Arxiv:2103.13388V2 [Quant-Ph] 2 Jul 2021 Into Sub-Tasks That Are Separately Handled by a Quantum Ciently Solved Classically

Preparing Bethe Ansatz Eigenstates on a Quantum Computer

John S. Van Dyke,1 George S. Barron,1 Nicholas J. Mayhall,2 Edwin Barnes,1 and Sophia E. Economou1 1Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 2Department of Chemistry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (Dated: July 5, 2021) Several quantum many-body models in one dimension possess exact solutions via the Bethe ansatz method, which has been highly successful for understanding their behavior. Nevertheless, there remain physical properties of such models for which analytic results are unavailable, and which are also not well-described by approximate numerical methods. Preparing Bethe ansatz eigenstates directly on a quantum computer would allow straightforward extraction of these quantities via measurement. We present a quantum algorithm for preparing Bethe ansatz eigenstates of the XXZ spin chain that correspond to real-valued solutions of the Bethe equations. The algorithm is polynomial in the number of T gates and circuit depth, with modest constant prefactors. Although the algorithm is probabilistic, with a success rate that decreases with increasing eigenstate energy, we employ amplitude ampliﬁcation to boost the success probability. The resource requirements for our approach are lower than other state-of-the-art quantum simulation algorithms for small error-corrected devices, and thus may oﬀer an alternative and computationally less-demanding demonstration of quantum advantage for physically relevant problems.

Quantum computers hold the promise of transforma- difficulty of performing such optimizations. tive applications in a variety of fields including cryptanal- A question of increasing interest is what applications ysis [1], quantum chemistry [2, 3], materials science [4, 5], become feasible with small-scale error-corrected devices, and potentially combinatorial optimization [6, 7]. To re- i.e., in the intermediate era between NISQ and fully alize the full potential of quantum computing, large-scale, scaled-up fault-tolerant quantum computers. Recent fault-tolerant devices will ultimately be necessary. As estimates suggest that algorithms that provide only a these do not yet exist, much recent work has studied pos- quadratic speedup over classical methods may have dif- sible near-term applications in the present era of noisy, ficulty achieving quantum advantage on problem sizes intermediate-scale quantum computers (NISQ) [8, 9]. In accessible with small devices [19–21]. The simulation of this context, a key question concerns the demonstration quantum systems, on the other hand, can yield exponen- of ‘quantum advantage’ – that is, the ability to perform tial improvement over conventional approaches. These computations that can not be done efficienly with clas- still require formidable resources, despite recent algo- sical methods. Recently, quantum advantage was shown rithmic advances [22–25]. This motivates the search for for a superconducting processor sampling random quan- physically-interesting problems and algorithms that can tum circuits [10] and photonic-based Gaussian boson lead to quantum advantage with fewer resources in the sampling [11]. Although these are important achieve- near future. ments, the specific tasks performed were not closely re- We propose the study of Bethe ansatz (BA) states on a lated to the practical applications mentioned above, but quantum computer as a computationally less-demanding were essentially designed for the purpose of demonstrat- route to the demonstration of quantum advantage for ing advantage. Thus, the realization of quantum advan- problems relevant to physics. The BA technique yields tage for a problem of practical interest remains open. exact solutions to a class of one-dimensional quantum The concept of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms many-body models, including the Heisenberg and Hub- has served as a guiding principle for near-term applica- bard models, among others [26–29]. The resulting wave tions. This approach divides a given computational task functions depend on algebraic equations that can be effi- arXiv:2103.13388v2 [quant-ph] 2 Jul 2021 into sub-tasks that are separately handled by a quantum ciently solved classically. The exponential growth of the and a classical processor, so as to maximize the benefits Hilbert space with the system size L has historically lim- of the quantum computer while limiting the overhead for ited the direct computational studies of the eigenstates to operations that can be efficiently performed classically. A small systems. Instead, various mathematical techniques prominent example of this idea is the variational quan- have been extensively developed to access physical quantum eigensolver (VQE), in which the quantum processor tities in the thermodynamic limit L , bypassing the calculates energy expectation values of a Hamiltonian calculation of the wave function itself.→ ∞ While many dif- with respect to a variational wave function whose pa- ferent quantities can be determined, the difficulty of their rameters (or even form) is optimized classically [12–15]. calculation varies widely. In particular, arbitrary-range Although VQEs for small (classically tractable) problems and higher-order correlation functions have been very have been successfully demonstrated [16, 17], the scala- challenging to access, and remain an active area of re- bility of solving the high-dimensional optimization prob- search [30–32]. Quantum computers, however, can com- lem to non-classically-simulable systems remains unclear, pute such correlation functions [5, 33] straightforwardly, for instance due to barren plateaus [18] and the generic thus suggesting the possibility of quantum advantage for 2 this task. The importance of higher-order correlation amplitude amplification procedure for our algorithm, and functions for strongly correlated systems has recently presents numerical calculations that confirm its success. been emphasized [34]. Calculating such observables us- Section V compares our algorithm with conceptually sim- ing a quantum computer in turn hinges on the possibility pler but less efficient approaches to the same task, explic- of efficiently preparing the Bethe ansatz states. itly verifying the enormous speedup of our method. Sec- To this end, we demonstrate an efficient quantum al- tion VI argues that quantum advantage can be achieved gorithm that can prepare a subset of the Bethe ansatz with Bethe state preparation by comparison with classi- eigenstates of the one-dimensional XXZ chain, a model cal computational methods, and presents additional ap- which is fundamental to the study of quantum mag- plications of the algorithm. Finally, we conclude in Sec- netism. Our algorithm uses the so-called coordinate tion VII. Bethe ansatz method, and has polynomial scaling in the circuit depth and T-gate complexity, along with low constant prefactors. As we show with explicit gate counts for I. MODEL AND SOLUTION the corresponding circuits, the approach scales to large enough systems for the calculation of classically inaccessi- We consider the one-dimensional spin-1/2 XXZ chain ble quantities in near-term error-corrected devices. While on L sites with periodic boundary conditions, whose the algorithm we present is probabilistic, we also show Hamiltonian is given by that amplitude amplification can be used to increase the L−1 success rate [35]. X x x y y z z H = Jxy S S + S S + JzS S , (1) Algorithms have been previously given (and also im- i i+1 i i+1 i i+1 i=0 plemented) that prepare exact eigenstates of quantum many-body models [36–38]. However, these were limited with Sα Sα (α = x, y, z). The exact solution of this L ≡ 0 to cases that are equivalent to non-interacting fermions, model via the Bethe ansatz method was presented in Ref. for instance, under the Jordan-Wigner mapping. In [46], and many introductions to the problem (in both the contrast, the XXZ model corresponds to an interacting coordinate and algebraic formulations) exist [47–51]. We fermionic problem, which is computationally much more follow the account of the Bethe ansatz method given in difficult. We note that the possibility of constructing Ref. [49]. The eigenstates of the above Hamiltonian are circuits to diagonalize Bethe ansatz-solvable models and given by measure challenging correlation functions was previously  M  suggested, though without an indication of how this could X X be done [36]. ψ(x1, . . . , xM ) = AP exp i kP jxj , (2) The importance of Bethe ansatz-solvable models for P j=1 benchmarking NISQ devices has been previously recog- where x1, . . . , xM label the positions of the M down spins nized [39, 40], as they provide exact values for quantities in the chain (the Hamiltonian conserves the z component (such as the energy) to compare against the results of z P z of the total spin, Stot = i Si ) and the momenta ki la- noisy quantum computations. On the other hand, the bel the different states. The wave function of Eq. (2) direct preparation of Bethe ansatz states has been rela- gives the amplitude for the M down spins to occur on tively unexplored. This question was recently studied in the sites xj = 0,...,L 1. The summation here is over Ref. [41], which considered treating Bethe ansatz states the M! permutations of− the down spin sites. These per- variationally (using the algebraic Bethe ansatz) and con- mutations arise from the fact that, within Bethe ansatz cluded that the approach was not scalable. Furthermore, models, scattering processes exchange momenta between that work did not make a connection to the possibility particles, but do not alter their magnitudes. The coeffi- of quantum advantage. Apart from direct preparation cients AP are related by of Bethe ansatz eigenstates, other works have considered i(k +k 0 ) ik variational approaches using generic ansatzes [39, 40, 42– AP 1 + e P l P l 2∆e P l = − i(k +k 0 ) ik 0 44]. The comparison of the computational complexity of AP 0 −1 + e P l P l 2∆e P l − these methods to that of the direct construction is an in- −iΘ(k ,k 0 ) e P l P l . (3) teresting question for future studies, as are probabilistic ≡ − algorithms for preparing other strongly-correlated states To fix the coefficients, we take AI = 1, where I is the [45]. identity permutation. Here ∆ = Jz/Jxy is the anisotropy The paper is organized as follows. Section I introduces in the interactions, and P and P 0 are permutations that the XXZ model and the elements of the Bethe ansatz differ by a single transposition between adjacent ele- solution needed for the construction of the algorithm. ments, P (l + 1) = P 0(l) and P (l) = P 0(l + 1). The Section II describes the Bethe ansatz state preparation momenta ki are constrained by the quantization condi- algorithm. Section III presents numerical results that tions, validate the method and studies its success probability. X This section also includes resource estimates for classi- Lki = 2πIi + Θ(ki, kj), (4) cally intractable problem sizes. Section IV describes the j 3 with Ii an integer (half-integer) for M odd (even). Physi- “canvas” on which the phases in Eq. (2) are applied. Dicke cally, these constraints on ki arise from imposing periodic state preparation can be accomplished using the recent boundary conditions on the model. Eqs. (3) and (4) are deterministic algorithm of Ref. [54], for which the gate a set of algebraic equations (the Bethe equations) for the count was improved in Ref. [55]. This algorithm uses an quantum numbers ki . In general, these equations ad- inductive method to prepare smaller Dicke states which mit complex solutions,{ } but for the special case when all are subsequently combined to yield the desired one. We ki are real, Θ(ki, kj) is also real and is given by have used this algorithm in our explicit circuit construc- { } tions, though any other deterministic method of prepar- ki−kj ! ∆ sin( 2 ) ing DL,M would also work. Θ(ki, kj) = 2 arctan . (5) | i ki−kj ki+kj As discussed above, the amplitudes that must be ap- ∆ cos( 2 ) cos( 2 ) − plied to DL,M to generate a Bethe ansatz state depend In the spirit of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, on the permutations| i P of M objects. We use the per- we solve the Bethe equations classically to obtain the mo- mutation label register{ to} create the different permuta- menta ki and phases Θ(ki, kj). These values are then tions and their associated phases AP . Naively, one could used as{ input} to our quantum algorithm for generating use an integer encoded in a binary representation to la- the corresponding eigenstate. Our algorithm allows for bel each of the permutations. The difficulty with this ap- the preparation of Bethe ansatz eigenstates for which the proach is that the number of permutations is M!, so that ikP j xj ikP j xj ki are real, such that AP and e amount to com- imprinting the phases AP and e onto DL,M would plex{ } phases applied to the second-quantized basis states require combinatorially many operations.| This leadsi to of the system. circuit depths and complexities that are superexponen- tial in M, quickly becoming unfeasible as M grows (we explore a concrete realization of this approach in Sec- II. BETHE ANSATZ STATE PREPARATION tion V). To overcome this fundamental limitation of this ALGORITHM method and design an efficient algorithm, we introduce a conceptually distinct approach for labeling the permu- The quantum algorithm for preparing a Bethe ansatz tations. Rather than assigning an arbitrary number to state consists of several steps, and is summarized in Algo- a given permutation, we implement its explicit action on rithm 1. The general structure of our approach is inspired the string consisting of the numbers 1,...,M. As de- by the linear combination of unitaries (LCU) method for scribed below, this allows for an efficient generation of Hamiltonian simulation [52, 53]. However, a key differ- the permutation labels, while also generating the distinct ence is that our algorithm aims to generate specific quan- AP simultaneously. tum states starting from a particular initial state, rather The permutation label register consists of M subreg- than compiling a generic unitary evolution operator. In isters, each of which can store an integer value k addition to the L qubits representing the system, a reg- 1,...,M . To represent a valid permutation, the sub-∈ ister of M 2 ancilla qubits are used to label the different registers{ must} contain distinct values (for instance, 213 permutation terms in Eq. (2). By preparing a superpo- is valid whereas 233 is not). We use a one-hot encod-| i sition of the allowed label values on these ancillas, using ing such that each| subregisteri consists of M qubits, and these to apply controlled operations on the system, and the number k is represented by a 1 on the kth qubit finally disentangling the label and system registers, we and 0s on the rest. Thus, for M = 3 the allowed states perform the summation over all permutations present in on each subregister are 1 001 , 2 010 , and Eq. (2). This process is facilitated by introducing a sec- 3 100 . This one-hot| i encoding ≡ | i requires| i ≡M | 2 iqubits ond ancillary register of M qubits that we call the “faucet |toi represent ≡ | i the complete label. The use of the one-hot register", along with one additional ancilla work qubit. encoding facilitates a trade-off between time and space Thus, the algorithm requires a total of M 2 +M +1 ancilla resources [22, 56, 57] by reducing the number of controls qubits. required to implement the necessary phase gates. The goal of step 2 of Algorithm 1 is to create the state Algorithm 1 Bethe state preparation √1 P A P on the permutation label register. The M! P P 1: Prepare the Dicke state | i on the system qubits | i DL,M phases AP are kicked back onto the system qubits, while 2: Create permutation labels while applying pieces of AP the P are used to apply the conditional gates needed ikP j xj 3: Apply e using the “faucet” method in step| i 3, as explained below. For clarity, we first de- 4: Reverse permutation label (without phases) scribe the construction of the equal superposition of all 5: Measure permutation label, with success on |00 ··· 0i permutation labels. We then show how to slightly modify this procedure to simultaneously generate the phases AP The algorithm begins by preparing the Dicke state on for all M! permutations. We use an iterative method to L sites with M down spins, DL,M . Relabeling 0 , construct the permutation label state starting from the | i |↑i ≡ | i 2 1 , DL,M is the equal superposition (that is, with- vacuum state 00 ... 0 on M qubits. The complete la- out|↓i ≡ relative | i | phases)i of all basis states on L qubits with bel superposition| statei is built up sequentially from the Hamming weight M. This state forms the underlying first (rightmost) subregister to the last (leftmost) using 4 a series of exchange-type gates. We describe the method case, the (k + 1)th subregister now contains all 0s, while inductively as follows. The zeroth sublabel is prepared the kth has two qubits with 1, which is not valid. This by setting the zeroth qubit of the zeroth subregister to is fixed by applying controlled-swap gates between all 1 (in the following, the index k is enumerated starting qubits l < k + 1 in subregisters k and k + 1, controlled from 0). Assume the kth sublabel (i.e., an equal super- on the state of qubit k + 1 in subregister k. Taken to- position of permutations of integers 1 through k + 1) has gether, these operations produce a partial swap between been constructed on the k + 1 rightmost subregisters. subregisters k + 1 and k, Set the (k + 1)th qubit of the (k + 1)th subregister to 1, thus introducing the next integer value to be included in k+1 m | ik+1 | ik r the permutation label state. Perform the exchange-type 1 k+1 aswap gate [58, 59], k+1 m + m k+1 , → √k+2 | ik+1 | ik k+2 | ik+1 | ik (7) 1 0 0 0 iφ 0 cos(θ) e sin(θ) 0 where i is the one-hot encoded state for i on subregister A(θ, φ) =  −iφ  , (6) j 0 e sin(θ) cos(θ) 0 , and| i by construction. One repeats this partial − j m < k 0 0 0 1 swapping process, now between subregisters k and k 1, then between k 1 and k 2, and so on, until the last− reg- between the (k + 1)th qubits of subregisters k + 1 and ister has been swapped.− − By implementing the inductive k, with θ = arccos(1/√k + 2), φ = 0. This generates a process up to the (M 1)th subregister, the complete superposition state consisting of two sets of terms: those equally-weighted superposition− of permutation labels is in which the 1 remains in the (k + 1)th subregister and formed. As an example, for M = 3 the above algorithm those in which it is transferred to the kth. In the latter generates the following sequence of state transformations:

X X ASWAP 1 000 000 000 000 000 001 000 010 001 000 010 001 + 000 011 | i| i| i −→| i| i| i −→| i| i| i −−−−−→ √2 | i | i| i | i| i CSWAPs 1 X 1 000 010 001 + 001 010 100 010 001 + 001 010 −−−−−−→ √2 | i | i| i | i| i −→ √2 | i | i| i | i| i ASWAP 1 1 1 1 100 010 001 + 000 110 001 + 100 001 010 + 000 101 010 −−−−−→ √6 | i| i| i √3 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √3 | i| i| i CSWAPs 1 1 1 1 100 010 001 + 010 100 001 + 100 001 010 + 001 100 010 −−−−−−→ √6 | i| i| i √3 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √3 | i| i| i ASWAP 1 1 1 1 100 010 001 + 010 100 001 + 010 000 101 + 100 001 010 −−−−−→ √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i 1 1 + 001 100 010 + 001 000 110 √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i CSWAPs 1 1 1 1 100 010 001 + 010 100 001 + 010 001 100 + 100 001 010 −−−−−−→ √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i 1 1 + 001 100 010 + 001 010 100 (8) √6 | i| i| i √6 | i| i| i

The explicit circuit for M = 3 is shown in Fig. 1, where ues that have been swapped, and where the additional the gates inside the red dashed rectangles are excluded at phase π implements the signature of the permutation this point. Furthermore, gates acting on distinct qubits (red dashed rectangles in Fig. 1). Suppose, as in Eq. have been pushed to the left, thereby reducing the circuit (7), that the value (k + 1) is swapped to the right. Then depth. This produces a different sequence of intermediate the (k + 1)th qubit of the right subregister can serve as states than above, but the final state is the same. the target qubit in the required controlled phase. Since the left subregister can store any value m < k + 1, a sep- A slight modification of the above procedure allows arate controlled phase is used for each possibility, where one to simultaneously apply the phases AP to the ap- the control bits are given by the values m. This leads to propriate terms in the superposition. After each par- a total of M 3/3 M 2/2+M/6 controlled phase gates for tial subregister swap, one applies a controlled phase gate this part of the− algorithm. with angle Θ(ki, kj) + π, where i, j are the integer val- 5

FIG. 1. Circuit to prepare the permutation label ancilla state for M = 3. When the gates inside the red dashed rectangles are excluded, the circuit realizes the equally-weighted superposition encoding the permutations of three objects. With these gates included, the circuit applies the additional permutation-dependent phases AP . The three subregisters are indicated by shading, and the initial state of each qubit is |0i. The alternating cnot gates interleaved with Ry and Rz rotations realize the aswap gates.

By the end of the construction, the phases AP have at a given site depends on the bitstring, one must gener- been applied to the corresponding permutation label ically apply a multi-controlled X gate for each ancilla at state, having been successively built-up from the elemen- every step[60]. tary transpositions of which they are composed. The explicit circuit for M = 3 is displayed in Fig. 1, where now Next, the phases eikP j (j = 1,...,M) are applied to the gates in the red dashed rectangles are included, in the system qubits, each being controlled on the state order to produce the phases AP . At this point in the of one of the faucet ancillas. For the jth ancilla, this construction, the total state of the physical system and gate is also controlled on the state of the permutation the permutation label is label subregister j (since the value of kP j is permutation- ! dependent). By the end of the system bitstring, all the 1 X 1 faucet register qubits are in state 0 . Thus, the sub- AP P j DL,M , (9) √ ⊗j=M | ip | is routine can be compared to a set of| Mi running faucets M! P (that correspond to applying the phases eikP j ), which are where is a state of the permutation label qubits turned off at the appropriate times (upon encountering |· · ·ip and s is a state of the system qubits. a ‘1’ in the traversal of the system register). This anal- In|· the · ·i next step, one applies the position-dependent ogy is illustrated in Fig. 2. In total, this step requires phase factors eikP j xj to the relevant basis states on the M 2L doubly-controlled phase gates and M 2L (M 1)- system qubits (step 3 of Algorithm 1). To do this, we in- controlled X gates. In our numerical implementation− of L troduce an efficient method that acts on all the M ba- the method, we introduce additional work qubits to fa- sis states in DL,M simultaneously, yielding an enormous cilitate the construction of these gates using chains of speedup over| classicali approaches. The technique, which Toffolis [61]. we call the “faucet” method, is based on the observation that the positions xj take integer values xj = 0,...,L 1, After the relevant phases have been applied, it remains ikP j xj − so that the total phase e can be produced by xj rep- to disentangle the system from the permutation label (the etitions of the phase eikP j . entanglement having been generated during the faucet For this part of the algorithm, we use the M addi- method, since the phases there are permutation depen- tional ancilla qubits comprising the faucet register. Each dent). This is accomplished by applying the inverse of of these new qubits is initialized to 1 . In the outer loop the circuit that generates the permutation label superpo- of the faucet subroutine, one traverses| i the register of the sition, without the additional controlled-phase gates that system qubits site by site from x = 0 to x = L 1. At were used to produce the AP phases. The fact that the − ikP j xj each site, if it is occupied by a down spin (i.e. the bit is phases AP and e have been applied to the initial 1), one turns off the next faucet ancilla qubit , 1 0 . Dicke state implies that the permutation label reversal This is achieved through a sequence of multi-controlled| i → | i will not completely disentangle the system qubits from X gates, which are controlled on the previous ancilla be- the permutation label register. However, it turns out ing in the state 0 and the next one being in the state 1 , that the 00 ... 0 component of the permutation state along with the additional| i control that the current system| i corresponds| preciselyi with the occurrence of the target site is a 1 . Since the meaning of the “next faucet ancilla” Bethe ansatz state on the system qubits. That is, the full | i 6

corresponding circuit depths and gate counts in these cases indicate that our algorithm is feasible for near-term error-corrected quantum computers. We stress that our analysis does not rely on asymptotic resource scaling ar- guments, but rather provides exact gate counts, since the corresponding circuits are precisely known. Although we have not compiled our algorithm down to an error- correcting code such as the surface code, we estimate the required number of T gates below. In Fig. 3(a) we present the numerically-calculated success probability of the algorithm for preparing selected FIG. 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the idea of the faucet eigenstates when L = 2M and M = 2, 3, 4, with Jxy = 1, method. Phases eikP j are applied for each system qubit while Jz = 1/2. The interaction strength in this case corre- traversing the bitstring. When a ‘1’ is encountered, the next sponds− to the critical regime of the ferromagnetic model. faucet in the list is turned off, so that no more phases with We note the eigenstates included in Fig. 3 are not meant the given kP j value are applied. to comprise the complete set of real-valued solutions, but rather are simply those for which we obtained numerical solutions of the Bethe equations by using the algorithm state vector takes the form presented in Ref. [49]. Two general trends are apparent: a significant suppression of the success rate with increas- ψ = α 00 ... 0 p ψB s + β φj p ψj s, (10) | i | i | i | i | i ing M, and a more moderate suppression as a function where ψB s is the normalized target Bethe ansatz state of the eigenstate energy, within each set of system pa- | i on the system qubits, φj p is a junk state on the permu- rameters L, M. The worst-case probabilities are roughly | i tation label qubits with 00 ... 0 φj p = 0, and ψj s is a consistent with 1/M!, although we have only limited val- junk state on the systemh qubits (we| i note as an| empiricali ues of M to support this (larger M being outside of our finding that ψB ψj s = 0 as well). Thus, by measuring computational resources for classical simulation). This the permutationh | labeli qubits, the target Bethe ansatz value is further supported by Fig. 3(b), which shows the state is successfully prepared on the outcome 00 ... 0 . success probabilities for various eigenstates when M = 3 This result is essentially that obtained from LCU| meth-i and for different values of L, with the clear trend that in- ods [53], though here we have the additional construc- creasing L tends to flatten the success probability across tion of AP during the label preparation step,which is not the spectrum. Although the low energy states enjoy less present in the standard LCU. To illustrate the full algo- of an advantage over the higher energy ones in this case, rithm, the complete circuit to construct a BA eigenstate the lowest probabilities are still around 1/M! on average. with L = 4, M = 2 is given in Appendix A. As dis- However, the behavior of the success rate changes signif- cussed in our numerical simulations below, the success icantly depending on the value of Jz. These effects are probability α 2 depends on the system parameters, and considered Appendix B. | | also varies between different eigenstates. Thus, in general These results suggest one can go to very large system one must repeat the procedure multiple times to obtain sizes L, while still preserving a reasonably large success the correct state, which can then be used to calculate probability, if M is sufficiently small. More specifically, physical quantities or in other applications, as we discuss it appears feasible to access values of L and M that in Section VI. We also show in Section IV that ampli- would not be classically simulable (even by approximate tude amplification can be used to boost the success rate, methods), while maintaining relatively modest resource thereby reducing the overall resource requirements. requirements for the algorithm. This is demonstrated in Fig. 4, which provides circuit depths [Fig. 4(a)], Tof- foli gate counts [Fig. 4(b)], controlled phase gate counts III. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS [Fig. 4(c)], and the number of qubits required [Fig. 4(d)] for the Bethe state preparation algorithm. The linear To calculate the momenta ki defining the Bethe scaling of all these metrics in L is immediately apparent. eigenstates, we have solved the{ Bethe} equations itera- But apart from the asymptotic scaling behavior, the ab- tively using the approach presented in Ref. [49]. We solute values of the circuit depths and gate counts are then performed numerical simulations of Algorithm 1 us- seen to be very low, on the order of 103–104, even for large ing the IBM Qiskit library’s state vector simulator [62]. systems of L 100 sites. Furthermore, the total num- These calculations verify the correctness of our algo- ber of qubits required∼ ( 102) is also quite reasonable for rithm, and reveal its success probabilities for the suffi- small error-corrected devices.∼ In Fig. 5 we show the total ciently small systems that can be studied on a classical gate and measurement counts for the case M = 5 as L is computer. However, we can also explicitly construct the varied. This indicates that the controlled-phase, Ry, and circuits that would need to be run for much larger in- Toffoli gates are the most prevalent non-Clifford opera- stances, far beyond what is classically tractable. The tions in the algorithm. To estimate the fault-tolerant re- 7

(a) plement amplitude ampliﬁcation in the following section. 0.8 L = 4,M = 2 L = 6,M = 3 L = 8,M = 4 0.6 IV. AMPLITUDE AMPLIFICATION

0.4 Amplitude amplification, a generalization of the well- known Grover search algorithm, is a quantum subroutine 0.2 which can boost the probability of a desired measurement Success Probability outcome, leading in general to a square root improvement 0.0 in the number of repetitions required for the success of a probabilistic algorithm [35]. For our problem, we use to (b) 0.5 B L = 6,M = 3 denote Algorithm 1 with the measurement step removed. L = 9,M = 3 Amplitude amplification defines an operator L = 12,M = 3 0.4 L = 15,M = 3 −1 = S0 SB, (11) Q −B B 0.3 where SB changes the relative sign of the “good” states in the Hilbert space, while S0 changes the relative sign 0.2 of the vacuum state 00 ... 0 . In the present case, the Success Probability good states are the components| i of the Bethe ansatz state, 0.1 which correspond to 00 ... 0 p on the permutation label 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 qubits. S can therefore| bei implemented using a OR − − − B Eigenstate Energy circuit on the permutation label, followed by Z on the work qubit that stores the result, after which the OR is uncomputed. In our numerical calculations, we use FIG. 3. (a) Success probabilities for preparation of selected the implementation of in Qiskit’s standard circuit eigenstates as a function of their energies, when L = 2M and OR M = 2, 3, 4. (b) Success probabilities of selected eigenstates library. To produce S0 we use the same approach, with for M = 3 and varying L. Hamiltonian parameter values are the OR circuit extended to include the system qubits Jxy = 1 and Jz = −1/2. (we do not implement the 1 in Eq. (11), as it is an overall phase). We present− numerical results for amplitude amplification in Fig. 6. This confirms the clear enhancement of the algorithm success probability using sources needed, we therefore convert the counts for these this method. Although only one round of amplification gates into the corresponding numbers of T gates. Fol- has been applied here, the protocol can be repeated in lowing Ref. [63], we assume a worst-case scenario for the the standard way to further increase the success rate. number of T gates needed to realize an arbitrary z rota- Applying this improvement to the resource estimate of tion to be given by 4 log2(1/)+11, where is the rotation the previous section, the M = 5 worst-case eigenstates synthesis error [64]. Similarly, arbitrary y rotations can should require on average √120 11 repetitions of the be performed by conjugation with Clifford operations. algorithm to achieve success, leading≈ to an overall T B 6 As in Ref. [23], we replace each Toffoli gate with two T count of 4.1 10 (neglecting the costs of SB and S0). ∼ × gates [65]. For L = 100, M = 5 this leads to a T count We have also implemented a different version of ampli- of 6.2 105 for a single run of the state preparation al- tude amplification, which is a modified form of the obliv- gorithm,∼ × with = 10−10. Assuming a worst-case success ious amplitude amplification of Ref. [53]. Unfortunately, probability of 1/M!, approximately 120 attempts would this method leads to a reduced fidelity of the actually pre- need to be performed on average to correctly generate pared state with the exact target state, though in some the target eigenstate. This yields 7.4 107 T gates cases the overlap remains quite high (> 0.99). We at- overall, which is comparable to the∼ estimates× for simu- tribute this reduced fidelity to the non-unitarity of sum- lating the Hubbard model using the methods of Ref. [23]. ming exponentials with unit modulus, since eia +eib = 1 We note that the estimates in that work involve optimiz- in general. We note, however, that nearly deterministic| | 6 ing an error budget between multiple sources (Trotteri- success of the oblivious amplitude amplification proce- zation, phase estimation, and rotation synthesis), and do dure was obtained for the application of Ref. [53] (sim- not appear to include the cost of preparing a good initial ulation of Hamiltonian dynamics with Taylor series ex- state for the phase estimation routine. Furthermore, the pansions). For this reason, it is less clear how the ap- above estimate for our algorithm assumes the seemingly proach will fare for the Bethe state preparation problem worst-case scenario in the number of repetitions ( M!), at larger values of M. In addition, further modification whereas the results in Fig. 3 suggest that lower∼ energy to the method of Ref. [53] may ameliorate some of the states require fewer repetitions in general. To reduce the difficulties with applying it to Bethe state preparation in number of repetitions required for our algorithm, we im- its present form. 8

(a) M = 3 (b) M = 4 4000 M = 5 2000 M = 6 3000 M = 7 1500 M = 8 M = 9 2000 M = 10 1000

Circuit Depth 500

1000 Number of Toﬀolis

0 0 50 100 50 100 (c) L (d) L

10000 200 8000 150 6000

4000 100

2000 Number of Qubits 50 0 Number of Controlled Phases 50 100 50 100 L L

FIG. 4. Bethe state preparation (a) circuit depth, (b) number of Toﬀoli gates, (c) number of controlled phase gates, and (d) number of qubits versus system size L, for diﬀerent numbers of down spins M.

V. COMPARISON WITH ALTERNATIVE 2500 Controlled-phase ALGORITHMS CNOT Ry 2000 Toffoli To highlight the advantages of Algorithm 1, we com- X pare it with conceptually simpler, but much less efficient, Controlled-SWAP 1500 Rz methods of preparing Bethe ansatz states on a quan- Measurement tum computer. First, one could imagine applying controlled phase gates directly to each term in the Dicke 1000 state superposition to generate the desired eigenstate. Instruction Count This approach still requires permutation label ancillas 500 to generate the linear combination of phases needed in Eq. (2). However, it has the seeming advantage of allow- ikP j xj ing one to combine the phases AP and e into a single 0 20 40 60 80 100 controlled-phase rotation, whereas the former term re- 3 2 L quired order M and the latter one order M controlled- phases to implement using Algorithm 1. Nevertheless, it is clear that this benefit is vastly outweighed by the large FIG. 5. Bethe state preparation gate and measurement number of terms in the superposition that must be sepa- counts for M = 5 as a function of L. L rately addressed, M! M . For the case L = 100, M = 5 this amounts to 9.0 109 controlled phases, compared ∼ × 9

(a) 1.0 105

0.8 M = 3, Amplitude Amp. 4 M = 3, No Amp. 10 M = 4, Amplitude Amp. 0.6 M = 4, No Amp. 103

0.4 Number of Toﬀolis Algorithm 1 Alternative Method

Success Probability 2 (b) 10 0.2

0.0 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 − − Eigenstate Energy 10

FIG. 6. Success probability for Bethe state preparation with (solid lines) and without (dashed lines) amplitude amplifica- 103 tion. In the former case, a single round of amplification is applied. System parameters are Jxy = 1, Jz = −1/2, L = 2M. Number of Controlled Phases 20 40 60 80 100 L to the 2530 of Algorithm 1. FIG. 7. Comparison between Algorithm 1 and the alterna- A more promising approach is to use the “faucet” tive method of the number of (a) Toffoli and (b) controlled- ik x method of Algorithm 1 to handle the e P j j phases while phase gates used, for M = 5. still applying the full AP in a single multi-controlled- phase gate, rather than decomposing it into its elemen- L tary transpositions. This replaces the M! M depen- ments are significantly higher, even for small M. This dence above with M!LM. While the scaling is still infe- is shown in Fig. 7, which reveals that the number of rior to that of Algorithm 1 for large M, it is conceivable controlled phase and Toffoli gates required for the alter- that for small M this alternative method may be com- native method vastly exceeds those of Algorithm 1, even petitive. In particular, one can replace the complicated for M = 5. permutation label of Algorithm 1, which required M 2 qubits to construct AP in terms of individual transpositions, with a compressed label that simply assigns a number to each permutation. This approach uses significantly VI. DISCUSSION fewer qubits, at the expense of requiring more controls for the relevant phase gates. Since the permutation label To achieve quantum advantage for a physically relevant construction still needs to be reversed to disentangle the problem, it should be the case that no classical method system from the ancillas, it is important that it can still could deliver results of a comparable accuracy. Since the be executed in a unitary fashion. This in turn requires present quantum algorithm exactly prepares eigenstates an efficient method for generating an equal superposition of the XXZ chain, it is conceptually most similar to exact of M! states. We implement such states using the prime diagonalization of finite-size systems. In a recent study, factorization M! = 2n2 3n3 . We then construct the a matrix-free approach was used to investigate Heisen- permutation label as the tensor··· product of the binary berg spin chains up to length L = 26 [69]. This work n2 representation of 2 (using n2 qubits) and Wn states for had vastly reduced the memory requirements compared the odd prime factors. The equal superposition for the to conventional methods, though the scaling remained binary part of the label is easily generated by applying exponential with system size. Specifically the Sz = 0 H gates to the relevant qubits, while various efficient al- subspace (M = 13) was considered, for which the dimen- 7 gorithms exist for Wn state preparation [66–68]. We im- sion is 10 . In contrast, the L = 100, M = 5 subspace plemented this algorithm numerically and verified that is roughly∼ seven times larger (dimension 7.5 107). it successfully prepares Bethe ansatz eigenstates. Since Although state vectors of this size can still∼ be× stored the fundamental approach for creating the linear combi- in memory, we note that the computation time is also nation of phases is the same between this method and exponential in the system size, ultimately limiting the Algorithm 1, their success probabilities are equal. Un- practicality of exact diagonalization. fortunately, explicit construction of the circuits for the In addition to numerically exact calculations, approx- alternative method indicates that the resource require- imate tensor network methods have been highly success- 10 ful for studying one-dimensional quantum many-body resulting variational form can then be optimized under systems with the matrix product state (MPS) ansatz the cost function E EB , where E is the energy cal- | − | [70, 71]. However, these approaches are best-suited for culated on the quantum computer and EB is the exact states with a relatively low amount of entanglement, such value, known analytically from the Bethe ansatz solu- as gapped ground states obeying an area law for the en- tion. We note that the present optimization problem tanglement entropy. This makes simulation of long-time should be significantly easier than that of a standard dynamics challenging, due to the growth of entangle- VQE, since the ideal values of the rotation angles can ment from, for instance, an initial product state. Our serve as a good initial guess. Updates to the parameters Bethe ansatz algorithm can prepare eigenstates through- then serve to directly mitigate systematic errors due to out the spectrum at the same computational cost, includ- over- or under-rotation in the controlled-phase gates. ing highly excited states that obey volume law entanglement scaling. This yields an advantage over MPS methods for large systems when targeting these strongly en- VII. CONCLUSIONS tangled states. An explicit link between the Bethe ansatz and MPS was developed in Refs. [72, 73], which used the algebraic Bethe ansatz to produce exact tensor network We have presented a quantum algorithm for the effi- representations for generic eigenstates. These networks cient preparation of Bethe ansatz eigenstates of the XXZ have a PEPS-like structure (but with fewer physical in- model. To our knowledge, this is the first quantum al- dices), which underscores the computational intractabil- gorithm for the direct preparation of eigenstates of an ity of such states for large systems. interacting many-body problem. The circuit depth and In addition to computing arbitrary-range and higher- gate counts of the algorithm scale linearly in the system order correlation functions that are inaccessible with tra- size, for a fixed number of down spins. Our algorithm is ditional Bethe ansatz methods, our algorithm has a num- feasible to perform on small error-corrected devices of or- ber of other applications. Simulation of the real-time dy- der 100 qubits, provided that the number of down spins namics of many-body systems is widely recognized as a is small. The usefulness of the approach can be extended task allowing for quantum advantage. Such simulations through amplitude amplification. In particular, quantum often take the form of quench experiments, for which the advantage over classical computational methods appears system is initialized in an easy-to-prepare product state, to be achievable, with resource estimates that are com- then allowed to evolve under the influence of an interact- parable to the most efficient known quantum simulation ing many-body Hamiltonian. Our algorithm would en- algorithms. Our work suggests directions for future re- able interesting variations on this approach, for instance search, including the modification of the algorithm for the case of complex-valued ki , and its generalization by initializing the system in an eigenstate of a given value { } of the interaction strength, then subsequently evolving it to other Bethe ansatz-solvable models, such as the one- with a different value. The evolution here can be per- dimensional Hubbard model. formed using any of the known algorithms for quantum simulation, whether by Trotterization [23, 74, 75], Taylor expansions [53, 76], or other approaches [52, 77]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In a different direction, one could use our algorithm as a starting point to explore integrability-breaking pertur- Numerical simulations were performed with IBM bations. Thus, we consider a Hamiltonian of the form Qiskit and the QuSpin Python library [78]. We would = 0 + p, where 0 is solvable by the Bethe ansatz H H H H like to thank Chandra Sekhar Mukherjee, Jesko Sirker, and p includes perturbations that break the integra- and Rafael Nepomechie for helpful discussions. This bilityH of the total Hamiltonian (such as disorder in H work was supported by the Department of Energy. E.B. the coupling strengths). In this case, the Bethe state and N.J.M. acknowledge Award No. DE-SC0019199, prepration algorithm is used to prepare an eigenstate of and S.E.E. acknowledges the DOE Office of Science, Na- 0, which then serves as an initial state for quantum an- tional Quantum Information Science Research Centers, nealingH or phase estimation on . For sufficiently weak H Co-design Center for Quantum Advantage (C2QA), con- perturbations, the overlap of this state with the corre- tract number DE-SC0012704. sponding exact eigenstate of should be much greater than that of a mean-field or non-interactingH trial state. Although we have focused on deploying our algorithm on small error-corrected quantum computers, one may Appendix A: Full circuit for L = 4, M = 2 also consider implementing it on present-day or near- term NISQ devices. Many of the controlled-phase gates In Fig. 8 we present the full quantum circuit to prepare in our algorithm involve repetitions of the same basic a Bethe ansatz eigenstate with L = 4 and M = 2. We rotation angles, of which there are only (M 2 + M)/2 dis- note that the work qubit is not needed when M = 2 case, tinct values. This suggests replacing the exact values but we have included it here as a reminder that it is used with variational parameters, similarly to Ref. [41]. The to implement multi-controlled gates for M > 2. 11

FIG. 8. Quantum circuit to prepare the Bethe ansatz eigenstate with L = 4, M = 2, k1 = 1.14676529, k2 = 3.56562369. 12

Appendix B: Success Probability for diﬀerent JZ 0.35 J = 1.5 z − J = 0.5 z − Jz = 0.5 0.30 The success rate of the Bethe ansatz state prepara- Jz = 1.5 tion changes qualitatively with both the sign of Jz and 0.25 whether it lies in the critical ( Jz < 1) or non-critical | | ( Jz 1) regimes. These eﬀects are illustrated in Fig. 9. | | ≥ 0.20 Whereas the ferromagnetic model in the critical regime has higher success probabilities for lower energy states, the antiferromagnetic case shows the opposite behavior. 0.15

Success Probabilities In fact, the success probabilities for different states are exactly mirrored across the E = 0 axis. This is espe- 0.10 cially interesting since the corresponding eigenstates at E = Ei for the FM case and E = Ei for the AFM 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 − − − − Energies one are different in general. It is unclear at present why these distinct states should have the same success probability. When Jz is outside the critical regime, we find FIG. 9. Success probabilities for preparation of selected eigen- that the success probability can be lower than the 1/M! states as a function of their energies, for L = 12, M = 3, value ( 0.17 for M = 3) that appears to bound the Jxy = 1, with varying interaction strengths Jz. critical≈ case.

[1] P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum logarithms and factoring (IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, processor, Nature Communications 5, 1 (2014). 1994) pp. 124–134. [13] D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress to- [2] A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- wards practical quantum variational algorithms, Physical Gordon, Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Review A 92, 042303 (2015). Energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005). [14] J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- [3] S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Re- classical algorithms, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 views of Modern Physics 92, 015003 (2020). (2016). [4] D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of Many-Body [15] H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Fermi Systems on a Universal Quantum Computer, Phys- Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact ical Review Letters 79, 2586 (1997). molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature [5] D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, Communications 10, 1 (2019). C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Solving strongly correlated [16] A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, electron models on a quantum computer, Physical Re- M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- view A 92, 062318 (2015). eﬃcient variational quantum eigensolver for small [6] L. K. Grover, Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 a Needle in a Haystack, Physical Review Letters 79, 325 (2017). (1997). [17] C. Hempel, C. Maier, J. Romero, J. McClean, T. Monz, [7] E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quan- H. Shen, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Love, R. Bab- tum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014), bush, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quan- arXiv:1411.4028. tum Chemistry Calculations on a Trapped-Ion Quantum [8] J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and Simulator, Physical Review X 8, 031022 (2018). beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018). [18] J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, [9] I. H. Deutsch, Harnessing the Power of the Second Quan- and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural net- tum Revolution, PRX Quantum 1, 020101 (2020). work training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 1 [10] F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a pro- (2018). grammable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 [19] E. Campbell, A. Khurana, and A. Montanaro, Applying (2019). quantum algorithms to constraint satisfaction problems, [11] H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Quantum 3, 167 (2019). Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu, P. Hu, [20] Y. R. Sanders, D. W. Berry, P. C. S. Costa, L. W. Tessler, X.-Y. Yang, W.-J. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Li, X. Jiang, L. Gan, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Compi- G. Yang, L. You, Z. Wang, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, lation of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Heuristics for Combi- and J.-W. Pan, Quantum computational advantage using natorial Optimization, PRX Quantum 1, 020312 (2020). photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020). [21] R. Babbush, J. McClean, C. Gidney, S. Boixo, and [12] A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. H. Neven, Focus beyond quadratic speedups for error- Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, corrected quantum advantage (2020), arXiv:2011.04149. 13

[22] R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- benchmark for fermionic quantum simulations (2020), Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding Elec- arXiv:2003.01862. tronic Spectra in Quantum Circuits with Linear T Com- [40] M. J. Cervia, A. B. Balantekin, S. N. Coppersmith, plexity, Physical Review X 8, 041015 (2018). C. W. Johnson, P. J. Love, C. Poole, K. Robbins, [23] I. D. Kivlichan, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, and M. Saffman, Exactly solvable model as a testbed J. McClean, W. Sun, Z. Jiang, N. Rubin, A. Fowler, for quantum-enhanced dark matter detection (2020), A. Aspuru-Guzik, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, Improved arXiv:2011.04097. Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulation of Condensed-Phase [41] R. I. Nepomechie, Bethe ansatz on a quantum computer?, Correlated Electrons via Trotterization, Quantum 4, 296 Quantum Information & Computation 32, 255 (2021). (2020). [42] W. W. Ho and T. H. Hsieh, Efficient variational simu- [24] V. von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- lation of non-trivial quantum states, SciPost Physics 6, her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Quantum computing 029 (2019). enhanced computational catalysis, arXiv.org (2020). [43] R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. d. Sereville, J. F. Car- [25] J. Lee, D. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- rasquilla, Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring Entangle- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient ment and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Varia- quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- tional Ansatz, PRX Quantum 1, 020319 (2020). percontraction (2020), arXiv:2011.03494. [44] A. Cervera-Lierta, J. S. Kottmann, and A. Aspuru- [26] H. Bethe, Zur Theorie der Metalle i. Eigenwerte und Guzik, The Meta-Variational Quantum Eigensolver Eigenfunktionen der linearen Atomkette, Zeitschrift für (Meta-VQE): Learning energy profiles of parameter- Physik 71, 205 (1931). ized Hamiltonians for quantum simulation (2020), [27] E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Absence of Mott Transition in arXiv:2009.13545. an Exact Solution of the Short-Range, One-Band Model [45] B. Murta and J. Fernández-Rossier, Gutzwiller wave in One Dimension, Physical Review Letters 20, 1445 function on a digital quantum computer (2021), (1968). arXiv:2103.15445. [28] D. C. Mattis, The Many-Body Problem: An Encyclopedia [46] R. Orbach, Linear Antiferromagnetic Chain with of Exactly Solved Models in One Dimension(3rd Printing Anisotropic Coupling, Physical Review 112, 309 (1958). with Revisions and Corrections) (1993). [47] V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izer- [29] F. H. L. Essler, H. Frahm, F. Ghmann, A. Klmper, gin, Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation and V. E. Korepin, The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model Functions (1993). (2005). [48] M. Takahashi, Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional [30] F. Göhmann, M. Karbach, A. Klümper, K. K. Kozlowski, Solvable Models, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, and J. Suzuki, Thermal form-factor approach to dynam- 1999). ical correlation functions of integrable lattice models, [49] T. Giamarchi, Quantum physics in one dimension, The Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- international series of monographs on physics No. 121 ment 2017, 113106 (2017). (Clarendon ; Oxford University Press, Oxford : New [31] C. Babenko, F. Ghmann, K. K. Kozlowski, and J. Suzuki, York, 2004) oCLC: ocm52784724. A thermal form factor series for the longitudinal two- [50] B. Sutherland, Beautiful Models: 70 Years of Exactly point function of the Heisenberg-Ising chain in the anti- Solved Quantum Many-Body Problems (World Scientific, ferromagnetic massive regime, Journal of Mathematical 2004). Physics 62, 041901 (2021). [51] M. Gaudin and J.-S. Caux, The Bethe Wavefunction [32] C. Babenko, F. Göhmann, K. K. Kozlowski, J. Sirker, (2014). and J. Suzuki, Exact real-time longitudinal corre- [52] A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- lation functions of the massive XXZ chain (2020), ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum arXiv:2012.07378. Information & Computation 12, 901 (2012). [33] R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and [53] D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quan- R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics with a tum networks, Physical Review A 65, 042323 (2002). Truncated Taylor Series, Physical Review Letters 114, [34] A. Bohrdt, Y. Wang, J. Koepsell, M. Kánasz-Nagy, 090502 (2015). E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Dominant Fifth-Order Cor- [54] A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic Preparation relations in Doped Quantum Antiferromagnets, Physical of Dicke States, in Fundamentals of Computation Theory Review Letters 126, 026401 (2021). (Springer, Cham, 2019) pp. 126–139, dOI: 10.1007/978- [35] G. Brassard, P. Hoyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quan- 3-030-25027-0_9. tum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation, Quantum [55] C. S. Mukherjee, S. Maitra, V. Gaurav, and D. Roy, Computation and Quantum Information 305, 53 (2002). Preparing dicke states on a quantum computer, IEEE [36] F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum cir- Transactions on Quantum Engineering 1, 3102517 cuits for strongly correlated quantum systems, Physical (2020). Review A 79, 032316 (2009). [56] A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and [37] P. Schmoll and R. Orús, Kitaev honeycomb tensor net- Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quan- works: Exact unitary circuits and applications, Physical tum speedup, Proceedings of the National Academy of Review B 95, 045112 (2017). Sciences 115, 9456 (2018). [38] A. Cervera-Lierta, Exact Ising model simulation on a [57] K. Wan, Exponentially faster implementations of Se- quantum computer, Quantum 2, 114 (2018). lect(H) for fermionic Hamiltonians, Quantum 5, 380 [39] P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, M. Stęchły, J. F. Gonthier, (2021). N. T. Bashige, J. Romero, and Y. Cao, An application 14

[58] P. K. Barkoutsos, J. F. Gonthier, I. Sokolov, N. Moll, [68] C. Gidney, General construction of Wn state, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, M. Ganzhorn, D. J. Egger, M. Troyer, https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/ A. Mezzacapo, S. Filipp, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum al- 4350/general-construction-of-w-n-state. gorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle- [69] R. Van Beeumen, G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, N. Y. Yao, hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expan- and C. Yang, A Scalable Matrix-Free Iterative Eigen- sions, Physical Review A 98, 022322 (2018). solver for Studying Many-Body Localization, in HP- [59] B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, CAsia2020: Proceedings of the International Conference S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry- on High Performance Computing in Asia-Pacific Region preserving state preparation circuits for the variational (ACM, 2020) pp. 179–187. quantum eigensolver algorithm, npj Quantum Informa- [70] F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states rep- tion 6, 10.1038/s41534-019-0240-1 (2020). resent ground states faithfully, Physical Review B 73, [60] One can decrease the number of gates for sites near the 094423 (2006). edges of the chain. For instance, at site 2 at most 2 faucets [71] F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product could have been turned off, so that the later ones do not states, projected entangled pair states, and variational need to be checked. renormalization group methods for quantum spin sys- [61] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation tems, Advances in Physics 10.1080/14789940801912366 and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, (2008). Cambridge, 2019) oCLC: 1129119093. [72] V. Murg, V. E. Korepin, and F. Verstraete, Algebraic [62] H. Abraham et al., Qiskit: An open-source framework Bethe ansatz and tensor networks, Physical Review B for quantum computing (2019). 86, 045125 (2012). [63] M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and [73] Y. Q. Chong, V. Murg, V. E. Korepin, and F. Verstraete, M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum Nested algebraic Bethe ansatz for the supersymmetric computers, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- t − j model and tensor networks, Physical Review B 91, ences 114, 7555 (2017). 195132 (2015). [64] P. Selinger, Efficient Clifford+T approximation of single- [74] J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Sim- qubit operators, Quantum Information & Computation ulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quan- 15, 159 (2015). tum computers, Molecular Physics (2011). [65] C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state fac- [75] M. B. Hastings, D. Wecker, B. Bauer, and M. Troyer, tories with a catalyzed |CCZi to 2|T i transformation, Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry, Quantum 3, 135 (2019). Quantum Information & Computation (2015). [66] C. Yesilyurt, S. Bugu, F. Ozaydin, A. A. Altintas, [76] R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, I. D. Kivlichan, A. Y. Wei, M. Tame, L. Yang, and Ş. K. Özdemir, Deterministic P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Exponentially more local doubling of W states, JOSA B 33, 2313 (2016). precise quantum simulation of fermions in second quan- [67] D. Cruz, R. Fournier, F. Gremion, A. Jeannerot, tization, New Journal of Physics 18, 033032 (2016). K. Komagata, T. Tosic, J. Thiesbrummel, C. L. Chan, [77] G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by N. Macris, M.-A. Dupertuis, and C. Javerzac-Galy, Effi- Qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019). cient Quantum Algorithms for GHZ and W States, and [78] P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package Implementation on the IBM Quantum Computer, Ad- for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many vanced Quantum Technologies 2, 1900015 (2019). body systems part I: spin chains, SciPost Physics 2, 003 (2017).