DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2006.00131V1 [Quant-Ph] 29 May 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2006.00131V1 [Quant-Ph] 29 May 2020 Classical and Quantum Data Interaction in Programming Languages: A Runtime Architecture Evandro Chagas Ribeiro da Rosa, Rafael de Santiago Departamento de Inform´aticae Estat´ıstica- INE PPGCC Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC Florian´opolis,Santa Catarina, Brazil Abstract We propose a runtime architecture that can be used in the development of a quantum programming language and its programming environment. The proposed runtime architecture enables dynamic interaction between classical and quantum data following the restriction that a quantum computer is available in the cloud as a batch computer, with no interaction with the classical computer during its execution. It is done by leaving the quantum code generation for the runtime and introducing the concept of futures for quantum measurements. When implemented in a quantum program- ming language, those strategies aim to facilitate the development of quantum applications, especially for beginning programmers and students. Being suitable for the current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) Computers, the runtime architecture is also appropriate for simulation and future Fault-Tolerance Quantum Computers. Keywords: Quantum Computation, Programming Language, Quantum Programming, Runtime Architecture 1. Introduction with a few dozen of noise qubits, where the commercial ones are accessible through the cloud, e.g., the Ama- A quantum computer uses quantum mechanics phe- zon Braket service [18]. Due to the low-fidelity of the nomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to small number of qubits and the implemented gates, ev- solve some problems faster than classical computers. ery quantum execution needs to be as much optimized Such a claim was first proposed by Feynman [1] mo- as possible, forbidding the execution of a generic quan- tivated by the difficulty of simulating the evolution of tum code. For example, to activate the best perfor- quantum states. Later, confirmed by the pioneer works mance, the quantum code that sums an arbitrary integer of Shor [2] and Grover [3]. And, recently demonstrated x into a quantum superposition should be specialized for experimentally by Google [4]. every possible value of x. A quantum programming language describes instruc- tions for a quantum computer. It is a relatively new In opposition to the NISQ computers, there are Fault- paradigm, but there are several implementations [5–16] tolerant Quantum Computers [19] with enough qubits from both industry and academy. The level of abstrac- to run expensive quantum error correction (QEC) codes tion and quantum architecture targets vary from each [19] on top of quantum applications. Nevertheless, we language. For instance, Q# [6] is a high-level domain- are still far from them. Although even there, we may specific language used to program quantum computers have the same restrictions of accessibility (in the cloud, arXiv:2006.00131v1 [quant-ph] 29 May 2020 based on quantum logic gates, and Blackbird [8] is a not locally) and the need to run highly optimize quan- low-level language used for continuous-variable quan- tum applications due to the high cost of the QEC codes. tum computation on photonic quantum computers. In this context, we propose a runtime architecture Today, we are in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quan- that can be used to both develop quantum programming tum (NISQ) era [17] marked by quantum computers languages, or embed quantum programming in general propose programming languages. The runtime architec- ture enables dynamic interaction between classical and Email addresses: [email protected] (Evandro Chagas Ribeiro da Rosa), [email protected] (Rafael de quantum data stored in qubits despite the limitations that Santiago) a quantum computer executes in bach, without interac- tion between classical and quantum computers during the quantum execution, and that the generated quantum code needs to be highly optimized for a specific execu- tion. More precisely, this dynamic interaction allows the loop of classical information controlling quantum oper- ations and quantum measurement operation with clas- sical information, all regardless of whether that data is stored on the classic or quantum computer. With the proposed runtime architecture, a quantum programming language can be developed as a general- propose programming language that supports the quan- tum programming paradigm, and not a domain-specific programming language as must quantum programming languages [6, 13, 15, 16]. This abstraction permits the Figure 1: Bloch sphere used to visualize a single qubit. development of an application that takes advantage of quantum and classical computers with a single and con- sistent programming language, facilitating the develop- or 1 according to the probability amplitude of the qubit j i j i j i j j2 ment of quantum applications, especially for beginning state, e.g., = α 0 + β 1 has the probability α of j j2 programmers and students. return 0 and β of return 1. When a measurement is The proposed architecture has several components, done, the qubit’s superposition is destroyed, collapsing j i where the main one is a shared library that manages the its state. For example, if the measurement of returns j i j i quantum code generation, optimization, and execution. 0 or 1, it collapses, respectively, to state 0 or 1 . Those components form a general framework for the Quantum entanglement is another important phe- construction of a quantum programming environment nomenon for quantum computation. When a set of with a simulator and optimizing compilers. qubits is entangled, we cannot fully describe every qubit The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. separately. It means that any operation on a single qubit A brief introduction to quantum computation is given in will change the state of all qubits in the set. For ex- Section 2. An overview of quantum programming and ample, if we measure one of two maximally entangled the constraints imposed on the proposed runtime archi- qubits, we know what will be the measurement result of tecture are shown in Section 3. The runtime architecture the other qubit. and its component are detailed in Section 4. The shared The evolution of a quantum state is described by a library features that enable the dynamic interaction be- unitary operation. Consequently, any quantum oper- tween classical and quantum data are presented in Sec- ation, except measurement, is time-reversible, and we tion 5. And, in Section 6, there are our conclusions and cannot copy the state of a qubit [20]. final remarks. A quantum circuit [21] is a diagram that defines the evolution of a quantum state through time. An example 2. Quantum computation of quantum circuit can be seen in Figure 2. A quantum circuit is executed from left to right by the application of This section introduces the concepts of quantum bit quantum gates and measurements. The therm quantum (qubit), quantum measurement, quantum entanglement, operation used in this paper refers to any process (not quantum circuit, and decoherence. necessarily a quantum circuit) that changes the quantum The basic unity of information used in quantum com- state of a qubit. putation is the qubit. A qubit (or quantum bit), alike to a bit, can be at states 0 or 1, denoted by j0i and j1i, but different from a bit, it can also be at both states at the same time, in what we call a superposition. In a su- perposition, a qubit is denoted by a convex sum, e.g., j i = α j0i + β j1i where α, β 2 C and jαj2 + jβj2 = 1. It can be visualized geometrically in the Bloch sphere, θ iφ θ j00i+j11i e.g., the qubit j i = cos j0i + e sin j1i of Figure 1. Figure 2: Quantum teleportation circuit, where jβ00i = p . The 2 2 2 To extract information from a superposition, we need last two quantum gates Z and X are controlled by the measurement to perform a measurement that will randomly return 0 result of the top two qubits. 2 Decoherence is the process of loss of information that Source code Quantum code a quantum computer suffers due to its interaction with the environment, or the inaccurate execution of quantum operations. It is the primary barrier for quantum com- Generate putation, limiting the time that a quantum computer can Classical code maintain the quantum information, and consequently, the circuit deep (number of quantum gates). To over- come this limitation, we can encode the quantum state Run in a quantum error correction (QEC) code [19]. How- ever, this approach adds a costly overhead in the number Send quantum code Classical of qubits and quantum gates used. computer Quantum computer 3. Quantum programming Return measurements In this section, a general overview of quantum pro- gramming languages is given along with the quantum Figure 3: The general workflow of a quantum programming language. programming restriction and characteristics imposed on the proposed runtime architecture. Although it is acknowledged that an abstraction be- The general workflow of a programming language is yond the quantum circuit would benefit the develop- summarized in Figure 3. There, a single source code ment of new quantum applications [22], the abstrac- generates both the classical and quantum codes. This tion of most quantum programming languages is equiv- generation can be done by a compiler, interpreter (simi- alent to quantum circuit. It is particularly true for a set lar to Python), or a mixed approach. The classical code of quantum programming languages [5, 7–9, 12] called is then executed by a local classical computer, and the quantum instruction set or quantum assembly language. quantum code is sent to a remote quantum computer. Those quantum programming languages aim to be an The quantum computer is a batch computer that takes intermediary representation for higher-level program- a quantum code as input and outputs the measurement ming languages and other quantum programming soft- results. It is connected to a classical computer throw a ware [8, 12, 23].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BCG) Is a Global Management Consulting Firm and the World’S Leading Advisor on Business Strategy
    The Next Decade in Quantum Computing— and How to Play Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global management consulting firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients from the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors in all regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their enterprises. Our customized approach combines deep insight into the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable competitive advantage, build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with offices in more than 90 cities in 50 countries. For more information, please visit bcg.com. THE NEXT DECADE IN QUANTUM COMPUTING— AND HOW TO PLAY PHILIPP GERBERT FRANK RUESS November 2018 | Boston Consulting Group CONTENTS 3 INTRODUCTION 4 HOW QUANTUM COMPUTERS ARE DIFFERENT, AND WHY IT MATTERS 6 THE EMERGING QUANTUM COMPUTING ECOSYSTEM Tech Companies Applications and Users 10 INVESTMENTS, PUBLICATIONS, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 13 A BRIEF TOUR OF QUANTUM COMPUTING TECHNOLOGIES Criteria for Assessment Current Technologies Other Promising Technologies Odd Man Out 18 SIMPLIFYING THE QUANTUM ALGORITHM ZOO 21 HOW TO PLAY THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND BEYOND Determining Timing and Engagement The Current State of Play 24 A POTENTIAL QUANTUM WINTER, AND THE OPPORTUNITY THEREIN 25 FOR FURTHER READING 26 NOTE TO THE READER 2 | The Next Decade in Quantum Computing—and How to Play INTRODUCTION he experts are convinced that in time they can build a Thigh-performance quantum computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond
    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond John Preskill Institute for Quantum Information and Matter and Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA 91125, USA 30 July 2018 Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) technology will be available in the near future. Quantum computers with 50-100 qubits may be able to perform tasks which surpass the capabilities of today’s classical digital computers, but noise in quantum gates will limit the size of quantum circuits that can be executed reliably. NISQ devices will be useful tools for exploring many-body quantum physics, and may have other useful applications, but the 100-qubit quantum computer will not change the world right away — we should regard it as a significant step toward the more powerful quantum technologies of the future. Quantum technologists should continue to strive for more accurate quantum gates and, eventually, fully fault-tolerant quantum computing. 1 Introduction Now is an opportune time for a fruitful discussion among researchers, entrepreneurs, man- agers, and investors who share an interest in quantum computing. There has been a recent surge of investment by both large public companies and startup companies, a trend that has surprised many quantumists working in academia. While we have long recognized the commercial potential of quantum technology, this ramping up of industrial activity has happened sooner and more suddenly than most of us expected. In this article I assess the current status and future potential of quantum computing. Because quantum computing technology is so different from the information technology we use now, we have only a very limited ability to glimpse its future applications, or to project when these applications will come to fruition.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Nonlinear Input–Output Maps with Dissipative Quantum Systems
    Quantum Information Processing (2019) 18:198 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-019-2311-9 Learning nonlinear input–output maps with dissipative quantum systems Jiayin Chen1 · Hendra I. Nurdin1 Received: 17 October 2018 / Accepted: 3 May 2019 / Published online: 15 May 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 Abstract In this paper, we develop a theory of learning nonlinear input–output maps with fading memory by dissipative quantum systems, as a quantum counterpart of the theory of approximating such maps using classical dynamical systems. The theory identifies the properties required for a class of dissipative quantum systems to be universal, in that any input–output map with fading memory can be approximated arbitrarily closely by an element of this class. We then introduce an example class of dissipative quantum systems that is provably universal. Numerical experiments illustrate that with a small number of qubits, this class can achieve comparable performance to classical learning schemes with a large number of tunable parameters. Further numerical analysis sug- gests that the exponentially increasing Hilbert space presents a potential resource for dissipative quantum systems to surpass classical learning schemes for input–output maps. Keywords Machine learning with quantum systems · Dissipative quantum systems · Universality property · Reservoir computing · Nonlinear input–output maps · Fading memory maps · Nonlinear time series · Stone–Weierstrass theorem 1 Introduction We are in the midst of the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) technology era [1], marked by noisy quantum computers consisting of roughly tens to hundreds of qubits. Currently, there is a substantial interest in early applications of these machines that can accelerate the development of practical quantum computers, akin to how the humble hearing aid stimulated the development of integrated circuit (IC) technology [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling the Qubit Mapping Problem for NISQ-Era Quantum Devices
    Tackling the Qubit Mapping Problem for NISQ-Era Quantum Devices Gushu Li Yufei Ding Yuan Xie University of California University of California University of California Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Barbara, CA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction Due to little consideration in the hardware constraints, e.g., Quantum Computing (QC) has been rapidly growing in the limited connections between physical qubits to enable two- last few decades because of its potential in various important qubit gates, most quantum algorithms cannot be directly applications, including integer factorization [47], database executed on the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) search [15], quantum simulation [36], etc. Recently, IBM, devices. Dynamically remapping logical qubits to physical Intel, and Google released their QC devices with 50, 49, and qubits in the compiler is needed to enable the two-qubit 72 qubits respectively [22, 23, 56]. IBM and Rigetti also pro- gates in the algorithm, which introduces additional oper- vide cloud QC services [18, 40], allowing more people to ations and inevitably reduces the fidelity of the algorithm. study real quantum hardware. We are expected to enter the Previous solutions in finding such remapping suffer from Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era in the next high complexity, poor initial mapping quality, and limited few years [39], when QC devices with dozens to hundreds of flexibility and controllability. qubits will be available. Though the number of qubits is insuf- To address these drawbacks mentioned above, this paper ficient for Quantum Error Correction (QEC), .it is expected proposes a SWAP-based BidiREctional heuristic search al- that these devices will be used to solve real-world problems gorithm (SABRE), which is applicable to NISQ devices with beyond the capability of available classical computers [5, 38].
    [Show full text]
  • Dance with Noise in NISQ Era — a NASA Perspective on Quantum Computing
    Dance with Noise in NISQ Era — A NASA Perspective on Quantum Computing Zhihui Wang1,2 Eleanor Rieffel1 [email protected] [email protected] 1. NASA Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab (QuAIL) 2. Universities Space Research Association ICCAD 2019, West Minster, CO Quantum Computing: Explore “bizarre” features of quantum mechanics Superposition Entanglement Quantum Tunneling Article developed fast, high-fidelity gates that can be executed simultaneously a across a two-dimensional qubit array. We calibrated and benchmarked the processor at both the component and system level using a powerful new tool: cross-entropy benchmarking11. Finally, we used component- level fidelities to accurately predict the performance of the whole sys- tem, further showing that quantum information behaves as expected when scaling to large systems. A suitable computational task To demonstrate quantum supremacy, we compare our quantum proces- sor against state-of-the-art classical computers in the task of sampling the output of a pseudo-random quantum circuit11,13,14. Random circuits are a suitable choice for benchmarking because they do not possess The Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) Era structure and therefore allow for limited guarantees of computational hardness10–12. We design the circuits to entangle a set of quantum bits (qubits) by repeated application of single-qubit and two-qubit logi- cal operations. Sampling the quantum circuit’s output produces a set Qubit Adjustable coupler of bitstrings, for example {0000101, 1011100, …}. Owing to quantum interference, the probability distribution of the bitstrings resembles b a speckled intensity pattern produced by light interference in laser Google scatter, such that some bitstrings are much more likely to occur than others.
    [Show full text]
  • T|Ket〉: a Retargetable Compiler for NISQ Devices
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Page 1 of 43 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - QST-100727.R1 provided by University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t|keti: A Retargetable Compiler for NISQ Devices 11 12 Seyon Sivarajah1∗†, Silas Dilkes1∗, Alexander Cowtan1∗, 13 1∗ 1 1,2 14 Will Simmons , Alec Edgington , and Ross Duncan 15 1 Cambridge Quantum Computing Ltd, 9a Bridge Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom 16 2 Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, 17 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, United Kingdom 18 19 ∗ These authors contributed equally to this work. 20 21 Abstract. We present t|keti, a quantum software development platform produced 22 by Cambridge Quantum Computing Ltd. The heart of t|keti is a language-agnostic 23 optimising compiler designed to generate code for a variety of NISQ devices, which has 24 25 several features designed to minimise the influence of device error. The compiler has 26 been extensively benchmarked and outperforms most competitors in terms of circuit 27 optimisation and qubit routing. 28 29 30 31 1. Introduction 32 33 Quantum computing devices promise significant advantages for a wide variety of 34 35 information processing tasks [1, 2, 3]. For some tasks, notably the simulation of condensed- 36 matter physics, the abstract structure of the problem may be sufficiently similar to 37 the physical structure of the device that translation from one to the other is natural 38 39 and (relatively) straightforward [4]. However, for most problems, and most quantum 40 computers, this is not the case.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Next After Quantum Supremacy?
    What’s Next After Quantum Supremacy? Credit: Erik Lucero/Google John Preskill Q2B 2019 11 December 2019 Quantum 2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 Based on a Keynote Address delivered at Quantum Computing for Business, 5 December 2017 Nature 574, pages 505–510 (2019), 23 October 2019 The promise of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor. A fundamental challenge is to build a high-fidelity processor capable of running quantum algorithms in an exponentially large computational space. Here we report the use of a processor with programmable superconducting qubits to create quantum states on 53 qubits, corresponding to a computational state-space of dimension 253 (about 1016). Measurements from repeated experiments sample the resulting probability distribution, which we verify using classical simulations. Our Sycamore processor takes about 200 seconds to sample one instance of a quantum circuit a million times—our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years. This dramatic increase in speed compared to all known classical algorithms is an experimental realization of quantum supremacy for this specific computational task, heralding a much anticipated computing paradigm. Classical systems cannot simulate quantum systems efficiently (a widely believed but unproven conjecture). Arguably the most interesting thing we know about the difference between quantum and classical. Each qubit is also connected to its neighboring qubits using a new adjustable coupler [31, 32]. Our coupler design allows us to quickly tune the qubit-qubit coupling from completely off to 40 MHz.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges at the Entanglement Frontier
    Challenges at the entanglement frontier John Preskill DOE Kickoff 31 January 2019 Quantum Information Science Quantum sensing Improving sensitivity and spatial resolution. Quantum cryptography Privacy founded on fundamental laws of quantum physics. Quantum networking Distributing quantumness around the world. Quantum simulation Probes of exotic quantum many-body phenomena. Quantum computing Speeding up solutions to hard problems. Hardware challenges cut across all these application areas. Frontiers of Physics short distance long distance complexity Higgs boson Large scale structure “More is different” Neutrino masses Cosmic microwave Many-body entanglement background Supersymmetry Phases of quantum Dark matter matter Quantum gravity Dark energy Quantum computing String theory Gravitational waves Quantum spacetime Two fundamental ideas (1) Quantum complexity Why we think quantum computing is powerful. (2) Quantum error correction Why we think quantum computing is scalable. A complete description of a typical quantum state of just 300 qubits requires more bits than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Why we think quantum computing is powerful (1) Problems believed to be hard classically, which are easy for quantum computers. Factoring is the best known example. (2) Complexity theory arguments indicating that quantum computers are hard to simulate classically. (3) We don’t know how to simulate a quantum computer efficiently using a digital (“classical”) computer. The cost of the best known simulation algorithm rises exponentially with the number of qubits. But … the power of quantum computing is limited . For example, we don’t believe that quantum computers can efficiently solve worst-case instances of NP-hard optimization problems (e.g., the traveling salesman problem).
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing Arxiv:1812.09976V2 [Quant-Ph] 28 Dec 2018
    Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing , , , Yudong Cao,y z Jonathan Romero,y z Jonathan P. Olson,y z Matthias , , , , , #, Degroote,y { x Peter D. Johnson,y z M´aria Kieferov´a,k ? z Ian D. Kivlichan, y #,@, , Tim Menke, 4 Borja Peropadre,z Nicolas P. D. Sawaya,r Sukin Sim,y z Libor , , , , , , Veis,yy and Al´anAspuru-Guzik∗ y z { x zz {{ Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, y USA Zapata Computing Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA z Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8, Canada { Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8, Canada x Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia k Institute for Quantum Computing and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of ? Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada #Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA @Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 4 Intel Labs, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA arXiv:1812.09976v2 [quant-ph] 28 Dec 2018 r J. Heyrovsk´yInstitute of Physical Chemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic v.v.i., yy Dolejˇskova3, 18223 Prague 8, Czech Republic Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8, Canada zz Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1M1, Canada {{ E-mail: [email protected] 1 Abstract Practical challenges in simulating quantum systems on classical computers have been widely recognized in the quantum physics and quantum chemistry communities over the past century.
    [Show full text]
  • Qasmbench: a Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation
    QASMBench: A Low-Level Quantum Benchmark Suite for NISQ Evaluation and Simulation ANG LI, SAMUEL STEIN, SRIRAM KRISHNAMOORTHY, and JAMES ANG, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA The rapid development of quantum computing (QC) in the NISQ era urgently demands a low-level benchmark suite and insightful evaluation metrics for characterizing the properties of prototype NISQ devices, the efficiency of QC programming compilers, schedulers and assemblers, and the capability of quantum simulators in a classical computer. In this work, we fill this gap by proposing a low-level, easy-to-use benchmark suite called QASMBench based on the OpenQASM assembly representation. It consolidates commonly used quantum routines and kernels from a variety of domains including chemistry, simulation, linear algebra, searching, optimization, arithmetic, machine learning, fault tolerance, cryptography, etc., trading-off between generality and usability. To analyze these kernels in terms of NISQ device execution, in addition to circuit width and depth, we propose four circuit metrics including gate density, retention lifespan, measurement density, and entanglement variance, to extract more insights about the execution efficiency, the susceptibility to NISQ error, and the potential gain from machine-specific optimizations. Most of the QASMBench application code canbe launched and verified in IBM-Q directly. With the help from q-convert, QASMBench can be evaluated on various platforms and simulation environments. QASMBench is released at: http://github.com/pnnl/QASMBench. CCS Concepts: • Computer systems organization ! Quantum computing; • Hardware ! Quantum computation; • Software and its engineering ! Software libraries and repositories. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Benchmark, OpenQASM, quantum metrics, NISQ ACM Reference Format: Ang Li, Samuel Stein, Sriram Krishnamoorthy, and James Ang.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Variational Simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm ✉ Matija Medvidović 1,2 and Giuseppe Carleo3
    www.nature.com/npjqi ARTICLE OPEN Classical variational simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm ✉ Matija Medvidović 1,2 and Giuseppe Carleo3 A key open question in quantum computing is whether quantum algorithms can potentially offer a significant advantage over classical algorithms for tasks of practical interest. Understanding the limits of classical computing in simulating quantum systems is an important component of addressing this question. We introduce a method to simulate layered quantum circuits consisting of parametrized gates, an architecture behind many variational quantum algorithms suitable for near-term quantum computers. A neural-network parametrization of the many-qubit wavefunction is used, focusing on states relevant for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). For the largest circuits simulated, we reach 54 qubits at 4 QAOA layers, approximately implementing 324 RZZ gates and 216 RX gates without requiring large-scale computational resources. For larger systems, our approach can be used to provide accurate QAOA simulations at previously unexplored parameter values and to benchmark the next generation of experiments in the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era. npj Quantum Information (2021) 7:101 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00440-z 1234567890():,; INTRODUCTION perform a variational parameter sweep on a 1D cut of the The past decade has seen a fast development of quantum parameter space. The method is contrasted with state-of-the-art technologies and the achievement of an unprecedented level of classical simulations based on low-rank Clifford group decom- 26 control in quantum hardware1, clearing the way for demonstra- positions , whose complexity is exponential in the number of 29 tions of quantum computing applications for practical uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era
    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era Alba Cervera-Lierta University of Toronto UCL Quantum Technologies Winter School 2020 The MatterLab https://www.matter.toronto.edu/ Alán Aspuru-Guzik Our Mission To accelerate the discovery of new chemicals and materials that are useful to society by means of new technologies such as quantum computing, machine learning, and automation. The Quantum MatterLab Postdocs PhD students + visitors and undergrad https://www.matter.toronto.edu/ Outlook Brief introduction to quantum computing NISQ vs Fault-Tolerant QC Variational Quantum Algorithms Slides will be available at A tool for NISQ: Tequila albacl.github.io/talk/ A NISQ example: Meta-VQE Comments and Remarks Brief story of Quantum Computing The “Quantum Bible”: “Quantum Computation and Quantum Information”, Michael A. Nielsen & Isaac L. Chuang Practical approach: Qiskit and Pennylane quantum algorithm tutorials More learning resources (books, blogs, courses, …): https://qosf.org/learn_quantum/ Brief history of quantum mechanics Quantum 1.0 Quantum 2.0 1900-1930 1930-1950 1950-1980 1980-2000 2000- Prenatal Infancy Childhood Adolescence Youth Quantum theory First applications: Transistor (1947), Q Turing Machine, First Quantum birth (1900) e.g. nuclear Solar Cells (1954), Quantum chips (2005), Postulates (1926) energy,… GPS (1955), Laser simulation (1980), Quantum (1960), MRI (1971), Shor algorithm teleportation with … (1994), CNOT satellites (2017), (1995), Bose- Quantum Einstein advantage (2019) condensate (1997) Quantum Computing in the NISQ era, Alba Cervera-Lierta, UCL Quantum Tech Winter School 2020. Quantum 2.0 Quantum Quantum Quantum Communication Computing Sensing Quantums Quantum Quantum Metrology Applications Cryptography Simulation Quantum Information Information Theory framework Theoretical Theoretical Quantum Mechanics Quantum Computing in the NISQ era, Alba Cervera-Lierta, UCL Quantum Tech Winter School 2020.
    [Show full text]