Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup
Andrew Childs University of Maryland
Dmitri Maslov Yunseong Nam Neil Julien Ross Yuan Su
arXiv:1711.10980 Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics on a small quantum computer
Andrew Childs Department of Combinatorics & Optimization and Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo
based in part on joint work with Dominic Berry, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando Somma
Workshop on What do we do with a small quantum computer? IBM Watson, 9 December 2013 Toward practical quantum speedup
IBM Google/UCSB Delft Maryland Important early goal: demonstrate quantum computational advantage … but can we find a practical application of near-term devices?
Challenges • Improve experimental systems • Improve algorithms and their implementation, making the best use of available hardware
Our goal: Produce concrete resource estimates for the simplest possible practical application of quantum computers Quantum simulation
“… nature isn’t classical, dammit, A classical computer cannot even represent and if you want to make a the state efficiently. simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical, and by golly it’s a wonderful problem, A quantum computer cannot produce a because it doesn’t look so easy.” complete description of the state.
Richard Feynman (1981) Simulating physics with computers But given succinct descriptions of • the initial state (suitable for a quantum computer to prepare it efficiently) and Quantum simulation problem: Given a • a final measurement (say, measurements description of the Hamiltonian H, an of the individual qubits in some basis), evolution time t, and an initial state (0) , a quantum computer can efficiently answer produce the final state ( t ) (to within| i questions that (apparently) a classical one some error tolerance ²|) i cannot. Product formula simulation
L To get a better approximation, use higher-order Suppose we want to simulate H = H` formulas. `=1 X E.g., second order: iAt/2r iBt iAt/2r r i(A+B)t Combine individual simulations with the Lie (e e e ) = e product formula. E.g., with two terms: + O(t3/r2) iAt/r iBt/r r i(A+B)t lim e e = e Systematic expansions to arbitrary order are r !1 known [Suzuki 92] r e iAt/r e iBt/r = e i (A+B)t + O(t2/r) Using the 2kth order expansion, the number of exponentials required for an approximation To ensure error at most ², take with error at most ² is at most 2 r = O ( H t) /✏ 1/2k 2k 2 L H t k k 5 L H t k k k k ✏ ⇣ ⌘ [Lloyd 96] [Berry, Ahokas, Cleve, Sanders 07] Quantum walk simulation
Quantum walk corresponding to H Simulation by phase estimation N Alternately reflect about span j , arcsin^ (phase estimation) {| i}j=1 N | i 7! | i| i i t ^ j := j ⌫ H⇤ k + ⌫j N +1 , e arcsin | i | i⌦ jk| i | i 7! | i| i ✓ k=1 ◆ i t X q e (inverse phase est) and swap the two registers. 7! | i If H is sparse, this walk is easy to implement. Theorem: O ( t/ p ✏ ) steps of this walk suffice to simulate H for time t with error at most ². Spectral theorem: Each eigenvalue ¸ of H i arcsin corresponds to two eigenvalues e± of the walk operator (with eigenvectors± closely related to those of H).
[Childs10; Berry, Childs 12] Taylor series simulation
Main idea: Directly implement the series LCU Lemma: Given the ability to perform k unitaries Vj with unit complexity, one can iHt 1 ( iHt) e = perform the operation U = V with k! j j j k=0 complexity O ( ) . Furthermore, if U is X j | j| K (nearly) unitary then this implementationP can ( iHt)k be made (nearly)P deterministic. ⇡ k! k=0 X Main ideas:
Write H = ` ↵ ` H ` with H ` unitary. • Implement U with some amplitude: P 0 sin ✓ 0 U + cos ✓ Then | i| i 7! | i | i | i • Boost the amplitude for success by oblivious K ( it)k amplitude amplification k! ↵`1 ↵`k H`1 H`k ··· ··· log(t/✏) kX=0 `1X,...,`k Query complexity: O t is a linear combination of unitaries. log log(t/✏) [Berry, Childs, Cleve, Kothari, Somma 14 & 15] Quantum signal processing
Combining known lower bounds on the complexity of simulation as a function of t and ² gives
1 t log ✏ log ✏ ⌦ t + 1 vs. upper bound of O t t log log ✏ log log ✏ ⇣ ⌘ ⇣ ⌘ Recent work, using an alternative method for implementing a linear combination of quantum walk steps, gives an optimal tradeoff.
Main idea: Encode the eigenvalues of H in a two-dimensional subspace; use a carefully-chosen sequence of single-qubit rotations to manipulate those eigenvalues, performing the desired evolution.
[Low, Chuang 16] Algorithm comparison
Algorithm Query complexity Gate complexity
Product formula, 1st order O(d4t2/✏) O(d4t2/✏)
2k 3 dt 1/2k 2k 3 dt 1/2k Product formula, (2k)th order O 5 d t( ✏ ) O 5 d t( ✏ )
Quantum walk O( dt/p✏) O( dt/p✏)
2 log(dt/✏) 2 log2(dt/✏) Fractional-query simulation O d t log log(dt/✏) O d t log log(dt/✏)