DOCSLIB.ORG

Supercomputer Simulations of Transmon Quantum Computers Quantum Simulations of Transmon Supercomputer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IAS Series IAS Supercomputer simulations of transmon quantum computers quantum simulations of transmon Supercomputer 45 Supercomputer simulations of transmon quantum computers Dennis Willsch IAS Series IAS Series Band / Volume 45 Band / Volume 45 ISBN 978-3-95806-505-5 ISBN 978-3-95806-505-5 Dennis Willsch Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich IAS Series Band / Volume 45 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS) Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) Supercomputer simulations of transmon quantum computers Dennis Willsch Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich IAS Series Band / Volume 45 ISSN 1868-8489 ISBN 978-3-95806-505-5 Bibliografsche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografe; detaillierte Bibliografsche Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Herausgeber Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH und Vertrieb: Zentralbibliothek, Verlag 52425 Jülich Tel.: +49 2461 61-5368 Fax: +49 2461 61-6103 [email protected] www.fz-juelich.de/zb Umschlaggestaltung: Grafsche Medien, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Titelbild: Quantum Flagship/H.Ritsch Druck: Grafsche Medien, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Copyright: Forschungszentrum Jülich 2020 Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich IAS Series, Band / Volume 45 D 82 (Diss. RWTH Aachen University, 2020) ISSN 1868-8489 ISBN 978-3-95806-505-5 Vollständig frei verfügbar über das Publikationsportal des Forschungszentrums Jülich (JuSER) unter www.fz-juelich.de/zb/openaccess. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract We develop a simulator for quantum computers composed of superconducting transmon qubits. The simulation model supports an arbitrary number of transmons and resonators. Quantum gates are implemented by time-dependent pulses. Nontrivial effects such as crosstalk, leakage to non-computational states, entanglement between transmons and res- onators, and control errors due to the pulses are inherently included. The time evolution of the quantum computer is obtained by solving the time-dependent Schr¨odingerequation. The simulation algorithm shows excellent scalability on high- performance supercomputers. We present results for the simulation of up to 16 transmons and resonators. Additionally, the model can be used to simulate environments, and we demonstrate the transition from an isolated system to an open quantum system governed by a Lindblad master equation. We also describe a procedure to extract model parameters from electromagnetic simulations or experiments. We compare simulation results to experiments on several NISQ processors of the IBM Q Experience. We find nearly perfect agreement between simulation and experiment for quantum circuits designed to probe crosstalk in transmon systems. By studying common gate metrics such as the fidelity or the diamond distance, we find that they cannot reliably predict the performance of repeated gate applications or practical quantum algorithms. As an alternative, we find that the results from two-transmon gate set tomography have an exceptional predictive power. Finally, we test a protocol from the theory of quantum error correction and fault tolerance. We find that the protocol systematically improves the performance of transmon quantum computers in the presence of characteristic control and measurement errors. III Zusammenfassung Wir entwickeln einen Simulator fur¨ Quantencomputer, die aus supraleitenden Transmon- Qubits bestehen. Das Simulationsmodell unterstutzt¨ eine beliebige Anzahl von Trans- mons und Resonatoren. Quantengatter werden durch zeitabh¨angige Pulse realisiert. Nicht- triviale Effekte wie Crosstalk, Verlust in nicht rechnerische Zust¨ande, Verschr¨ankung zwi- schen Transmons und Resonatoren sowie Steuerungsfehler verursacht durch die Pulse sind automatisch miteinbezogen. Die Zeitentwicklung des Quantencomputers wird durch L¨osung der zeitabh¨angigen Schr¨odingergleichung bestimmt. Der Simulationsalgorithmus zeigt ausgezeichnete Skalier- barkeit auf Hochleistungs-Supercomputern. Wir pr¨asentieren Ergebnisse fur¨ die Simulati- on von bis zu 16 Transmons und Resonatoren. Zus¨atzlich kann das Modell zur Simulation von Umgebungen verwendet werden. Wir demonstrieren den Ubergang¨ von einem iso- lierten System zu einem offenen Quantensystem, das von einer Lindblad-Mastergleichung bestimmt wird. Wir beschreiben außerdem ein Verfahren zur Extraktion von Modellpa- rametern aus elektromagnetischen Simulationen oder Experimenten. Wir vergleichen Simulationsergebnisse mit Experimenten auf mehreren NISQ-Prozes- soren der IBM Q Experience. Wir finden eine nahezu perfekte Ubereinstimmung¨ zwischen Simulation und Experiment fur¨ Quantenschaltungen zur Untersuchung von Crosstalk in Transmon-Systemen. Durch Untersuchung g¨angiger Gatter-Metriken wie der Fidelity oder der Diamant-Distanz finden wir, dass sie die Leistung von wiederholten Gatteranwen- dungen oder praktischen Quantenalgorithmen nicht zuverl¨assig vorhersagen k¨onnen. Als Alternative finden wir, dass die Ergebnisse einer Zwei-Transmon-Gattermengentomogra- phie eine außergew¨ohnlich gute Vorhersagekraft aufweisen. Zum Schluss testen wir ein Protokoll aus der Theorie der Quantenfehlerkorrektur und Fehlertoleranz. Wir stellen fest, dass das Protokoll systematisch die Leistung von Transmon-Quantencomputern bei charakteristischen Steuerungs- und Messfehlern verbessert. V Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Ideal gate-based quantum computing 5 2.1 Quantum bits . 5 2.1.1 Single qubits . 6 2.1.2 Bloch sphere . 6 2.1.3 Multiple qubits . 8 2.1.4 Leakage . 11 2.2 Quantum gates . 12 2.2.1 Unitary operators . 12 2.2.2 Elementary quantum gates . 13 2.3 Quantum circuits . 14 2.4 Quantum operations . 16 2.4.1 Representations of quantum operations . 17 2.4.2 Transformations of subsystems and leakage . 19 3 Simulating superconducting transmon qubits 21 3.1 Superconducting circuits . 21 3.1.1 Quantum and classical descriptions . 22 3.1.2 LC resonator . 23 3.1.3 Josephson junction . 24 3.1.4 Cooper pair box . 25 3.2 Transmon quantum computer model . 26 3.2.1 Hamiltonian . 26 3.2.2 Choice of the basis . 27 3.3 Simulation toolkit . 31 3.3.1 Numerical algorithm: solver ..................... 32 3.3.2 Evaluation of the results: evaluator . 38 3.3.3 Visualization of the results: visualizer . 42 3.4 Definition of the model systems . 42 3.4.1 Single transmon-resonator system . 42 3.4.2 Transmon-resonator system coupled to a bath . 42 3.4.3 Two-transmon system . 44 3.4.4 Small five-transmon system . 44 3.4.5 Large five-transmon system . 44 VII Contents 3.5 Modeling electromagnetic environments . 48 3.5.1 The Foster representation of an electromagnetic environment . 50 3.5.2 Mapping to the model Hamiltonian . 52 4 Free time evolution 59 4.1 Accuracy and performance benchmarks . 60 4.1.1 Accuracy . 60 4.1.2 Performance . 63 4.2 Single transmon-resonator system . 68 4.2.1 Overview of known perturbative results . 68 4.2.2 Comparison to simulation results . 70 4.3 Transmon-resonator system coupled to a bath . 72 4.3.1 Simulation models . 73 4.3.2 Results . 75 4.3.3 Additional ways to improve the models . 79 4.4 Effective ZZ interaction for coupled transmons . 80 4.5 Conclusions . 83 5 Optimizing pulses for quantum gates 85 5.1 Single-qubit pulses . 86 5.1.1 The VZ gate . 87 5.1.2 The GD pulse . 87 5.1.3 The zero pulse . 88 5.2 Two-qubit pulses . 89 5.2.1 CNOT gates based on the CR effect . 89 5.2.2 Analysis of IX and ZX interactions . 96 5.3 Optimization of pulse parameters . 98 5.3.1 The Nelder{Mead algorithm . 99 5.3.2 Optimization results . 101 5.4 Compiling quantum circuits . 105 5.5 Alternative gate optimization techniques . 107 5.6 Conclusions . 107 6 Errors in quantum gates 109 6.1 Evaluation of gate metrics . 110 6.1.1 Average gate fidelity . 110 6.1.2 Diamond distance . 111 6.1.3 Unitarity . 115 6.1.4 Results . 116 6.2 Repeated gate applications . 120 6.2.1 Evolution of the diamond distance . 120 6.2.2 Relation to experiments . 123 6.3 Gate set tomography . 125 6.3.1 The idea of GST . 126 6.3.2 Running GST . 129 VIII Contents 6.3.3 Predicting repeated pulse applications . 135 6.4 Conclusions . 138 7 Selected quantum circuit experiments 141 7.1 Crosstalk experiments . 142 7.1.1 Circuit and simulation results . 142 7.1.2 Comparison with experiments on the IBM Q Experience . 145 7.2 Characterization of the singlet state . 147 7.2.1 Experiment . 148 7.2.2 Effective error model . 152 7.3 Testing quantum fault tolerance . 155 7.3.1 Fault-tolerant protocol . 156 7.3.2 Test systems and circuits . 159 7.3.3 Results . 161 7.4 Conclusions . 165 8 Discussion and conclusion 167 Appendices 171 A Visualization of quantum gate implementations . 173 B Elementary gate set used for the simulation . 176 C The reason for linear and unitary transformations in quantum theory . 178 C.1 Wigner's theorem . 178 C.2 Alternative approaches . 181 C.3 General remarks . 183 D Implementations of the four-component transformations V and V y . 184 E Error bounds for observables . 186 F Pulse parameters for quantum gates . 187 G Average fidelity of trace-decreasing quantum operations . 190 G.1 Preliminaries . 190 G.2 Quantum information theoretic proof . 191 G.3 Analytic proof . 192 H Diamond distance between unitary quantum operations . 194 I Proof of a diamond-distance bound for trace-decreasing operations . 196 J Gate decompositions and effective Hamiltonians . ..
Recommended publications
  • Yes, More Decoherence: a Reply to Critics

    Yes, More Decoherence: a Reply to Critics

    Yes, More Decoherence: A Reply to Critics Elise M. Crull∗ Submitted 11 July 2017; revised 24 August 2017 1 Introduction A few years ago I published an article in this journal titled \Less interpretation and more decoherence in quantum gravity and inflationary cosmology" (Crull, 2015) that generated replies from three pairs of authors: Vassallo and Esfeld (2015), Okon and Sudarsky (2016) and Fortin and Lombardi (2017). As a philosopher of physics it is my chief aim to engage physicists and philosophers alike in deeper conversation regarding scientific theories and their implications. In as much as my earlier paper provoked a suite of responses and thereby brought into sharper relief numerous misconceptions regarding decoherence, I welcome the occasion provided by the editors of this journal to continue the discussion. In what follows, I respond to my critics in some detail (wherein the devil is often found). I must be clear at the outset, however, that due to the nature of these criticisms, much of what I say below can be categorized as one or both of the following: (a) a repetition of points made in the original paper, and (b) a reiteration of formal and dynamical aspects of quantum decoherence considered uncontroversial by experts working on theoretical and experimental applications of this process.1 I begin with a few paragraphs describing what my 2015 paper both was, and was not, about. I then briefly address Vassallo's and Esfeld's (hereafter VE) relatively short response to me, dedicating the bulk of my reply to the lengthy critique of Okon and Sudarsky (hereafter OS).
  • Quantum Computing Overview

    Quantum Computing Overview

    Quantum Computing at Microsoft Stephen Jordan • As of November 2018: 60 entries, 392 references • Major new primitives discovered only every few years. Simulation is a killer app for quantum computing with a solid theoretical foundation. Chemistry Materials Nuclear and Particle Physics Image: David Parker, U. Birmingham Image: CERN Many problems are out of reach even for exascale supercomputers but doable on quantum computers. Understanding biological Nitrogen fixation Intractable on classical supercomputers But a 200-qubit quantum computer will let us understand it Finding the ground state of Ferredoxin 퐹푒2푆2 Classical algorithm Quantum algorithm 2012 Quantum algorithm 2015 ! ~3000 ~1 INTRACTABLE YEARS DAY Research on quantum algorithms and software is essential! Quantum algorithm in high level language (Q#) Compiler Machine level instructions Microsoft Quantum Development Kit Quantum Visual Studio Local and cloud Extensive libraries, programming integration and quantum samples, and language debugging simulation documentation Developing quantum applications 1. Find quantum algorithm with quantum speedup 2. Confirm quantum speedup after implementing all oracles 3. Optimize code until runtime is short enough 4. Embed into specific hardware estimate runtime Simulating Quantum Field Theories: Classically Feynman diagrams Lattice methods Image: Encyclopedia of Physics Image: R. Babich et al. Break down at strong Good for binding energies. coupling or high precision Sign problem: real time dynamics, high fermion density. There’s room for exponential
  • Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale digital computers will advance our knowledge of QCD, but some challenges will remain, especially concerning real-time evolution and properties of nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Digital computers may never be able to address these (and other) problems; quantum computers will solve them eventually, though I’m not sure when. The physics payoff may still be far away, but today’s research can hasten the arrival of a new era in which quantum simulation fuels progress in fundamental physics. 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 particle collision molecular chemistry entangled electrons A quantum computer can simulate efficiently any physical process that occurs in Nature. (Maybe. We don’t actually know for sure.) superconductor black hole early universe 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 We know examples of problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer, where we believe the problems are hard for classical computers.
  • Arxiv:1206.1084V3 [Quant-Ph] 3 May 2019

    Arxiv:1206.1084V3 [Quant-Ph] 3 May 2019

    Overview of Bohmian Mechanics Xavier Oriolsa and Jordi Mompartb∗ aDepartament d'Enginyeria Electr`onica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, SPAIN bDepartament de F´ısica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, SPAIN This chapter provides a fully comprehensive overview of the Bohmian formulation of quantum phenomena. It starts with a historical review of the difficulties found by Louis de Broglie, David Bohm and John Bell to convince the scientific community about the validity and utility of Bohmian mechanics. Then, a formal explanation of Bohmian mechanics for non-relativistic single-particle quantum systems is presented. The generalization to many-particle systems, where correlations play an important role, is also explained. After that, the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics is discussed. It is emphasized that Bohmian mechanics exactly reproduces the mean value and temporal and spatial correlations obtained from the standard, i.e., `orthodox', formulation. The ontological characteristics of the Bohmian theory provide a description of measurements in a natural way, without the need of introducing stochastic operators for the wavefunction collapse. Several solved problems are presented at the end of the chapter giving additional mathematical support to some particular issues. A detailed description of computational algorithms to obtain Bohmian trajectories from the numerical solution of the Schr¨odingeror the Hamilton{Jacobi equations are presented in an appendix. The motivation of this chapter is twofold.
  • Qiskit Backend Specifications for Openqasm and Openpulse

    Qiskit Backend Specifications for Openqasm and Openpulse

    Qiskit Backend Specifications for OpenQASM and OpenPulse Experiments David C. McKay1,∗ Thomas Alexander1, Luciano Bello1, Michael J. Biercuk2, Lev Bishop1, Jiayin Chen2, Jerry M. Chow1, Antonio D. C´orcoles1, Daniel Egger1, Stefan Filipp1, Juan Gomez1, Michael Hush2, Ali Javadi-Abhari1, Diego Moreda1, Paul Nation1, Brent Paulovicks1, Erick Winston1, Christopher J. Wood1, James Wootton1 and Jay M. Gambetta1 1IBM Research 2Q-CTRL Pty Ltd, Sydney NSW Australia September 11, 2018 Abstract As interest in quantum computing grows, there is a pressing need for standardized API's so that algorithm designers, circuit designers, and physicists can be provided a common reference frame for designing, executing, and optimizing experiments. There is also a need for a language specification that goes beyond gates and allows users to specify the time dynamics of a quantum experiment and recover the time dynamics of the output. In this document we provide a specification for a common interface to backends (simulators and experiments) and a standarized data structure (Qobj | quantum object) for sending experiments to those backends via Qiskit. We also introduce OpenPulse, a language for specifying pulse level control (i.e. control of the continuous time dynamics) of a general quantum device independent of the specific arXiv:1809.03452v1 [quant-ph] 10 Sep 2018 hardware implementation. ∗[email protected] 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 1.1 Intended Audience . .4 1.2 Outline of Document . .4 1.3 Outside of the Scope . .5 1.4 Interface Language and Schemas . .5 2 Qiskit API5 2.1 General Overview of a Qiskit Experiment . .7 2.2 Provider . .8 2.3 Backend .
  • Quantum Clustering Algorithms

    Quantum Clustering Algorithms

    Quantum Clustering Algorithms Esma A¨ımeur [email protected] Gilles Brassard [email protected] S´ebastien Gambs [email protected] Universit´ede Montr´eal, D´epartement d’informatique et de recherche op´erationnelle C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montr´eal (Qu´ebec), H3C 3J7 Canada Abstract Multidisciplinary by nature, Quantum Information By the term “quantization”, we refer to the Processing (QIP) is at the crossroads of computer process of using quantum mechanics in order science, mathematics, physics and engineering. It con- to improve a classical algorithm, usually by cerns the implications of quantum mechanics for infor- making it go faster. In this paper, we initiate mation processing purposes (Nielsen & Chuang, 2000). the idea of quantizing clustering algorithms Quantum information is very different from its classi- by using variations on a celebrated quantum cal counterpart: it cannot be measured reliably and it algorithm due to Grover. After having intro- is disturbed by observation, but it can exist in a super- duced this novel approach to unsupervised position of classical states. Classical and quantum learning, we illustrate it with a quantized information can be used together to realize wonders version of three standard algorithms: divisive that are out of reach of classical information processing clustering, k-medians and an algorithm for alone, such as being able to factorize efficiently large the construction of a neighbourhood graph. numbers, with dramatic cryptographic consequences We obtain a significant speedup compared to (Shor, 1997), search in a unstructured database with a the classical approach. quadratic speedup compared to the best possible clas- sical algorithms (Grover, 1997) and allow two people to communicate in perfect secrecy under the nose of an 1.
  • Bell's Theorem and Its Tests

    Bell's Theorem and Its Tests

    PHYSICS ESSAYS 33, 2 (2020) Bell’s theorem and its tests: Proof that nature is superdeterministic—Not random Johan Hanssona) Division of Physics, Lulea˚ University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lulea˚, Sweden (Received 9 March 2020; accepted 7 May 2020; published online 22 May 2020) Abstract: By analyzing the same Bell experiment in different reference frames, we show that nature at its fundamental level is superdeterministic, not random, in contrast to what is indicated by orthodox quantum mechanics. Events—including the results of quantum mechanical measurements—in global space-time are fixed prior to measurement. VC 2020 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-33.2.216] Resume: En analysant l’experience de Bell dans d’autres cadres de reference, nous demontrons que la nature est super deterministe au niveau fondamental et non pas aleatoire, contrairement ace que predit la mecanique quantique. Des evenements, incluant les resultats des mesures mecaniques quantiques, dans un espace-temps global sont fixes avant la mesure. Key words: Quantum Nonlocality; Bell’s Theorem; Quantum Measurement. Bell’s theorem1 is not merely a statement about quantum Registered outcomes at either side, however, are classi- mechanics but about nature itself, and will survive even if cal objective events (for example, a sequence of zeros and quantum mechanics is superseded by an even more funda- ones representing spin up or down along some chosen mental theory in the future. Although Bell used aspects of direction), e.g., markings on a paper printout ¼ classical quantum theory in his original proof, the same results can be facts ¼ events ¼ points defining (constituting) global space- obtained without doing so.2,3 The many experimental tests of time itself.
  • Observations of Wavefunction Collapse and the Retrospective Application of the Born Rule

    Observations of Wavefunction Collapse and the Retrospective Application of the Born Rule

    Observations of wavefunction collapse and the retrospective application of the Born rule Sivapalan Chelvaniththilan Department of Physics, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka [email protected] Abstract In this paper I present a thought experiment that gives different results depending on whether or not the wavefunction collapses. Since the wavefunction does not obey the Schrodinger equation during the collapse, conservation laws are violated. This is the reason why the results are different – quantities that are conserved if the wavefunction does not collapse might change if it does. I also show that using the Born Rule to derive probabilities of states before a measurement given the state after it (rather than the other way round as it is usually used) leads to the conclusion that the memories that an observer has about making measurements of quantum systems have a significant probability of being false memories. 1. Introduction The Born Rule [1] is used to determine the probabilities of different outcomes of a measurement of a quantum system in both the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Suppose that an observer is in the state before making a measurement on a two-state particle. Let and be the two states of the particle in the basis in which the observer makes the measurement. Then if the particle is initially in the state the state of the combined system (observer + particle) can be written as In the Copenhagen interpretation [2], the state of the system after the measurement will be either with a 50% probability each, where and are the states of the observer in which he has obtained a measurement of 0 or 1 respectively.
  • Pilot Quantum Error Correction for Global

    Pilot Quantum Error Correction for Global

    Pilot Quantum Error Correction for Global- Scale Quantum Communications Laszlo Gyongyosi*1,2, Member, IEEE, Sandor Imre1, Member, IEEE 1Quantum Technologies Laboratory, Department of Telecommunications Budapest University of Technology and Economics 2 Magyar tudosok krt, H-1111, Budapest, Hungary 2Information Systems Research Group, Mathematics and Natural Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-1518, Budapest, Hungary *[email protected] Real global-scale quantum communications and quantum key distribution systems cannot be implemented by the current fiber and free-space links. These links have high attenuation, low polarization-preserving capability or extreme sensitivity to the environment. A potential solution to the problem is the space-earth quantum channels. These channels have no absorption since the signal states are propagated in empty space, however a small fraction of these channels is in the atmosphere, which causes slight depolarizing effect. Furthermore, the relative motion of the ground station and the satellite causes a rotation in the polarization of the quantum states. In the current approaches to compensate for these types of polarization errors, high computational costs and extra physical apparatuses are required. Here we introduce a novel approach which breaks with the traditional views of currently developed quantum-error correction schemes. The proposed solution can be applied to fix the polarization errors which are critical in space-earth quantum communication systems. The channel coding scheme provides capacity-achieving communication over slightly depolarizing space-earth channels. I. Introduction Quantum error-correction schemes use different techniques to correct the various possible errors which occur in a quantum channel. In the first decade of the 21st century, many revolutionary properties of quantum channels were discovered [12-16], [19-22] however the efficient error- correction in quantum systems is still a challenge.
  • Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes

    Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes

    Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes Daniel Litinski and Felix von Oppen Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems and Fachbereich Physik, Freie Universit¨at Berlin, Arnimallee 14, 14195 Berlin, Germany We present a planar surface-code-based bilizers requires more potentially faulty controlled-not scheme for fault-tolerant quantum computation (CNOT) gates. which eliminates the time overhead of single- The main drawback of surface codes in comparison qubit Clifford gates, and implements long-range to color codes is the absence of transversal single-qubit multi-target CNOT gates with a time overhead Clifford gates, i.e., the gates that are products of the that scales only logarithmically with the control- Hadamard gate H and the phase gate S. While the target separation. This is done by replacing transversal Clifford gates of color codes provide them hardware operations for single-qubit Clifford with fast logical H and S gates, defect-based propos- gates with a classical tracking protocol. Inter- als for surface codes [14] implement the H gate via a qubit communication is added via a modified multi-step measurement protocol, and the S gate via a lattice surgery protocol that employs twist de- distilled ancilla qubit. In order to lower the overhead fects of the surface code. The long-range multi- of single-qubit Clifford gates, surface code qubits can target CNOT gates facilitate magic state distil- be encoded using twist defects [15], which are essen- lation, which renders our scheme fault-tolerant tially Majoranas that can be braided via code defor- and universal. mation [16].
  • Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples

    Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples

    Quantum Machine Learning: Benefits and Practical Examples Frank Phillipson1[0000-0003-4580-7521] 1 TNO, Anna van Buerenplein 1, 2595 DA Den Haag, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract. A quantum computer that is useful in practice, is expected to be devel- oped in the next few years. An important application is expected to be machine learning, where benefits are expected on run time, capacity and learning effi- ciency. In this paper, these benefits are presented and for each benefit an example application is presented. A quantum hybrid Helmholtz machine use quantum sampling to improve run time, a quantum Hopfield neural network shows an im- proved capacity and a variational quantum circuit based neural network is ex- pected to deliver a higher learning efficiency. Keywords: Quantum Machine Learning, Quantum Computing, Near Future Quantum Applications. 1 Introduction Quantum computers make use of quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposi- tion and entanglement, to perform operations on data [1]. Where classical computers require the data to be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superpositions of states. These computers would theoretically be able to solve certain problems much more quickly than any classical computer that use even the best cur- rently known algorithms. Examples are integer factorization using Shor's algorithm or the simulation of quantum many-body systems. This benefit is also called ‘quantum supremacy’ [2], which only recently has been claimed for the first time [3]. There are two different quantum computing paradigms.
  • Quantum Trajectories: Real Or Surreal?

    Quantum Trajectories: Real Or Surreal?

    entropy Article Quantum Trajectories: Real or Surreal? Basil J. Hiley * and Peter Van Reeth * Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK * Correspondence: [email protected] (B.J.H.); [email protected] (P.V.R.) Received: 8 April 2018; Accepted: 2 May 2018; Published: 8 May 2018 Abstract: The claim of Kocsis et al. to have experimentally determined “photon trajectories” calls for a re-examination of the meaning of “quantum trajectories”. We will review the arguments that have been assumed to have established that a trajectory has no meaning in the context of quantum mechanics. We show that the conclusion that the Bohm trajectories should be called “surreal” because they are at “variance with the actual observed track” of a particle is wrong as it is based on a false argument. We also present the results of a numerical investigation of a double Stern-Gerlach experiment which shows clearly the role of the spin within the Bohm formalism and discuss situations where the appearance of the quantum potential is open to direct experimental exploration. Keywords: Stern-Gerlach; trajectories; spin 1. Introduction The recent claims to have observed “photon trajectories” [1–3] calls for a re-examination of what we precisely mean by a “particle trajectory” in the quantum domain. Mahler et al. [2] applied the Bohm approach [4] based on the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation to interpret their results, claiming their empirical evidence supported this approach producing “trajectories” remarkably similar to those presented in Philippidis, Dewdney and Hiley [5]. However, the Schrödinger equation cannot be applied to photons because photons have zero rest mass and are relativistic “particles” which must be treated differently.