Quantum computational chemistry Sam McArdle,1, ∗ Suguru Endo,1 Al´anAspuru-Guzik,2, 3, 4 Simon Benjamin,1 and Xiao Yuan1, y 1Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, United Kingdom 2Department of Chemistry and Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H6, Canada 3Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1M1, Canada 4Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) Senior Fellow, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1M1, Canada (Dated: January 18, 2019) One of the most promising applications of quantum computing is solving classically in- tractable chemistry problems. This may enable the design of new materials, medicines, catalysts, or high temperature superconductors. As a result, quantum computational chemistry is rapidly emerging as an interdisciplinary field requiring knowledge of both quantum information and computational chemistry. This review provides a comprehen- sive introduction to both fields, bridging the current knowledge gap. We review the major developments in this area, with a focus on near-term quantum computation. Il- lustrations of key methods are provided, explicitly demonstrating how to map chemical problems onto a quantum computer, and solve them. We conclude with an outlook for this nascent field. CONTENTS 1. Jordan-Wigner encoding 17 2. Parity encoding 17 I. Introduction2 3. Bravyi{Kitaev encoding 18 4. Other encoding methods 19 II. Quantum computing and simulation3 C. Hamiltonian reduction 19 A. Quantum computing3 B. Quantum simulation5 V. Quantum computational chemistry algorithms 20 A. Quantum phase estimation 20 III. Classical computational chemistry7 1. Implementation 20 A. The electronic structure problem7 2. State preparation 21 B. First and Second quantisation8 3. Hamiltonian simulation 22 1. First quantisation8 4. Implementing time evolution for chemistry 2. Second quantisation9 simulation 22 C. Classical computation methods 10 B. Variational algorithms 24 1. Hartree{Fock 10 1. Implementation 24 2. Multiconfigurational self-consistent field 11 2. Ansatze 25 3. Configuration interaction 11 3. Classical optimisation 27 4. Coupled cluster 11 C. Evaluation of excited states 28 D. Chemical basis sets 12 1. WAVES 28 1. STO-nG basis sets 13 2. Overlap-based methods 29 arXiv:1808.10402v2 [quant-ph] 17 Jan 2019 2. Split-valence basis sets 13 3. The folded spectrum method 29 3. Correlation-consistent basis sets 14 4. Quantum subspace expansion 29 4. Plane wave basis sets 14 E. Reduction of orbitals 15 VI. Error mitigation for chemistry 30 A. Error suppression in the VQE 30 IV. Quantum computational chemistry mappings 15 B. Extrapolation 30 A. First quantised encoding methods 16 C. Probabilistic error cancellation 31 1. Basis set methods 16 D. Quantum subspace expansion 32 2. Real space methods 16 E. Stabiliser based methods 32 B. Second quantised encoding methods 17 F. Other methods of error mitigation 32 VII. Illustrative examples 33 A. Hydrogen 33 1. STO-3G basis 33 ∗ [email protected] 2. 6-31G basis 35 y [email protected] 3. cc-PVDZ basis 35 2 B. Lithium Hydride STO-3G basis 36 et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015). However, limited by hardware capabilities, these experiments focus only on VIII. Discussion and Conclusions 37 A. Classical limits 38 small molecules that we are already able to simulate B. Quantum resources: medium to long term 39 classically. Moreover, the gate counts required for trans- C. Outlook for near-future approaches 39 formative chemistry simulations may mandate the need D. Target problems 40 for fault-tolerance, which requires considerably more E. Summary 41 qubits than are currently available (Mueck, 2015). New Acknowledgments 41 developments are needed to solve classically intractable chemistry problems on a shorter timescale. References 41 These breakthroughs may be achieved by connecting I. INTRODUCTION researchers working in quantum information with those working in computational chemistry. We seek to aid Quantum mechanics underpins all of modern chem- this connection with this succinct, yet comprehensive, re- istry. One might therefore imagine that we could use view of quantum computational chemistry and its foun- this theory to predict the behaviour of any chemical dational fields. compound. This is not the case. As Dirac noted; Although quantum algorithms can solve a range \The exact application of these laws leads to equations of problems in chemistry, we focus predominantly on much too complicated to be soluble."(Dirac, 1929). The the problem of finding the low lying energy levels of problem described by Dirac is that the complexity of the molecules (Aspuru-Guzik et al., 2005). There are three wavefunction of a quantum system grows exponentially reasons for this restriction of scope. Primarily, this with the number of particles. This leaves classical problem is a fundamental one in classical computational computers unable to exactly simulate quantum systems chemistry. Knowledge of the energy eigenstates enables in an efficient way. Feynman proposed a solution to this the prediction of reaction rates, determination of stable problem; using quantum hardware as the simulation structures, and optical properties. Secondly, it is platform, remarking that \If you want to make a simula- because the machinery developed to solve this problem tion of nature, you'd better make it quantum mechanical, on quantum computers is easily applied to other types and by golly it's a wonderful problem, because it doesn't of problems. Finally, most of the prior work in quantum look so easy." (Feynman, 1982). Building a quantum computational chemistry has focused on this problem. computer has taken over 30 years, but Feynman's vision As such, it provides an ideal context in which to explain may soon be fulfilled, following recent developments in the most important details of quantum computational quantum hardware including ion traps (Ballance et al., chemistry. 2016; Gaebler et al., 2016; Harty et al., 2014; Monz et al., 2011), superconducting systems (Barends et al., This review is organised as follows. We first provide a 2014; Chow et al., 2012; Song et al., 2017; Wendin, brief overview of quantum computing and simulation in 2017), and photonic systems (Chen et al., 2017; Wang Sec.II. We then introduce the key methods and terminol- et al., 2016). It is believed that using quantum systems ogy used in classical computational chemistry in Sec. III. as our simulation platform will yield unprecedented The methods developed to merge these two fields, includ- developments in chemistry (Aspuru-Guzik et al., 2018), ing mapping chemistry problems onto a quantum com- biology (Reiher et al., 2017), medicine (Cao et al., puter, are described in Sec.IV. We continue our discus- 2018a), and materials science (Babbush et al., 2018c). sion of quantum computational chemistry in Sec.V by describing algorithms for finding the ground and excited To date, several efficient quantum algorithms have states of chemical systems. Sec.VI highlights the tech- been proposed to solve problems in chemistry (Aspuru- niques developed to mitigate the effects of noise in non- Guzik et al., 2005; Huh et al., 2015; Kassal et al., 2008; error corrected quantum computers, which will be crucial Lidar and Wang, 1999; Peruzzo et al., 2014). The for achieving accurate simulations in the near-future. runtime and physical resources required by these algo- In Sec. VII we provide several examples of how to rithms scale polynomially with the size of the system map chemistry problems onto a quantum computer. simulated. Recent experimental developments have We discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the accompanied these theoretical milestones, with many simulation resources required, and the quantum circuits groups demonstrating proof of principle chemistry cal- that can be used. This section seeks to illustrate the culations (Colless et al., 2018; Du et al., 2010; Ganzhorn techniques described throughout the rest of the review, et al., 2018; Hempel et al., 2018; Kandala et al., 2017, providing worked examples for the reader. We conclude 2018; Lanyon et al., 2010; Li et al., 2011; O'Malley this review with a comparison between classical and et al., 2016; Paesani et al., 2017a; Peruzzo et al., 2014; quantum techniques, and resource estimations for the Santagati et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2018, 2017; Sparrow different quantum methods. This section aims to help 3 the reader to understand when and how quantum extent include: adiabatic quantum computing (Aharonov computational chemistry may surpass its classical et al., 2008; Farhi et al., 2000) (including in the context counterpart. of chemistry simulation (Babbush et al., 2014)), one-way or measurement based quantum computing (Jozsa, 2005; Several other detailed reviews on this topic exist Raussendorf and Briegel, 2001; Raussendorf et al., 2003), in the literature. Summaries of early theoretical and and continuous-variable quantum computing (Braunstein experimental work in quantum computational chemistry and van Loock, 2005; Lloyd and Braunstein, 1999). can be found in (Kassal et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2012). The canonical circuit model of quantum computation More focused discussions of quantum algorithms for is so-named because of its resemblance to the logic cir- chemistry simulation, and the computational complexity cuits used in classical computing. In the classical circuit of problems in chemistry can be found in (Kais et al., model, logic gates (such as AND, OR and NOT) act on 2014; Veis and Pittner,