in the optimizer when used on top of some O(N) gates. Note that not every unitary evolution under initial state already containing fermions or bosons. The a partial Hamiltonian Hα requires that circuit depth as VEHA is best used starting from the empty state. the decomposed Hamiltonians can be easier to simulate than the full Hubbard Hamiltonian. In the VEHA, the circuit depth is fully determined by D. Variational Mean Field Hamiltonian Ansatz the unitary evolution as we start from an empty system without initialization. The unitary evolution will have The Variational Mean Field Hamiltonian Ansatz slightly higher depth as it now contains the additional (VMFHA) is a combination of the VHA with post- E evolution corresponding to the Hβ terms. Again we can- selection and the VEHA. It starts from a Mean Field not make general scaling statements, but for the exam- ground state, but allows the classical optimizer to influ- ple of a two-dimensional Hubbard model the additional ence the initial mean fields. depth due to the HE terms is in O(1) while the number We make an ansatz for a Mean Field Hamiltonian as β c/nc of additional gates scales as O(N). in (13), including all Mean Fields ∆ij that correspond to potential orders of the system. For the transition between superconducting and anti-ferromagnetic order in the Hubbard model, for example, we would choose the superconducting gap and the anti-ferromagnetic order. III. THE HUBBARD MODEL AS A TEST CASE The values of the Mean Fields are not determined by a self-consistency loop but taken to be free parameters in the initialization, To compare VHA with postselection, VEHA and VMFHA, we consider symmetry breaking in the two-

~ c nc E ~ c nc dimensional Hubbard model. The system sizes accessible ψ(θ, {∆ }, {∆ }) = U(θ) ψ0({∆ }, {∆ }) . (22) ij ij ij ij to numerical simulation of the full quantum algorithm are In the energy minimization, the Mean Fields are treated too small to observe proper symmetry breaking. There- as classical optimization parameters, fore, instead of a full phase transition, we consider the change in the dominant response of two characteristic ~ c/nc ~ c/nc expectation values to external symmetry breaking fields. E(θmin, {∆ij }min) = min E(θ, {∆ij }) . (23) ~ c/nc Analyzing a ground state with an explicitly broken sym- θ,{∆ij } metry is sufficient to study broken symmetry state prepa- Including the Mean Fields in the optimization allows ration with the Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz. The two the optimizer to find the dominant Mean Field and even expectation values we consider are the s-wave BCS gap 5

∆s and the anti-ferromagnetic magnetization MAF, For VHA with post-selection and VMFHA we consider two types of Mean Field Hamiltonians: the supercon- * + 1 X ducting model where the mean-field parameter is simply M = αˆ (x, y, σ) (24) AF AF the BCS gap ∆s and the anti-ferromagnet with two Mean NxNy x,y,σ Fields corresponding to the occupation of up and down * + X spin orbitals on the even and odd sites of the lattice, ∆ = Uvˆ (x, y) , (25) s s * + x,y X np=−1 = nˆx,y,σ (39) where the anti-ferromagnetic (ˆαAF(x, y, σ)) coupling op- (x,y,σ) erator is defined as, p(x,y,σ)=−1 * + X p(x,y) np=1 = nˆx,y,σ (40) αÂF(x, y, σ) = (−1) × σ × nˆx,y,σ (26) (x,y) p(x, y) = mod (x + y, 2) , (27) p(x,y,σ)=1 p(x, y, σ) = σ × (−1)mod(x+y,2) . (41) and the superconductingv ˆs(x, y) operator as, In the VEHA we use three combinations of sym- vˆs(x, y) = cx,y,↓cx,y,↑ . (28) metry breaking terms {HBCS}, {HAF,p=±1} and {H ,H }, where We simultaneously apply an external anti- BCS AF,p=±1 ext ferromagnetic field B and an external superconducting X † † AF H = c c + c c (42) gap ∆ext explicitly breaking both spin flip/translational BCS x,y,z,↓ x,y,z,↑ x,y,z,↑ x,y,z,↓ s x,y,z and U(1) symmetry. With coupling to external fields X † the Hubbard model Hamiltonian reads, HAF,p=−1 = cx,y,σ + cx,y,σ (43) (x,y,σ) X † p(x,y,σ)=−1 H = t c c 0 0 + h.c. (29) x,y,σ x ,y ,σ X 0 0 † h(x,y),(x ,y )i,σ HAF,p=1 = cx,y,σ + cx,y,σ . (44) X 1 1 (x,y,σ) + U nˆ − nˆ − (30) p(x,y,σ)=1 x,y,↑ 2 x,y,↓ 2 x,y Additionally, we apply post-selection based on the energy X ext + BAFαÂF(x, y, σ) (31) found in each case in the same way we do for the VHA x,y,σ with post-selection. X ext + ∆s vˆs(x, y) + h.c. , (32) x,y IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS where we assume a discrete lattice with x, y ∈ [0,Nx,y − 1]. In this section we show the numerical results of sim- For all Variational Hamiltonian Ansätzewe decompose ulated runs of the VHA with post-selection, the VEHA the Hubbard Hamiltonian without external fields into and the VMFHA. For all simulations the number of elec- hopping in x-direction for even and odd sites, hopping trons in the Hubbard model is set to half filling via the in y-direction for even and odd sites and interaction, initialization for the VHA and the VMFHA or via the chemical potential for the VEHA. The hopping is set to 5 X t = −1 for all simulations. H = Hα (33) We scale the external BCS and anti-ferromagnetic α=1 fields with U, but introduce a minimum field strength X † to avoid vanishing external fields close to U = 0 H1 = t cx,y,σcx+1,y,σ + h.c. (34) x,y for x odd,σ ext ∆s = max(0.1, 0.1U) (45) X † H2 = t cx,y,σcx+1,y,σ + h.c. (35) ext BAF = = max(0.1, 0.1U) . (46) x,y for x even,σ X † The initialization of |ψ0i and the unitary transforma- H3 = t cx,y,σcx,y+1,σ + h.c. (36) tions Ui(θi) are simulated with a full gate-based simulator x,y for y odd,σ of a quantum computer. We use the QuEST14 simula- X † H4 = t cx,y,σcx,y+1,σ + h.c. (37) tor via the PyQuEST-cffi python interface. We assume a x,y for y odd,σ quantum computer with RX, RY and RZ single qubit gates X 1 1 and a controlled Pauli Z (CZ) two qubit entangling gate. H = U nˆ − nˆ − . (38) 5 x,y,↑ 2 x,y,↓ 2 For simplicity we assume a fully connected qubit topol- x,y ogy and use a simple CZ-algorithm15 for the trotterization 6

Energy diﬀerence to exact ground state energy Expectation Values exact 1.0 0.150 mean ﬁeld VHA 0.125 VEHA 0.8 VMFHA exact MAF

exact ∆s/U

mean ﬁeld MAF

| 0.100

E 0.6 mean ﬁeld ∆s/U | VHA MAF / value

0.075 . VHA ∆s/U VEHA M ∆E AF

exp 0.4 0.050 VEHA ∆s/U VMFHA MAF

VMFHA ∆s/U 0.025 0.2

0.000 0.0 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 − − U − − U

Figure 1. The energy difference between the calculated and Figure 2. The superconducting gap ∆ (red) and the an- the exact ground state energy scaled to the absolute value s tiferromagnetic magnetization MAF (black) for exact diago- of the exact ground state energy for the Mean Field solver nalization (solid line), the Mean Field solver (dashed line), (black dashed line), the VHA with post-selection (black x), the VHA with post-selection (x), the VEHA (dots) and the the VEHA (black circles) and the VMFHA (black cross) as VMFHA (circles) as a function of the interaction strength. a function of the interaction strength. The variational al- Classical Mean Field, VHA and VMFHA show the transition gorithms improve upon the Mean Field result except for the in the dominant expectation value. The VEHA exhibits good VEHA algorithm that shows an instability for positive U. The results in the region dominated by ∆s, but fails to reproduce improvement compared to standard Mean Field results is to the dominant M correctly at positive U values. At small be expected for the VHA and VMFHA as they start form the AF positive U the VHA results for MAF (x) are further away Mean Field results and the classical optimizer in the algo- from the exact solution (solid line) than the pure Mean Field rithm specifically minimizes energy. Overall VMFHA shows results (dashed line). Overall the VMFHA produces the best the best results. results, partially reproducing the linear response in the non- dominant expectation value that is not reproduced by the classical Mean Field solver, the VHA or the VEHA. of the time-evolution of the Hubbard model. While such a topology is hard to realize in solid state systems like superconducting qubits16,17, quantum dots18–20 or doped silicon21, it is common in trapped ion devices22,23. Even matrix diagonalization and the Mean Field expectation for architectures without a fully connected qubit topol- values obtained form the self-consistent loop. We use 26 ogy similarly short quantum circuits can be realized by scipy’s gradient based “L-BFGS-B” optimizer for the using advanced trotterization algorithms24. classical minimization of the energy and repeat each run In our simulations the measurement is performed by 10 times with different randomly chosen initial values matrix multiplication with the simulated state vector for for the optimizer, post-selecting for the lowest energy re- numerical efficiency. This allows us to study the ideal sult. We vary the interaction strength U from negative to performance of the algorithms without statistical fluctu- positive values. In Fig.1 we show the energy differences ations due to a finite number of measurements. In the between the ground state energy found by the different appendix we also show a simulation with measurements algorithms and the ground state energy found by exact by one-qubit rotations and projective measurements of diagonalization. All variational algorithms improve upon the qubits in the σz basis. the standard Mean Field result except for the VEHA at The initialization of Mean Field ground states is positive U. The optimizer in the variational algorithms performed with Givens rotations and particle hole minimizes the energy. The improvement in the ground transformations11, where the correct sequence is obtained state energy approximation compared to standard Mean from the openfermion package25. We trotterize the uni- Field theory is the expected behaviour for all variational iHαθ algorithms that start from the Mean Field result. tary evolutions e with respect to Hα to second order and use n = 4 repetitions of the list of partial Hamilto- While there is no phase transition between the BCS nians {Hα} (6). and the anti-ferromagnetic phase at U = 0 in Fig.2, we see a change in the dominant expectation value from the superconducting gap ∆s at negative U to the anti- A. The ideal case ferromagnetic magnetization MAF for large positive U. The standard Mean Field results, the VHA with postse- In the ideal case simulation we neglect any effects from lection and the VMFHA show good agreement with the physical noise and the finite number of measurements. exact solution for the dominant expectation value except We consider a 3×2 Hubbard model with periodic bound- for a small region around the transition between domi- ary conditions and compare the results of the variational nant expectation values. algorithms to the exact expectation values obtained by The VEHA shows good agreement as long as ∆s is 7

Energy diﬀerences to ground state energy ∆ /U U = -3 1.4 s not mitigated VHA 1.2 mitigated VHA 0.8 not mitigated VEHA mitigated VEHA 1.0 not mitigated VMFHA mitigated VMFHA 0.6 |

E 0.8 exact | /

E 0.6 0.4 not mitigated VHA ∆ mitigated VHA 0.4 expectation value not mitigated VEHA 0.2 mitigated VEHA 0.2 not mitigated VMFHA mitigated VMFHA 0.0 0.0 exact 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Tgate/T2 [%] Tgate/T2 [%]

Figure 3. The energy difference between the calculated and Figure 4. The superconducting gap ∆s for exact diagonal- the exact ground state energy scaled to the absolute value ization (blue dotted-dashed line), for unmittigated (red) and of the exact ground state energy for unmittigated (red) and mitigated (black) dephasing, for the VHA with post-selection mitigated (black) dephasing, for the VHA with post-selection (solid line), the VEHA (dashed line) and the VMFHA (dot- (solid line), the VEHA (dashed line) and the VMFHA (dotted ted line) as a function of gate time over dephasing time at line) as a function of gate time over dephasing time at U = U = −3. The results for ∆s confirm the observations from −3. With increasing dephasing the deviation of the quantum Fig.3, and deteriorate with increasing noise. In the BCS algorithms from the exact result grows as expected, reaching regime, where the VEHA is stable, it produces the best results up to 1.4 times the exact energy value at the longest gate and mitigation improves results for all algorithms. −4 time of 10 T2. Richardson mitigation improves the results significantly for all algorithms. In this regime, dominated by the BCS response, the VEHA is stable and performs better nificantly more computational resources and we reduce than the other algorithms with increasing noise. the system size to 2 × 2 to compensate this effect. For simplicity we limit the simulations to pure dephasing, but we do not expect qualitatively different results when dominant, but is unstable for larger positive U. The ad- including qubit damping or depolarisation. ditional operators in the VEHA ansatz generally break Gradient based solvers are not suited for the noisy the U(1) symmetry, which is not a problem in the BCS- simulations. When numerically determining the gradi- dominated regime U < 0 as we are searching for a ground ents, small fluctuations in the energy measurement due state with broken U(1) symmetry. In the AF-regime, to decoherence lead to unrealistically large gradients and however, the symmetry is not broken and restoring the the gradient based solver does not converge. An alterna- U(1) symmetry requires an exact balancing of the op- tive are black-box solvers, which do not calculate numer- timized parameters in the VEHA. This makes the opti- ical gradients and are not affected by this problem. We mization problem for repulsive U much harder to solve choose the widely used “COBYLA” black-box optimizer numerically. The numerical simulation results do not from the scipy python package for the classical minimiza- provide enough data to decide whether this problem is tion of the energy. Since minimization results depend on too hard for the chosen optimizer or so fundamental, that the initial values of the optimized parameters, we repeat the VEHA cannot converge for repulsive U in general. each run 10 times with different randomly chosen initial While this is an interesting topic for further research, a values for the optimizer, post-selecting for the lowest en- detailed comparison of classical optimizers in the context ergy result. of the VEHA would go beyond the scope of this paper. We assume uniform noise that is determined by the Overall the VMFHA shows the best performance out qubit dephasing time (commonly referred to as T time of the three compared algorithms. It can also partially 2 in literature) and given in multiples of the gate time Tgate reproduce the linear response of the non-dominant ex- of the single qubit gates RX and RY. The RZ gate can be pectation value to the external fields for small absolute implemented by shifting the energy gap between |0i and values of U. |1i qubit states. We assume that this operation is fast enough on the quantum computer (as we would expect in superconducting qubits) that the decoherence during B. Decoherence the RZ gate can be neglected. For two-qubit entangling gates, we assume the CZ gate takes three times as long To study the effects of decoherence on the variational as RX and RY. While we chose this set of parameters, our algorithms we consider a 2×2 Hubbard model with peri- choice does not represent any specific available quantum odic boundary conditions in the presence of pure dephas- computing device. For this general study of the effects ing noise on each qubit. Compared to the decoherence of noise we simply need a way to define the single and free case, simulations including decoherence require sig- two-qubit fidelities as functions of one parameter (T2). 8

For all algorithms we compare simulations with noise in SecII E. with simulations with mitigated noise. For the noise mitigation we use Richardson extrapolation27, where the noise-free results are extrapolated from a fit to measure- V. CONCLUSION ments with the base noise level and increased noise lev- els. We assume that the noise can be increased by 50% In this work we study the performance of three variants and use two datapoints for a linear extrapolation. One of the Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz (VHA) designed way that noise could be increased in a physical device to find ground states with a broken symmetry, the Varia- is to increase the gate time of all gates in the circuit by tional Hamiltonian Ansatz with post-selection, the Vari- 50%. How well gate times can be controlled will strongly ational Extended Hamiltonian Ansatz (VEHA) and the depend on the given architecture of a quantum comput- Variational Mean Field Hamiltonian Ansatz (VMFHA). ing device. The results of mitigation might be further We simulate all three algorithms running on a gate- improved when using more datapoints for the extrapola- based quantum computer to find the ground state of the tion. two-dimensional Hubbard model. As only small system sizes are numerically feasible, we explicitly break sym- The effects of stochastic fluctuations in the measure- metries with external fields (an external superconduct- ment results due to a finite number of measurements can ing gap and an external anti-ferromagnetic field) and ob- be reduced by increasing the number of measurements. serve a transition from a dominant response in the su- The stochastic fluctuations decrease with the square root perconducting gap expectation value ∆s at negative in- of the number of measurements. Here we consider the teraction strength U to a dominant response in the anti- limit of infinite projective measurements and use perfect ferromagnetic magnetization MAF at large positive U. measurements based on matrix multiplication in the cal- We show that the VHA with post-selection and the culations. The effects of a finite number of measurements VMFHA are in good agreement with the exact results (25000) are shown in appendix A. and reproduce the change in the dominant response in the expectation values. The VEHA is in agreement with We analyze different noise strengths by varying the the exact solution when ∆s dominates, but is unstable in gate time in relation to the T2 time from 0, corresponding the MAF dominated regime. Overall the VMFHA shows to the noise free case, to 0.1%T2. The upper bound of the the best performance and stability in finding the approx- dephasing strength was chosen such that the decay of the imate ground state energy and match the expectation expectation values from the exact solution with increas- values of the exact solution in the ideal case. ing dephasing strength occurs on the range of dephasing We also consider the effect of pure dephasing noise on strengths shown in the figures. The largest dephasing the algorithms, varying the noise strength via the gate −4 rate we consider is still smaller than what has been re- time of the quantum computer time from 0 to 10 T2. cently demonstrated by the breakthrough experiment 28 As expected the quality of the results decreases with in- but the difference is less than an order of magnitude. creasing noise. We show that applying Richardson mitigation in the variational algorithms improves the results In Fig.3 and Fig.4 we show how the results of all varia- significantly. We conclude that Richardson mitigation tional algorithms deteriorate with increasing dephasing. should be used when possible. In the regime U < 0, Since we explicitly want to compare the performance of where the VEHA is stable, it performs best with in- the three considered algorithms with increasing dephas- creasing noise. This result cannot be generalized for ing strength, we choose the parameter regime U = −3 the regime U > 0, where the VEHA is unstable in the where the VEHA is stable. For the anti-ferromagnetic decoherence-free case. parameter regime we expect no qualitative difference for We conclude that all three algorithms are suited to the VHA and VMFHA and that the VEHA is again un- find broken symmetry ground states, with a preference stable. We note that Richardson mitigation significantly for the VMFHA for low noise situations and U > 0 and improves the results. The VEHA shows the best perfor- a preference for the VEHA in noisy systems for U < 0. mance of all algorithms in the parameter regime dominated by ∆s where it is stable. It is less affected by noise because the required quantum circuits are shorter. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is because it starts from an empty system and does not require the long initialization circuit preparing the We thank Peter Schmitteckert for insightful discussions ground state of a Mean Field Hamiltonian as discussed about numerical simulations and the Hubbard model.

∗ [email protected]; 1 A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. www.quantumsimulations.de Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, 9

Nat Commun 5, 4213 (2014), arXiv: 1304.3061. 19 M. Veldhorst, J. Hwang, C. Yang, A. Leenstra, 2 D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, B. de Ronde, J. Dehollain, J. Muhonen, F. Hudson, K. M. C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Physical Review A 92 (2015), Itoh, A. Morello, et al., Nature nanotechnology 9, 981 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062318, arXiv: 1506.05135. (2014). 3 M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- 20 T. Watson, S. Philips, E. Kawakami, D. Ward, P. Scarlino, tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- M. Veldhorst, D. Savage, M. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. Cop- tion, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, persmith, et al., Nature 555, 633 (2018). USA, 2011). 21 Y. He, S. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. Keizer, and 4 D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A M. Simmons, Nature 571, 371 (2019). 92, 042303 (2015). 22 J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 74, 4091 5 J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. (1995). Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Science and Tech- 23 A. Bermudez, X. Xu, R. Nigmatullin, J. O’Gorman, nology 4, 1 (2019), arXiv:arXiv:1701.02691v2. V. Negnevitsky, P. Schindler, T. Monz, U. G. Poschinger, 6 J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- C. Hempel, J. Home, F. Schmidt-Kaler, M. Biercuk, Guzik, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016), arXiv: R. Blatt, S. Benjamin, and M. Müller,Phys. Rev. X 7, 1509.04279. 041061 (2017), arXiv: 1705.02771. 7 J. R. McClean, M. E. Schwartz, J. Carter, and 24 I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gid- W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017), arXiv: ney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Bab- 1603.05681. bush, Physical Review Letters 120 (2018), 10.1103/Phys- 8 R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and RevLett.120.110501, arXiv: 1711.04789. T. J. Martinez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230401 (2019), arXiv: 25 J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, Y. Cao, C. Dai, 1901.01234. E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. Häner, 9 K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, T. Hardikar, V. Havl´ıˇcek,O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, arXiv:1810.09434 [quant-ph] (2019), arXiv: 1810.09434. Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, 10 Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Simon B. O’Gorman, I. Ozfidan, M. D. Radin, J. Romero, N. Ru- Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, arXiv:1808.10402 [quant-ph] bin, N. P. D. Sawaya, K. Setia, S. Sim, D. S. Steiger, (2018), arXiv: 1808.10402. M. Steudtner, Q. Sun, W. Sun, D. Wang, F. Zhang, and 11 Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, arXiv:1710.07629 [physics, physics:quant-ph] and S. Boixo, Phys. Rev. Applied 9, 044036 (2018). (2019), arXiv: 1710.07629. 12 S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, 26 C. Zhu, R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, and J. Nocedal, ACM Trans. Physical Review Letters 125 (2020), 10.1103/Phys- Math. Softw. 23, 550 (1997). RevLett.125.010501. 27 K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical Re- 13 F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, view Letters 119, 180509 (2017). R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buck- 28 F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, ley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, Y. Chen, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, S. Demura, Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, C. Gid- W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, ney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, S. Habegger, M. P. Harri- A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, gan, A. Ho, S. Hong, T. Huang, W. J. Huggins, L. Ioffe, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, S. V. Isakov, E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, C. Jones, D. Kafri, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S. Humble, S. V. Isakov, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, S. Kim, P. V. Klimov, A. Ko- E. Jeffrey, Z. Jiang, D. Kafri, K. Kechedzhi, J. Kelly, P. V. rotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Landhuis, P. Laptev, M. Lind- Klimov, S. Knysh, A. Korotkov, F. Kostritsa, D. Land- mark, E. Lucero, O. Martin, J. M. Martinis, J. R. Mc- huis, M. Lindmark, E. Lucero, D. Lyakh, S. Mandrà,J. R. Clean, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, M. Mohseni, McClean, M. McEwen, A. Megrant, X. Mi, K. Michielsen, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, M. Mohseni, J. Mutus, O. Naaman, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Neill, H. Neven, M. Y. Niu, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, M. Y. Niu, E. Ostby, A. Petukhov, J. C. Platt, C. Quin- A. Petukhov, H. Putterman, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, tana, E. G. Rieffel, P. Roushan, N. C. Rubin, D. Sank, N. C. Rubin, D. Sank, K. J. Satzinger, V. Smelyan- K. J. Satzinger, V. Smelyanskiy, K. J. Sung, M. D. Tre- skiy, D. Strain, K. J. Sung, M. Szalay, T. Y. Takeshita, vithick, A. Vainsencher, B. Villalonga, T. White, Z. J. Yao, A. Vainsencher, T. White, N. Wiebe, Z. J. Yao, P. Yeh, P. Yeh, A. Zalcman, H. Neven, and J. M. Martinis, Nature and A. Zalcman, arXiv:2004.04174 [physics, physics:quant- 574, 505 (2019). ph] (2020), arXiv: 2004.04174. 14 T. Jones, A. Brown, I. Bush, and S. C. Benjamin, Scientific reports 9, 1 (2019), publisher: Nature Publishing Group. Appendix A: Stochastic Measurement 15 J.-M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Schön, and M. Marthaler, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 035005 On a real quantum computer the simplest way to mea- (2019). 16 Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Nature 398, sure the Hubbard Hamiltonian H is to rewrite it as a sum 786 (1999), arXiv: cond-mat/9904003. over Pauli products with the Jordan-Wigner Transform, 17 J. Clarke and F. K. Wilhelm, Nature 453, 1031 (2008). M 18 F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Sim- X Y H = qγ σi,γ (A1) mons, L. C. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Cop- γ i persmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Reviews of modern physics x y z 85, 961 (2013). σi,γ ∈ {II , σi , σi , σI } , (A2) 10

Energy diﬀerences to ground state energy where the index i runs over all M orbitals and the op- 1.75 not mitigated VHA erators σ are the identity or Pauli operators acting on mitigated VHA i,γ 1.50 not mitigated VEHA the i-th qubit. The real numbers qγ are the prefactors of mitigated VEHA the Pauli products in the Hamiltonian. Each product of 1.25 not mitigated VMFHA mitigated VMFHA

| Pauli operators can be measured on the quantum com-

E exact | 1.00 puter by rotating each qubit into the correct basis and / z E 0.75 performing a projective measurement in the physical σ ∆ basis of the qubit. Since each projective measurement of 0.50 a Pauli product returns either −1 or 1, a large number 0.25 of measurements is necessary to obtain the expectation 0.00 value in the interval [−1, 1]. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Tgate/T2 [%] The necessarily finite number of measurements leads to Figure 5. The energy difference between the calculated and stochastic fluctuations in the measurement results. We the exact ground state energy scaled to the absolute value show the effect for 25000 projective measurements per of the exact ground state energy for unmittigated (red) and measured Pauli product and without assuming any mea- mitigated (black) dephasing, for the VHA with post-selection suring errors in Fig.5 and Fig.6. Here the stochastic fluc- (solid line), the VEHA (dashed line) and the VMFHA (dot- tuations are too strong for meaningful predictions and ted line) as a function of gate time over dephasing time at the results are much worse compared to Fig.3 and Fig.4. U = −3. Gate-based measurments were simulated with 25000 The number of projective measurements would need to projective measurements. Compared to Fig.3 we see the same be increased when running a calculation on an actual overall trend but strong fluctuations in the results. quantum computer. 11

∆s/U U = -3 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 not mitigated VHA mitigated VHA

expectation value not mitigated VEHA 0.0 mitigated VEHA not mitigated VMFHA mitigated VMFHA 0.2 exact − 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Tgate/T2 [%]

Figure 6. The superconducting gap ∆s for exact diagonalization (blue dotted-dashed line) and for unmittigated (red) and mitigated (black) dephasing, for the VHA with post-selection (solid line), the VEHA (dashed line) and the VMFHA (dotted line) as a function of gate time over dephasing time at U = −3. Gate-based measurements were simulated with 25000 projective measurements. Compared to Fig.4 we see the same overall trend but strong ﬂuctuations in the results.