DOCSLIB.ORG

Languages and Representations for Quantum Computing: Stabilizers and Tensor Networks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Languages and Representations for Quantum Computing: Stabilizers and Tensor Networks Languages and representations for quantum computing: stabilizers and tensor networks Yipeng Huang Rutgers University October 14, 2020 1/32 Where we are in this class I Near-term quantum algorithms: QAOA, VQE. I Quantum programming languages: Cirq, Qiskit, assertions, verification. I Quantum supremacy: prototyping vs. simulation. I Quantum architectural interface: universal logical gatesets & machine native gatesets. I Quantum micro-architecture & devices. 2/32 Importance of representations in quantum intuition, programming, and simulation I Conventional quantum circuits and state vector view of QC conceals symmetries, hinders intuition. I Classical simulation of quantum computing is actually tractable for a certain subset of quantum gates. I Both the logical and native gatesets in a quantum architecture need to be universal for quantum advantage. 3/32 Several views/representations of quantum computing I Programming has several views: functional programming, procedural programming. I Physics has several views: Newtonian, Lagrangian, Hamiltonian Different views reveal different symmetries, offer different intuition. 4/32 Several views/representations of quantum computing I Schr¨odinger:state vectors and density matrices I Heisenberg: stabilizer formalism I Tensor-network I Feynman: path sums A survey of these representations of quantum computing is given in Chapter 9 of this recent book [Ding and Chong, 2020]. 5/32 Several views/representations of quantum computing I Schr¨odinger:state vectors and density matrices I Heisenberg: stabilizer formalism I Tensor-network I Feynman: path sums I Binary decision diagrams (new?) I Logical satisfiability equations (new? see 10/28/2020 seminar) 6/32 Schr¨odingerview I In Schr¨odingerquantum mechanics description, emphasis on how states evolve. I CNOT0;1(H0 ⊗ I1) j00i = 2 p1 0 p1 0 3 2 3 2 2 1 0 p1 0 p1 6 2 2 7 607 CNOT0;1 6 7 6 7 = 6 p1 0 p−1 0 7 0 4 2 2 5 4 5 0 p1 0 p−1 0 2 2 2 3 2 p1 3 2 p1 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 60 1 0 07 6 0 7 6 0 7 6 7 6 7 = 6 7 0 0 0 1 6 p1 7 6 0 7 4 5 4 2 5 4 5 0 0 1 0 p1 0 2 I The Schrodinger view requires exponential storage: A quantum computer with N qubits can be in superposition of 2N basis states, requires 2N amplitudes to fully specify state. 7/32 Heisenberg view / stabilizer formalism I In Heisenberg quantum mechanics description, emphasis on how operators evolve. I If we limit operations to the Clifford gates (a subset of quantum gates), simulation tractable in polynomial time and space. I Covers some quantum algorithms: quantum superdense coding, quantum teleportation, Deutsch-Jozsa, Bernstein-Vazirani, quantum error correction, most quantum error correction protocols. I A model for probabilistic (but not quantum) computation. 8/32 General strategy for using stabilizers to simulate quantum circuits consisting of only Clifford gates 1. Start with N qubits with initial state j0i⊗N . 2. Represent the state as its group of stabilizers. 3. When simulating the quantum circuit, decompose the Clifford gates to stabilizer gates fCNOT ; H; Pg. 4. Apply each of the stabilizer gates to the stabilizer representation. 9/32 Special places on the Bloch sphere Figure: Bloch sphere showing pole states. Source: Wikimedia. 10/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers I A unitary operator U stabilizes a pure state j i if U j i = j i 11/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers 1. I stabilizes everything. 2. −I stabilizes nothing. " # " # 0 1 p1 p1 3. X stabilizes j+i: X j+i = 2 = 2 = j+i 1 0 p1 p1 2 2 " # " # 0 1 p1 p1 4. −X stabilizes |−i: −X |−i = − 2 = 2 = |−i 1 0 p−1 p−1 2 2 " # " # 0 −i p1 p1 5. Y stabilizes j+ii: Y j+ii = 2 = 2 = j+ii i 0 pi pi 2 2 " # " # 0 −i p1 p1 6. −Y stabilizes |−ii: −Y |−ii = − 2 = 2 = |−ii i 0 p−i p−i 2 2 1 0 1 1 7. Z stabilizes j0i: Z j0i = = = j0i 0 −1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8. −Z stabilizes j1i: −Z j1i = − = = j1i 0 −1 1 1 12/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers In other words, 1. j0i is stabilized by fI ; Zg 2. j1i is stabilized by fI ; −Zg 3. j+i is stabilized by fI ; X g 4. |−i is stabilized by fI ; −X g 5. j+ii is stabilized by fI ; Y g 6. |−ii is stabilized by fI ; −Y g 13/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers 1. j0i is stabilized by fI ; Zg 2. j1i is stabilized by fI ; −Zg 3. j+i is stabilized by fI ; X g 4. |−i is stabilized by fI ; −X g 5. j+ii is stabilized by fI ; Y g 6. |−ii is stabilized by fI ; −Y g I The set of unitary matrices that stabilize j i form a group. I UyU j i = Uy j i = j i I if V j i = j i then UV j i = j i and VU j i = j i 14/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers 1. j0i is stabilized by fI ; Zg 2. j1i is stabilized by fI ; −Zg 3. j+i is stabilized by fI ; X g 4. |−i is stabilized by fI ; −X g 5. j+ii is stabilized by fI ; Y g 6. |−ii is stabilized by fI ; −Y g 15/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers For multi-qubit states, the group of stabilizers is the cartesian product of the single-qubit stabilizers I j00i = j0i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; Z ⊗ I ; Z ⊗ Zg j00i+j10i j0i+j1i p = p ⊗ j0i = j+i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by I 2 2 fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; X ⊗ I ; X ⊗ Zg j00i+j11i p (which cannot be factored into a tensor product) is I 2 stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; X ⊗ X ; −Y ⊗ Y ; Z ⊗ Zg 16/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers For multi-qubit states, the group of stabilizers is the cartesian product of the single-qubit stabilizers I j0i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; Z ⊗ I ; Z ⊗ Zg I j+i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; X ⊗ I ; X ⊗ Zg The same (abelian) group properties hold. I The set of unitary matrices that stabilize j i form a group. I UyU j i = Uy j i = j i I if V j i = j i then UV j i = j i and VU j i = j i 17/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers Amazing fact: for any N-qubit stabilized state, only N elements needed to specify group. 1. j0i is stabilized by fI ; Zg, Z is generator 2. j1i is stabilized by fI ; −Zg, -Z is generator 3. j+i is stabilized by fI ; X g, X is generator 4. |−i is stabilized by fI ; −X g, -X is generator 5. j+ii is stabilized by fI ; Y g, Y is generator 6. |−ii is stabilized by fI ; −Y g, -Y is generator 7. j0i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; Z ⊗ I ; Z ⊗ Zg, fI ⊗ Z; Z ⊗ I g is generator 8. j+i ⊗ j0i is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; I ⊗ Z; X ⊗ I ; X ⊗ Zg, fI ⊗ Z; X ⊗ I g is generator j00i+j11i 9. p is stabilized by fI ⊗ I ; X ⊗ X ; −Y ⊗ Y ; X ⊗ Zg, 2 fX ⊗ X ; Z ⊗ Zg is generator 18/32 Representing a state as its group of stabilizers I Amazing fact: for any N-qubit stabilized state, only N elements needed to specify group|a result from abstract algebra group theory [Nielsen and Chuang, 2002, Appendix 2] I So long as the quantum circuit consists only of Clifford gates, only N elements needed to specify whole quantum state. I Contrast against 2N amplitudes needed to specify a general N-qubit quantum state vector. I For example a two-qubit states needs four amplitues fa0; a1; a2; a3g to specify quantum state j i = a0 j00i + a1 j01i + a2 j10i + a3 j11i. 19/32 General strategy for using stabilizers to simulate quantum circuits consisting of only Clifford gates 1. Start with N qubits with initial state j0i⊗N . 2. Represent the state as its group of stabilizers. 3. When simulating the quantum circuit, decompose the Clifford gates to stabilizer gates fCNOT ; H; Pg. 4. Apply each of the stabilizer gates to the stabilizer representation. 20/32 Stabilizer gates: fCNOT ; H; Pg 1. Hadamard gate: induces superpositions. 2. CNOT gate: induces entanglement. 1 0 3. Phase gate: induces complex phases. P = 0 i I Despite featuring superposition, entanglement, and complex amplitudes, is not universal for quantum computing. I We shall see that the deeply symmetrical structure of these gates prevent access to full quantum Hilbert space. 21/32 Stabilizer gates are a generator for Pauli gates (i.e., Clifford gates decompose to stabilizer gates) Pauli gates are rotations around respective axes by π. 1 0 1 0 1 0 Z = = = PP I 0 −1 0 i 0 i " 1 1 # " 1 1 # p p 1 0 p p I X = 2 2 2 2 = HZH p1 p−1 0 −1 p1 p−1 2 2 2 2 I Y = iXZ I X 2 = Y 2 = Z 2 = I I Symmetry is similar to quaternions. I With Clifford gates consisting of fCNOT ; H; P; I ; X ; Y ; Zg, sufficient to build many quantum algorithms, including: quantum superdense coding, quantum teleportation, Deutsch-Jozsa, Bernstein-Vazirani, quantum error correction, most quantum error correction protocols.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Update on Google's Quantum Computing Initiative
    An Update on Google’s Quantum Computing Initiative January 31, 2019 [email protected] Copyright 2018 Google LLC Our Brains are Wired for Newtonian Physics Brains that recognize and anticipate behaviors of Heat, Light, Momentum, Gravity, etc. have an Evolutionary Advantage. Quantum phenomena contradict our intuition. Quantum Phenomena Contradict Intuition Interference, “Erasure”, etc. 0 Quantum Theory Explains ( 1) Cleanly… ...but the Math looks Strange 1 1 1 1 i i How can a Particle be √2 √2 i 1 On Two Paths at the Same Time? 1 1 √2 i P u 1 1 i P ( r) √2 i 1 Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC Superposed States, Superposed Information l0〉 2 ( |0〉+|1〉 ) |0〉 + |1〉 = |00〉+|01〉+|10〉+|11〉 l1〉 Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC 01 Macroscopic QM Enables New Technology Control of single quantum systems, to quantum computers 1 nm 1 μm 1 mm H atom wavefunctions: Problem: Light is 1000x larger Large “atom” has room for complex control Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC Xmon: Direct coupling + Tunable Transmons ● Direct qubit-qubit capacitive coupling ● Turn interaction on and off with frequency g control “OFF” “ON” f10 f 21 Δ Frequency η Frequency Coupling g Qubit Qubit SQUID 2 2 Coupling rate Ωzz ≈ 4ηg / Δ Qubit A Qubit B Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC Logic Built from Universal Gates Classical circuit: Quantum circuit: 1 bit NOT 1 qubit rotation 2 bit AND 1 Input Gates 2 qubit CNOT Wiring fan-out No copy 2 Input Gates (space+time ) time Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC Execution of a Quantum Simulation arXiv:1512.06860 Copyright 2017-2019 Google LLC Quantum
    [Show full text]
  • A Tutorial Introduction to Quantum Circuit Programming in Dependently Typed Proto-Quipper
    A tutorial introduction to quantum circuit programming in dependently typed Proto-Quipper Peng Fu1, Kohei Kishida2, Neil J. Ross1, and Peter Selinger1 1 Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada ffrank-fu,neil.jr.ross,[email protected] 2 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract. We introduce dependently typed Proto-Quipper, or Proto- Quipper-D for short, an experimental quantum circuit programming lan- guage with linear dependent types. We give several examples to illustrate how linear dependent types can help in the construction of correct quan- tum circuits. Specifically, we show how dependent types enable program- ming families of circuits, and how dependent types solve the problem of type-safe uncomputation of garbage qubits. We also discuss other lan- guage features along the way. Keywords: Quantum programming languages · Linear dependent types · Proto-Quipper-D 1 Introduction Quantum computers can in principle outperform conventional computers at cer- tain crucial tasks that underlie modern computing infrastructures. Experimental quantum computing is in its early stages and existing devices are not yet suitable for practical computing. However, several groups of researchers, in both academia and industry, are now building quantum computers (see, e.g., [2,11,16]). Quan- tum computing also raises many challenging questions for the programming lan- guage community [17]: How should we design programming languages for quan- tum computation? How should we compile and optimize quantum programs? How should we test and verify quantum programs? How should we understand the semantics of quantum programming languages? In this paper, we focus on quantum circuit programming using the linear dependently typed functional language Proto-Quipper-D.
    [Show full text]
  • 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].
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Detection on IBM Quantum Computer with Classical-Quantum Transfer Learning
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.07.20227306; this version posted November 10, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Turk J Elec Eng & Comp Sci () : { © TUB¨ ITAK_ doi:10.3906/elk- COVID-19 detection on IBM quantum computer with classical-quantum transfer learning Erdi ACAR1*, Ihsan_ YILMAZ2 1Department of Computer Engineering, Institute of Science, C¸anakkale Onsekiz Mart University, C¸anakkale, Turkey 2Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, C¸anakkale Onsekiz Mart University, C¸anakkale, Turkey Received: .201 Accepted/Published Online: .201 Final Version: ..201 Abstract: Diagnose the infected patient as soon as possible in the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak which is declared as a pandemic by the world health organization (WHO) is extremely important. Experts recommend CT imaging as a diagnostic tool because of the weak points of the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). In this study, the detection of COVID-19 from CT images, which give the most accurate response in a short time, was investigated in the classical computer and firstly in quantum computers. Using the quantum transfer learning method, we experimentally perform COVID-19 detection in different quantum real processors (IBMQx2, IBMQ-London and IBMQ-Rome) of IBM, as well as in different simulators (Pennylane, Qiskit-Aer and Cirq). By using a small number of data sets such as 126 COVID-19 and 100 Normal CT images, we obtained a positive or negative classification of COVID-19 with 90% success in classical computers, while we achieved a high success rate of 94-100% in quantum computers.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1812.09167V1 [Quant-Ph] 21 Dec 2018 It with the Tex Typesetting System Being a Prime Example
    Open source software in quantum computing Mark Fingerhutha,1, 2 Tomáš Babej,1 and Peter Wittek3, 4, 5, 6 1ProteinQure Inc., Toronto, Canada 2University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa 3Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 4Creative Destruction Lab, Toronto, Canada 5Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Canada 6Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Canada Open source software is becoming crucial in the design and testing of quantum algorithms. Many of the tools are backed by major commercial vendors with the goal to make it easier to develop quantum software: this mirrors how well-funded open machine learning frameworks enabled the development of complex models and their execution on equally complex hardware. We review a wide range of open source software for quantum computing, covering all stages of the quantum toolchain from quantum hardware interfaces through quantum compilers to implementations of quantum algorithms, as well as all quantum computing paradigms, including quantum annealing, and discrete and continuous-variable gate-model quantum computing. The evaluation of each project covers characteristics such as documentation, licence, the choice of programming language, compliance with norms of software engineering, and the culture of the project. We find that while the diversity of projects is mesmerizing, only a few attract external developers and even many commercially backed frameworks have shortcomings in software engineering. Based on these observations, we highlight the best practices that could foster a more active community around quantum computing software that welcomes newcomers to the field, but also ensures high-quality, well-documented code. INTRODUCTION Source code has been developed and shared among enthusiasts since the early 1950s.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Approximation for Wireless Scheduling
    applied sciences Article Quantum Approximation for Wireless Scheduling Jaeho Choi 1 , Seunghyeok Oh 2 and Joongheon Kim 2,* 1 School of Computer Science and Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea; [email protected] 2 School of Electrical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-2-3290-3223 Received: 2 September 2020; Accepted: 6 October 2020; Published: 13 October 2020 Abstract: This paper proposes an application algorithm based on a quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) for wireless scheduling problems. QAOA is one of the promising hybrid quantum-classical algorithms to solve combinatorial optimization problems and it provides great approximate solutions to non-deterministic polynomial-time (NP) hard problems. QAOA maps the given problem into Hilbert space, and then it generates the Hamiltonian for the given objective and constraint. Then, QAOA finds proper parameters from the classical optimization loop in order to optimize the expectation value of the generated Hamiltonian. Based on the parameters, the optimal solution to the given problem can be obtained from the optimum of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. Inspired by QAOA, a quantum approximate optimization for scheduling (QAOS) algorithm is proposed. The proposed QAOS designs the Hamiltonian of the wireless scheduling problem which is formulated by the maximum weight independent set (MWIS). The designed Hamiltonian is converted into a unitary operator and implemented as a quantum gate operation. After that, the iterative QAOS sequence solves the wireless scheduling problem. The novelty of QAOS is verified with simulation results implemented via Cirq and TensorFlow-Quantum.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2003.09412V2 [Quant-Ph] 7 Jul 2021 Hadamard-Free Circuits Expose the Structure of the Clifford Group
    Hadamard-free circuits expose the structure of the Clifford group Sergey Bravyi and Dmitri Maslov IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA July 8, 2021 Abstract The Clifford group plays a central role in quantum randomized benchmarking, quantum tomography, and error correction protocols. Here we study the structural properties of this group. We show that any Clifford operator can be uniquely written in the canonical form F1HSF2, where H is a layer of Hadamard gates, S is a permutation of qubits, and Fi are parameterized Hadamard-free circuits chosen from suitable subgroups of the Clifford group. Our canonical form provides a one-to-one correspondence between Clifford operators and layered quantum circuits. We report a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the canonical form. We employ this canonical form to generate a random uniformly distributed n-qubit Clifford operator in runtime O(n2). The number of random bits consumed by the algorithm matches the information-theoretic lower bound. A surprising connection is highlighted between random uniform Clifford operators and the Mallows distribution on the symmetric group. The variants of the canonical form, one with a short Hadamard- free part and one allowing a circuit depth 9n implementation of arbitrary Clifford unitaries in the Linear Nearest Neighbor architecture are also discussed. Finally, we study computational quantum advantage where a classical reversible linear circuit can be implemented more efficiently using Clifford gates, and show an explicit example where such an advantage takes place. 1 Introduction Clifford circuits can be defined as quantum computations by the circuits with Phase (p), Hadamard (h), and cnot gates, applied to a computational basis state, such as |00...0i.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Topological Error Correction Codes Are Capable of Improving the Performance of Clifford Gates
    1 Quantum Topological Error Correction Codes Are Capable of Improving the Performance of Clifford Gates Daryus Chandra, Zunaira Babar, Hung Viet Nguyen, Dimitrios Alanis, Panagiotis Botsinis, Soon Xin Ng, and Lajos Hanzo Abstract—The employment of quantum error correction codes under certain conditions we can transform various classes of (QECCs) within quantum computers potentially offers a reli- powerful classical error correction codes into their quantum ability improvement for both quantum computation and com- counterparts, such as Quantum Turbo Codes (QTCs) [8], [9], munications tasks. However, incorporating quantum gates for performing error correction potentially introduces more sources Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check (QLDPC) codes [10], of quantum decoherence into the quantum computers. In this [11], and Quantum Polar Codes (QPCs) [12], [13]. However, scenario, the primary challenge is to find the sufficient condition several challenges remain, hindering the immediate employ- required by each of the quantum gates for beneficially employing ment of these powerful QSCs in quantum computers. Firstly, QECCs in order to yield reliability improvements given that the the reliability of the state-of-the-art quantum gates is still quantum gates utilized by the QECCs also introduce quantum decoherence. In this treatise, we approach this problem by significantly lower compared to classical gates. For exam- firstly presenting the general framework of protecting quantum ple, the reliability of a two-qubit quantum gate is between gates by the amalgamation of the transversal configuration of 90:00% 99:90% across various technology platforms, such quantum gates and quantum stabilizer codes (QSCs), which can as spin− electronics, photonics, superconducting, trapped-ion, be viewed as syndrome-based QECCs.
    [Show full text]
  • Heuristics for Quantum Compiling with a Continuous Gate Set Marc Grau Davis, Ethan Smith, Ana Tudor, Koushik Sen, Irfan Siddiqi, Costin Iancu
    Heuristics for Quantum Compiling with a Continuous Gate Set Marc Grau Davis, Ethan Smith, Ana Tudor, Koushik Sen, Irfan Siddiqi, Costin Iancu Abstract factor in the near future of NISQ devices, this metric has been We present an algorithm for compiling arbitrary unitaries targeted by others [25, 28, 50, 56]. into a sequence of gates native to a quantum processor. As The algorithm is inspired by the A* [22] search strategy accurate CNOT gates are hard for the foreseeable Noisy- and works as follows. Given the unitary associated with a Intermediate-Scale Quantum devices era, our A* inspired quantum transformation, we attempt to alternate layers of algorithm attempts to minimize their count, while accounting single qubit gates and CNOT gates. For each layer of single for connectivity. We discuss the search strategy together with qubit gates we assign the parameterized single qubit unitary to “metrics” to expand the solution frontier. For a workload of all the qubits. We then try to place a CNOT gate wherever the circuits with complexity appropriate for the NISQ era, we pro- chip connectivity allows, and add another layer of single qubit duce solutions well within the best upper bounds published in gates. We pass the parameterized circuit into an optimizer [44], literature and match or exceed hand tuned implementations, which instantiates the parameters for the partial solution such as well as other existing synthesis alternatives. In particular, that it minimizes a distance function. At each step of the when comparing against state-of-the-art available synthesis search, the solution with the shortest “heuristic” distance from packages we show 2:4× average (up to 5:3×) reduction in the original unitary is expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource-Efficient Quantum Computing By
    Resource-Efficient Quantum Computing by Breaking Abstractions Fred Chong Seymour Goodman Professor Department of Computer Science University of Chicago Lead PI, the EPiQC Project, an NSF Expedition in Computing NSF 1730449/1730082/1729369/1832377/1730088 NSF Phy-1818914/OMA-2016136 DOE DE-SC0020289/0020331/QNEXT With Ken Brown, Ike Chuang, Diana Franklin, Danielle Harlow, Aram Harrow, Andrew Houck, John Reppy, David Schuster, Peter Shor Why Quantum Computing? n Fundamentally change what is computable q The only means to potentially scale computation exponentially with the number of devices n Solve currently intractable problems in chemistry, simulation, and optimization q Could lead to new nanoscale materials, better photovoltaics, better nitrogen fixation, and more n A new industry and scaling curve to accelerate key applications q Not a full replacement for Moore’s Law, but perhaps helps in key domains n Lead to more insights in classical computing q Previous insights in chemistry, physics and cryptography q Challenge classical algorithms to compete w/ quantum algorithms 2 NISQ Now is a privileged time in the history of science and technology, as we are witnessing the opening of the NISQ era (where NISQ = noisy intermediate-scale quantum). – John Preskill, Caltech IBM IonQ Google 53 superconductor qubits 79 atomic ion qubits 53 supercond qubits (11 controllable) Quantum computing is at the cusp of a revolution Every qubit doubles computational power Exponential growth in qubits … led to quantum supremacy with 53 qubits vs. Seconds Days Double exponential growth! 4 The Gap between Algorithms and Hardware The Gap between Algorithms and Hardware The Gap between Algorithms and Hardware The EPiQC Goal Develop algorithms, software, and hardware in concert to close the gap between algorithms and devices by 100-1000X, accelerating QC by 10-20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Quantum Computation with Ideal Clifford Gates and Noisy Ancillas
    PHYSICAL REVIEW A 71, 022316 ͑2005͒ Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas Sergey Bravyi* and Alexei Kitaev† Institute for Quantum Information, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 91125 California, USA ͑Received 6 May 2004; published 22 February 2005͒ We consider a model of quantum computation in which the set of elementary operations is limited to Clifford unitaries, the creation of the state ͉0͘, and qubit measurement in the computational basis. In addition, we allow the creation of a one-qubit ancilla in a mixed state ␳, which should be regarded as a parameter of the model. Our goal is to determine for which ␳ universal quantum computation ͑UQC͒ can be efficiently simu- lated. To answer this question, we construct purification protocols that consume several copies of ␳ and produce a single output qubit with higher polarization. The protocols allow one to increase the polarization only along certain “magic” directions. If the polarization of ␳ along a magic direction exceeds a threshold value ͑about 65%͒, the purification asymptotically yields a pure state, which we call a magic state. We show that the Clifford group operations combined with magic states preparation are sufficient for UQC. The connection of our results with the Gottesman-Knill theorem is discussed. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022316 PACS number͑s͒: 03.67.Lx, 03.67.Pp I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY additional operations ͑e.g., measurements by Aharonov- Bohm interference ͓13͔ or some gates that are not related to The theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation defines topology at all͒. Of course, these nontopological operations an important number called the error threshold.
    [Show full text]
  • EU–US Collaboration on Quantum Technologies Emerging Opportunities for Research and Standards-Setting
    Research EU–US collaboration Paper on quantum technologies International Security Programme Emerging opportunities for January 2021 research and standards-setting Martin Everett Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is a world-leading policy institute based in London. Our mission is to help governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world. EU–US collaboration on quantum technologies Emerging opportunities for research and standards-setting Summary — While claims of ‘quantum supremacy’ – where a quantum computer outperforms a classical computer by orders of magnitude – continue to be contested, the security implications of such an achievement have adversely impacted the potential for future partnerships in the field. — Quantum communications infrastructure continues to develop, though technological obstacles remain. The EU has linked development of quantum capacity and capability to its recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic and is expected to make rapid progress through its Quantum Communication Initiative. — Existing dialogue between the EU and US highlights opportunities for collaboration on quantum technologies in the areas of basic scientific research and on communications standards. While the EU Quantum Flagship has already had limited engagement with the US on quantum technology collaboration, greater direct cooperation between EUPOPUSA and the Flagship would improve the prospects of both parties in this field. — Additional support for EU-based researchers and start-ups should be provided where possible – for example, increasing funding for representatives from Europe to attend US-based conferences, while greater investment in EU-based quantum enterprises could mitigate potential ‘brain drain’. — Superconducting qubits remain the most likely basis for a quantum computer. Quantum computers composed of around 50 qubits, as well as a quantum cloud computing service using greater numbers of superconducting qubits, are anticipated to emerge in 2021.
    [Show full text]