![Arxiv:2108.11410V1 [Quant-Ph] 25 Aug 2021](http://data.docslib.org/img/9b925faa5fda1384e08206e8d5f14e06-1.webp)
Sampling, rates, and reaction currents through reverse stochastic quantization on quantum computers
Guglielmo Mazzola IBM Quantum, IBM Research – Zurich, 8803 R¨uschlikon,Switzerland (Dated: August 27, 2021) The quest for improved sampling methods to solve statistical mechanics problems of physical and chemical interest proceeds with renewed efforts since the invention of the Metropolis algorithm, in 1953. In particular, the understanding of thermally activated rare-event processes between long-lived metastable states, such as protein folding, is still elusive. In this case, one needs both the finite-temperature canonical distribution function and the reaction current between the reactant and product states, to completely characterize the dynamic. Here we show how to tackle this problem using a quantum computer. We use the connection between a classical stochastic dynamics and the Schroedinger equation, also known as stochastic quantization, to variationally prepare quantum states allowing us to unbiasedly sample from a Boltzmann distribution. Similarly, reaction rate constants can be computed as ground state energies of suitably transformed operators, following the supersymmetric extension of the formalism. Finally, we propose a hybrid quantum-classical sampling scheme to escape local minima, and explore the configuration space in both real-space and spin hamiltonians. We indicate how to realize the quantum algorithms constructively, without assuming the existence of oracles, or quantum walk operators. The quantum advantage concerning the above applications is discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION decorrelate the walk, but generally implies a low accep- tance rate, such that most of the computational time is spent in proposing transitions x x0, which are never The task of sampling from a multidimensional finite- → temperature Boltzmann probability distribution, ρ(x), is accepted. a central problem in numerical simulations of physics, The total CPU runtime of a Metropolis simulation can chemistry1, and beyond the traditional boundaries of be estimated by multiplying the cost to generate each it- Natural sciences. For example in optimization by sim- eration of the Markov chain with the number of steps re- ulated annealing, the physical potential is replaced by quired to i) overcome the thermalization transient regime a suitable cost function, and the temperature becomes and, ii) gather sufficient statistics to evaluate the target an effective parameter that decreases during the opti- operator. The error in its estimate scales with 1/√M, mization2. Perhaps the most important occurences of where M is the number of un-correlated samples gen- critical slowing down of sampling methods in presence of erated. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms can be complex energy landscapes include optimization of spin- therefore computationally expensive, as long sequences glasses, neural-networks, and protein folding. All in all, can be necessary to obtain precise estimates of statistical despite these being classical problems, their solution is quantities The shape of the potential energy landscape, far from being simple or efficient with classical methods. v(x), plays a major role in controlling the efficiency of the The celebrated Metropolis algorithm3,4, one of the top algorithm. In short, a sampling scheme, T (x, x0), based ten most important algorithms from the last century5, on local updates likely fails to visit all the local minima enabled countless applications in classical and quantum of the potential during a finite length simulation. On the statistical mechanics6. In short, the Metropolis algo- other hand, the choice of an effective global update rule rithm aims to sample from a probability distribution is heavily system-dependent. While in unfrustrated spin ρ(x), by constructing a random walk for the a variable x. systems, global (or cluster) update rules have been effec- arXiv:2108.11410v1 [quant-ph] 25 Aug 2021 Each iteration of this Markov chain consists of a proposal tive in overcoming critical slowing down of simulations 7,8 move x x0 defined by a transition matrix T (x, x0), fol- at phase transitions , a general solution to this problem → lowed by an acceptance step, with probability A(x, x0). has yet to be found, especially in continuous systems. A practical sampling scheme must be efficient in ex- Molecular dynamics, perhaps the most common local- ploring the huge configuration’s space and escaping the updates based sampling scheme, fails when the poten- local minima of a potential v(x). The latter can be either tial displays several local minima separated by large a chemical energy surface or a cost function for optimiza- barriers6. These conditions are ubiquitous in structural 9–11 tion problems. Smaller average displacements x x0 phase transitions , and conformal reactions in solu- lead to increased acceptance rate, yet the samples→ be- tions, such as the well known protein folding problem12. come statistically correlated, such that CPU is wasted In these cases, a simulation initialized in one minimum in generating a lot of very similar configurations without will hardly visit spontaneously other minima, as this pro- a real improvement in the estimate. On the contrary, cess involves the occurrence of a thermally activated rare a highly non-local proposal move would be effective to event 13. In general, dynamics that are characterized by 2 a time-scale gap between fast local relaxations and slow tum walk operators32, and we indicate how to realize the activation processes are difficult to simulate. These con- algorithm constructively, provided some reasonable ap- ditions arise in systems belonging to physics, chemistry, proximations on the functional form of v(x). and biology. We also notice that dynamics-based ap- proaches, such as Hamiltonian Monte Carlo can be used 14,15 also in absence of a real physical systems . II. LANGEVIN AND FOKKER-PLANCK While several revolutionary enhanced sampling algo- EQUATIONS rithms have been devised to escape such free energy min- 16 17 ima, e.g. parallel tempering , metadynamics , and um- The starting point of our discussion is the first-order 18 brella sampling , to name a few, they also come with Langevin equation. On one hand, this dynamics can limitations. For example, the efficiency of the first is mimic the microscopical behavior of particles in a solu- controlled by the algorithm’s hyper-parameters, while tion, on the other, it is probably the simplest thermostat the latter requires the definition of a reaction coordinate used to achieve canonical sampling at finite temperature which is in general hard to get a priori. In particular, if T . In one dimension, this equation reads we consider a rare-event dynamic, i.e. a transition pro- cess that take place on a long time scale compared to time x˙ = f(x) + η, (1) scale characterizing local relaxations in the local minima, finding the reaction pathway it is a huge problem in itself. where f(x) = ∂v(x)/∂x represents the classical force Given the rapid development of digital quantum hard- acting on the particles,− x ˙ is the usual time derivative of ware applications, it is timely to revisit the task of per- the position x, and η is a gaussian distributed random forming quantum computing simulations of a continuous variable with zero mean, and defined by the following variable diffusion process, with the following goals: pro- correlator: pose a quantum algorithm to (i) unbiasedly sample from a canonical finite-temperature distribution ρ(x), and (ii) < ηtηt0 >= 2T δ(t t0), (2) compute the thermalization rate k, together with the re- − action current j(x), which are essential pieces of informa- where we also set the Boltzmann constant kB and the tion to model reactive processes. Moreover, on a more friction γ to unity (the latter choice only rescales the unit heuristic take, (iii) study the possible origin of quantum of time). The Markov chain generated by the Langevin speed-up in visiting the configuration space, escaping lo- dynamics, where the transition matrix T (x, x0) is given cal minima with global quantum updates. by Eq.1, allows us to sample from the canonical distri- Before addressing these points, let us review some bution quantum computing efforts along this broad line of re- search, to better contextualize the present work. Quan- ρ(x) = exp( v(x)/T ), (3) − tum versions of the Metropolis algorithm have been in- vented, but to achieve the task to sample from a finite in the limit of vanishing integration time-step1,33. temperature quantum canonical distribution19,20. Other It is well known that the probability density distri- related work concerns the task of loading distribution bution P (x, t), for the stochastic process x(t) generated functions in a quantum register. Most methods operate by a first-order Langevin equation (Eq.1) satisfies the under the assumption that the normalization is known a Fokker-Planck’s equation priori21,22. Once that this distribution is loaded, Monte Carlo integration can be performed with a quadratic ∂P (x, t) ∂(f(x)P (x, t)) ∂2P (x, t) = + T (4) speedup, as shown by Montanaro23. ∂t − ∂x ∂x2 A similar quantum speed-up can be achieved in ap- proximating partition functions of classical lattice mod- The stationary solution of this stochastic differential 23,24 equation is exactly the desired equilibrium probability els, under certain conditions . Even more pertinent 33 to our research is the possibility of achieving acceler- density ρ(x) . ated sampling through quantum walks25–27, or a quanti- zation of a Markov chains using parent quantum hamil- tonians and quantum annealing in lattice models28. Fi- III. REVERSE STOCHASTIC QUANTIZATION nally, Ref.29 translates the problem of finding the reac- tion pathways as an optimization problem to be solved In this Section we bridge the classical statistical me- by quantum annealing. chanics with an effective quantum problem. In the early In this manuscript we will adopt a different strat- 80’s, Parisi discovered that there is a deep relation- egy, as we do not use quantum walks or Grover-like ship between the Fokker-Planck equation (4), and the approaches. The computational primitive used in this Schroedinger equation34. This is obtained by searching framework is instead the hamiltonian simulation in con- for a solution of the following type: tinuous space representation30,31. Moreover, we do not assume the existence of an oracle, black-box, or quan- P (x, t) = ψ0(x)Ψ(x, t). (5) 3
p If we write ψ0(x) = ρ(x), then Ψ(x, t) satisfies a . The multidimensional generalization of Eq. 10 is dis- Schroedinger equation in imaginary time cussed in Ref.36. ∂ Ψ(x, t) = HΨ(x, t) (6) ∂t − A. A double well potential where H is an effective Hamiltonian that reads Before going further, it could be beneficial to familiar- H = K + V, (7) ize ourselves with this formalism on a well-studied bench- ∂2 mark, the one-dimensional double well model. In this K = T (8) case a valid potential reads − ∂x2 2 2 1 ∂v(x) 1 ∂ v(x) v(x) = h(x2 x2)2, (11) V = (9) − 0 4T ∂x − 2 ∂x2 and features two local minima at positions x0, sepa- Interestingly, the ground state of H is exactly given by rated by an energy barrier with height h (see± Fig.1). ψ0, with eigenvalue E0 = 0. This connection takes the If T h the hopping process becomes a thermally acti- name of stochastic quantization, because a quantum evo- vated rare event, which rate is well described by Kramers lution in imaginary time can be recast as a classical theory stochastic process, and it can be used to solve quantum ωx0 ω0 h/T physics problems through classical numerical methods. k e− , (12) Here instead, we take the reverse route, using this con- ≈ 2π nection to map a classical statistical mechanics problem where ωx and ω0 are the characteristic frequencies of the into a quantum formalism, to be eventually solved on a harmonic approximation of the potential at the bottom quantum computing machine. x = x and at the barrier x = 013. The time scale For example, we already notice that sampling from the 0 2 1/k represents the relaxation time of any local update ground state ψ0(x) means to sample from the equilib- Markov chain simulations, namely a fully ergodic simu- | | every rium density function ρ(x), at finite temperature lations is achieved if both wells are visited multiple times T , that is one of our targets. To conclude, we provide an (one each, to the very least) during the simulation. one-to-one mapping between a classical potential surface We construct the effective potentials V (x) and V S(x), v(x) ( and a temperature T ) and an effective quantum and we numerically solve the associated Schrodinger operator H. This simple observation marks already a dif- equations. In Fig.1.a we plot these potentials and the 28 parent ference with the recent Ref. , where the obtained first seven eigenfunctions of Eq.7. The two lowest-lying lattice Hamiltonian depends on the specific choice of the states are the symmetric and antisymmetryc combina- classical Markov chain to be quantized. tions of the two distributions localized at the left and the right wells, namely ψ0(x) = 1/√2(ψL(x) + ψR(x)) and ψ (x) = 1/√2(ψ (x) ψ (x)). The energy gap ∆ IV. SUPERSYMMETRIC HAMILTONIAN AND 1 L − R REACTION RATES separating these two states decreases exponentially with the inverse temperature and the height of the potential energy barrier, in perfect agreement with Eq. 12, while Before detailing the quantum computing approach to the gap between the first and the second excited states tackle this quantum problem, let us further explore the remains (1) (see also panel c). This numerically con- possibilities that this formalism unlocks. Indeed, we can firms thatO the gap ∆ of Eq.7, or equivalently the ground extract additional information from the spectrum of H. state energy ES of the supersymmetric partner of Eq.7, The gap between the fundamental and the first excited 0 gives the thermalization rate of the system at finite tem- state ∆ = E E = E provides the relaxation time 1 0 1 perature. towards equilibrium,− which is the dominant time scale at Let us notice again that, despite the fact we are solving which the diffusion process takes place33. While the cal- a Schroedinger equation, the rate obtained is the one culation of excited state energies can be quite elusive, corresponding to a purely classical thermally activated luckily this formalism reserves an additional surprise. process, not to a quantum tunneling event37–40. Since the Hamiltonian H defines a ground state with In Fig.1.b we also numerically demonstrates that a zero eigenvalue, we can construct its super-symmetric 2 S S ψ0(x) = ρ(x). partner, H , such that its ground state E0 directly pro- | | vides the fundamental gap of H35,36. For example, if we consider a simple one-dimensional potential, this new op- S S V. QUANTUM COMPUTING AND QUANTUM erator H = K + V is readily obtained by adding the ADVANTAGE second derivative of v to the effective potential V ,
∂2v(x) The last and essential step of the framework is to V S = V + (10) ∂x2 propose several quantum computing implementations to 4
2 Rate
V,V
FIG. 1: Double well potential. Panel (a): shapes of the effective potentials V (x) (thick solid black) and V S(x) (dashed black), and the first seven eigenfunctions (light colored) ψi(x) of the operator H (Eq.7) with v(x) given by Eq 11, and T = 0.2. Each curve is shifted vertically by the corresponding eigenvalue Ei. The vertical axis units are dimensionless units for the potentials as well for the wavefunctions. Panel (b): v(x) given by Eq 11 (black line), the square modulus of the first two eigenstates (dashed and dot-dashed lines), and the classical probability distribution ρ(x) defined by Eq.3, and T = 0.2 (thick red line). Panel (c): Energy gaps of H between the ground state and the first excited state (solid markers), and between the first and the second excited states (empty markers) as a function of the inverse temperature, and for three different choices of the potential parameter h. Solid lines correspond to the Kramer rate of Eq. 12. make use of this formalism, as well as discussing avenues ψ(x) to indicate a wavefunction in real-space. These two for quantum advantage in all these specific applications. objects are essentially the same, with the difference that Before going further, let us preemptively discuss a pos- the squared amplitudes of first quantum state are nor- sible concern a reader could raise at this point: after all malized to one, whereas the normalization of the second Eq.7 presents a sign-problem free Hamiltonian and could is given by a continuous space integral. There is however in principle be solved with classical Quantum Monte an obvious metric factor 2n/L that connects the two mea- Carlo (QMC) methods, without the need of a quantum sures. hardware. However, this is not true in general, as a QMC Concerning the problem hamiltonians H and HS re- simulation boils down to a classical MC simulations fea- spectively, the encoding depends on the quantum primi- turing an extended system, as in path-integral MD41,42. tive of choice. For example, one could prepare the ground Given that the shape of this effective potential V (x) is states of these operators by means of a variational ap- even more corrugated compared to the physical one, v(x), proach46, the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE). In this approach would inherit all the sample complexity of this case, the cost function to minimize is the energy of the MC sampling on the original v(x), which is precisely the Hamiltonian of Eq.7, for the task of preparing the what our program aims to avoid. ρ(x) distribution, or the energy of the modified operator HS (Eq. 10) that readily provides the reaction rate, as discussed in SectIV. A. Qubit encoding and quantum primitives Crucially, these Hamiltonians, which are made of a po- tential operator diagonal in the computational basis, and In this Section we find a convenient representation of a kinetic operator, can be efficiently evaluated in two ba- the problem and its mapping to a qubit register. We sis only, the position and the momentum one, as shown in use the real-space representation, and we discretize the Ref.44, without the need to decompose the hamiltonian as space using a grid of 2n points, where n is the number of a sum of Pauli strings, which number would be exponen- qubits30,31. Without loss of generality we can consider a tially increasing with the system size (see AppendixA). finite domain x [ L/2, L/2]. The position of a particle The variational approach features a parametrized quan- in the qubit register∈ − is denoted by an integer i [0, 2n tum circuit, which parameters can be optimized to min- 1], which is simply connected to the real-valued∈ physical− imize the target cost function46. n coordinate through the relation xi = L/2 + i L/2 . In Fig.2.a we show a possible choice of such Interestingly, the qubit register size n needed− to represent× parametrized circuit, the so-called RY-CNOT ansatz, each degrees of freedom scales logaritmically with the that produces a real-valued quantum state. In Refs.44,47 precision needed, therefore this encoding is very efficient it has been shown empirically that this circuit produces memory-wise. The multidimensional case simply requires exponentially accurate Gaussian distributions as the cir- to add one qubit register per dimension d, such that, for cuit depth is increased. Other circuits used to approx- a system made of Np particles, the total memory scales imate solution of a Schroedinger equation on a grid 43,44 as Npd . include the hamiltonian variational inspired ansatz of In the following we will use the bra-ket notation ψ to Ref.48, and the matrix product state ansatz of Ref49. denote a quantum state stored in a qubit register,| andi In Ref.50 it is shown that the latter circuit can repre- 5
circuit state preparation measurements basis a V
K
C
b c
FIG. 2: Sampling and rate in the double well model from VQE. Panel a. The circuit used to implement the VQE algorithm. The first part is the standard parametrized circuit to create the variational form. Here we use the so-called RY-CNOT ansatz, with linear connectivity (here we plot a circuit with a depth of two entangling blocks). The second part is used to measure the expectation value of the Hamiltonian, and is therefore system dependent. In this case the potential term (V ) can be evaluated by measuring directly in the computational basis, while the kinetic term (K) requires a QFT gate before the readout (see text). Details about quantum circuits, gates and operations 45 2 S 2 can be found in Ref. . Panel b. Distributions Ψ0(x) (blue, double-peaked) and Ψ0 (x) (red, single peaked) that can be obtained with VQE from the same potentials| V| (x) and V S(x) as in Fig.1.a| (i.e. calculated| from the physical potential v(x) of Sect.IVA, with h = 1, and T = 0.2). We use n = 5 qubits (i.e. 32 grid points), as this is the smallest number that allows us to retrieve the continuos limit value for the rate, and a circuit depth of four blocks. S The rate is obtained as ground state energy E0 , corresponding to the supersymmetric partner of H (see text). The S vertical axis units are dimensionless units for the potentials as well for the wavefunctions Panel c. Converge of E0 as a function of the expressibility of variational ansatz, defined as the depth of the circuit. The relative error is given as 3 (E(V QE) E )/E ), and reaches a satisfactorily value of 10− with depth of about four repeating blocks. − exact exact ≈ sent the solution of a non-linear Schroedinger equation find such ground states, based on quantum phase estima- on a grid, using an exponentially fewer number of re- tion (QPE) algorithm45,55. QPE requires the possibility sources compared to the classical counterpart. Irrespec- to perform controlled application of powers of the unitary tive of the ansatz and the hamiltonian encoding used, U = eiHt. Therefore, one needs to provide a circuit to the number of circuit repetitions to accumulate sufficient perform the time evolution primitive U eiKteiV t, for statistic and resolve a target energy accuracy, , scales a finite time t, with operators given by Eq.≈ 7 or Eq. 10, with 1/2(cfn. Refs.51,52 for electronic structure hamil- by using a Trotter time discretization55. The QPE algo- tonians, and Ref.50 for real-space problems discretized rithm allows us to obtain a digital representation of the on a grid). Furthermore, the shot noise also have impact phase E0t, if ψ0 is taken as the input of the QPE mod- on optimization schemes like the quantum natural gradi- ule. In every| realistici case, the input state u will not ent methods53 which are likely to be needed to optimize be exactly ψ , yet, when we measures the| phase,i u | 0i | i circuits featuring a large number of parameters (see e.g. collapses into an exact eigenstate ψn of H and gives its 54 | i Ref. ). energy En. In this case the success probability of getting 2 E0 is given by u ψ0 . As a consequence, we also present a second strategy to |h | i| 6
The circuit needed to create the unitary U is es- the discretized quantum state sentially composed by two repeating blocks. The ki- 2n 1 netic part eiKt can be efficiently performed in polyno- X− ψ = ψ [i] i (14) mial time using the quantum Fourier transform as shown | 0i 0 | i in several prior works27,44,56. The ”effective” potential i S part eiV t (eiV t) could be more challenging since not provides an optimal correlation time as every sample is every function can be evaluated exactly in polynomial statistically independent (independent wavefunction col- time. However, polynomial43, and piecewise polynomial lapses). In Fig.2.b we provide an example VQE opti- functions44,57 fall within this class. Moreover, also the mization providing Ψ 2 for the double well potential of | 0| Coulomb and the Lennard-Jones potentials can be eval- Sect.IVA. uated efficiently, as shown in Ref.43. However, since it appears unlikely that a variational More generally, if there exists an efficient classical al- procedure alone can retrieve the exact ground-state, gorithm to compute the potential function V (x), it also within accuracy ∆, a QPE algorithm could be used to exists an efficient quantum circuit45. A counterexample achieve exact sampling from ψ0(x). In this case, we have would be the case of a random function stored in an ex- to set < ∆ (see Sect.VA), to have sufficient n bits to ponentially large database43, but crucially this is not the resolve an energy difference of ∆, and therefore project case for physical potentials. This allows us to approxi- the time-evolved state into ψ0 as the phase is measured. mate a function V (x) with arbitrarily good precision ef- While these arguments seem particularly encouraging, ficiently in term of run-time and qubit register size (an- one should not forget that, while it is true that in the cilla registers are required to perform the computation). standard QFT-based implementation the total circuit We refer the reader to Ref.44 for concrete examples of depth scales with 1/, the energy scale we target for exact quantum circuits to evaluate an harmonic potential and sampling is given by the gap ∆, than in turn vanishes ex- a piecewise linear function. ponentially with the system size and the inverse temper- In the standard quantum Fourier transform based ap- ature, for the hardest problem instances (see Sect.IVA), proach to QPE58, an additional evaluation register is which is exactly the regime where classical samplers also needed to run the algorithm. Following Nielsen and struggle. 45 1 Further, also quantum imaginary time evolution Chuang , it features n+ log (2+ ) to obtain the out- d 2 2 e algorithms61,62 could be adapted to obtain this classical put phase with n precision bits, and an overall success probability of the algorithm, 1 . The error in esti- Gibbs distribution. − mating the energy scales as 1/(nt), as n controls the total number of applications of U(t). We do not discuss C. Rates and currents other quantum implementation for the phase estimation algorithm, such as the so-called Kitaev algorithm59, and iterative phase estimation60, that enable shallower cir- The quantum calculation of classical rate can follow cuits at the expense of multiple readouts and classical the same ideas discussed above. The difference is that, processing. here, we are interested in the ground state energy value S E0 , which gives the reaction rate k, rather than sampling S from the corresponding ground-state Ψ0 (x). Moreover, being variational in essence, the method always provides B. Canonical Sampling an upper bound to the calculated rate. Going further, the probability density we could sample from using a Let us consider first the canonical sampling problem. quantum computer ΨS(x) 2 is localized on the saddle | 0 | We make use of the quantum-to-classical connection of points of the effective potential, which would approxi- Sect.III and aim to solve the associated quantum sta- mately give the transition states for the reaction. This tionary problem information is indeed useful to prepare an initial guess for the solution, which is an input for either a variational HΨ(x) = E Ψ(x), (13) or QPE-based quantum algorithm. In Fig.2 we provide 0 S 2 an example VQE optimization providing Ψ0 , as well as S | | where we already know that E = 0 for the ground state, E0 , for the double well potential of Sect.IVA. In partic- 0 ular we observe that the accuracy of the result improves and Ψ0 = ψ0 = √P0. This means that sampling from 2 exponentially with the ansatz circuit depth, in agreement Ψ0 allows us to sample from the canonical distribution 47 at| finite| T . An advantage of this framework is that we with Ref. . can obtain in principle certified samples. A sample x can Moreover, the reaction current j(x) could be in prin- be discarded if the corresponding energy value is E = 0. ciple be retrieved as 0 6 In the variational approach, once that the circuit has S S j(x) = √ρ(x)Ψ0 (x) = Ψ0(x)Ψ0 (x) (15) been optimized as to reach the cost function E0 = 0, 36 every (re-scaled) readout in the computational basis i (cfn. Ref. ), where Ψ0(x) can be prepared using meth- can be accepted, and this direct sampling method from| i ods presented in Sect.VB. While classically this multi- 7 plication would be trivial, quantumly this operation re- and ψ1(x). While the energy gap ∆ (that is the transi- quires quantum arithmetic types of approaches, or other tion rate in our language) between them is small, the gap state preparation methods63. with respect to the third (K+1) eigenstate remains large, Basically, all classical state-of-the-art methods devoted (1) at each temperature, and barrier height parameter. to this task employ Monte Carlo sampling schemes. Moreover,O these K eigenstates are a linear combination For example, the celebrated transition path sampling of K Gaussian distributions of of width √T located at method64,65, calculates the rate from the expectation each minima. value of reactive flux correlation functions, in turn, com- The existence of a finite and large gap between the puted using umbrella sampling. Approaches such as K-th and the (K + 1)-th eigenenergies allows for practi- Chandler’s theory66 or transition state theory67 may also cal implementation of the quantum primitives described require a Monte Carlo sampling in realistic cases, e.g. above as a sampling tool. It is indeed relatively much non-smooth energy surfaces or finite temperatures. Fi- simpler to access anyone of these K eigenstates, rather 68 nally, in Ref. rates are calculated from the computa- than ψ0 exactly, for example using QPE. After one of tion of expectation values over an ensamble of transi- these| lowest-lyingi states has been prepared there is order tion paths around dominant reaction pathway69,70. It is (1/K) probability that the state collapses into a config- worth noticing that the this approach does not require urationO belonging to each of the K basins of attraction. an accurate determination the hyper-surface separating In the case of the double well potential, it would be the reactants and the products, as well as any reaction sufficient to prepare the a quantum state localized in the coordinate. reactant well ψL ( ψ0 + ψ1 )/√2 (cfn. notation Most importantly, as discussed above, the calculation of Sect.IVA),| theni perform≈ | i a short| i QPE subroutine to of the reaction rate as ground state energy of an ef- simply resolve an energy difference of order (1) (i.e. fective quantum hamiltonian using the QPE could of- without the need to achieve an higher precisionO of ∆), fer a quadratic speedup compared to the above classical to prepare either the state ψ0 or ψ1 . In both cases, method that relies on sampling. In the quantum case, this would result in a hopping| i probability| i of 50% (e.g. the circuit depth to reach a target error scales with from the left to the right well), because both states are 1/n, where n is the number of applications of the uni- de-localized accross the whole space (see Fig.1.b), read- tary circuit, while in the classical case it scales as 1/M, ily realizing an exponential speed-up (with respect to an where M is the sampling duration. increasing complexity if the energy landscape) compared It should be noted, however, that the walltime required to a classical local-update sampling method, for instance, to perform a single classical Markov Chain Monte Carlo based on Langevin dynamics. iteration can be generally much shorter than the one re- To engineer such a global move, classically, one would quired to execute the unitary sub-circuit in QPE71. This need to include additional information such as the direc- means that the quadratic advantage scaling-wise can be tion, and the range of the proposed displacement x x0. → overshadowed by a larger prefactor. The threshold for We summarize in Fig.3 the procedure to realize this quantum advantage in realistic problems should be as- hybrid quantum-classical enhanced sampling. In partic- sessed case-by-case and is left for future studies. ular the quantum-mediated global hopping step x x0, to be performed in between the sampling of the→ local basins using classical Monte Carlo, features the follow- D. Minima hopping via quantum global updates ing parts: (i) assuming x the starting position, localized in the current metastable basin of attraction. Prepare a Gaussian quantum state ψ , centered in x with width We conclude the manuscript by pointing out another | xi possible avenue for quantum advantage in exploring po- √T . This can be done efficiently using for instance the tential energy surfaces featuring several deep local min- VQE approach, and optimizing a suitable harmonic oscil- ima. We propose a hybrid approach, where the task of lator hamiltonian, which quadratic potential is centered 44,47 accurately sampling the partition function at the various in x . local minima can be efficiently performed using a classical The state ψx prepared is superposition of order (K) | i O Markov Chain Monte Carlo, while the task of generating delocalized eigenstates of H (cfn.36). effective, global, T (x, x ) proposal moves is left to the (ii) Run a QPE quantum algorithm, using ψx as ini- 0 | i quantum part of the algorithm. In this way, we make the tial state, using an appropriate number of repetitions of most out of the Quantum Processing unit (QPU) wall- controlled unitaries to resolve an energy scale of order time. (1). O Following Tanase-Nicola and Kurchan36, we observe (iii) When the energy is measured, the state is pro- that the spectrum of H (Eq.7), when v(x) is a potential jected on one of the (K) eigenstates of Eq.7, having O energy surface featuring K metastable minima, is char- finite overlap with ψ . The read-out of the register | xi acterized by K lowest energy eigenstates, clearly sepa- provides a single configuration x0, belonging to a differ- rated by a gap of order (1) by the rest. This feature ent basin of attraction with probability 1 (1/K), with −O is visible in Fig.1.c, for theO double-well potential where respect to the original position x. K = 2, and there are two lowest-lying eigenstates, ψ0(x), The new domain of attraction can be then conve- 8
v(x) 2
Read QPE out
|
FIG. 3: Quantum global updates. In the three panels we pictorially represents the steps described in Sect.VD, to realize the hybrid quantum-classical sampling procedure with heuristic quantum advantage. In the first step we require a local Gaussian shaped state preparation, ψ . This state can be expressed as a linear combination of K | xi eigenstates of H, below the gap, namely ψ PK c ψ . After the execution of a QPE subroutine, the state | xi ≈ i i| ii prepared in the register is one of these K non-local eigenstates (in this cartoon, we assume ψ1 ). These states have typically support over order (K) many local basin of attractions of the real potential |v(xi)(K = 3 in this O example). The configuration x0 read-out after the wave-function collapse will therefore belong with probability 1 (1/K), to a different local minima. − O
x Ns niently explored by means of a classical Monte Carlo σ ⊗ ). Numerical tests have been performed using sampler. Qiskit| i software package72. (i) the inizialization step in this particular problem Ns instance simply creates the string state x = 0 ⊗ . L | i (ii) The QPE step requires the circuit of Fig.4.b, with E. Minima hopping in spin hamiltonians j n controlled unitaries Uj = exp(i2 HIsing). The total number of qubits required for this algorithm is Ns + n. In this subsection we illustrate this procedure focusing In this small numerical example we can simply create on a small toy-model: the one-dimensional quantum Ising this unitary without resorting to Trotterization. In a real Hamiltonian defined on Ns qubits (or quantum spins), circuit the implementation of a single Trotter step of the with nearest-neighbours interactions and open-boundary Ising hamiltonian is particularly efficient, as it features conditions one layer of Rx single qubit rotation gates, and a layer of iλZZ Ns 1 Ns two qubits parametrized e gates, each of them can − X z z X x H = J σ σ Γ σ + JN (16) be created using two CNOTs gates and one Rz(λ) gate. Ising − s s+1 − s s s=1 s=1 (iii) The collapse step is the read-out of the Ns qubit where J > 0 is the ferromagnetic coupling constant and Γ register. If we repeat the QPE algorithm multiple times, is the real-valued transverse field parameter, and the shift a typical counts of the read-outs would look like Fig.4.c. It is possible to see that a sizable fraction of the collapses JNs has been introduced for convenience to ensure the spectrum is positive. We choose this model for two rea- would end in the desired localized state, accross the bar- sons, (i) the Ising Hamiltonian is central in discrete opti- rier, xR, even if the number n is not sufficient to resolve mization problems, (ii) it realizes a simple qubit Hamilto- the tiny energy difference between E0 and E1. nian with a potential (i.e. its diagonal part) that feature We define this probability as hopping probability, and two distant wells, separated by a large barrier, if J Γ . we study its behaviour as a function of the system size | | The shapes of the ground and the first excited states Ns and n in Fig.4.d. are also qualitatively similar to the ones of double well In this numerical experiment we choose J = 1, and effective potential of Fig.1, with ψ0 (ψ1) being (approx- Γ = J/10 that corresponds to a deep tunneling regime imately) the symmetric (antisymmetric) combination of for the transverse Ising model, as the system is strongly Ns Ns the states 0 ⊗ and 1 ⊗ . If we read the basis states ferromagnetic. The gap between E and E close expo- | i | i 0 1 in binary format, as explained in Sect.VA, i.e. as dis- nentially with Ns and classical simulations based on lo- cretized positions along a line, we see that the two min- cal updates Monte Carlo sampling become inefficient40. ima are located at xL = 0, and xR = 7 (see Fig.4.a.). While the classical simulation of the ferromagnetic model We apply the procedure proposed above to demon- becomes simple again by introducing global Monte Carlo strate that we can use QPE to hop between the localized updates7, this procedure can be tested against classical Ns Ns states 0 ⊗ and 1 ⊗ , without any ad hoc procedure samplers on the much more challenging random Ising that would| i require| knowledgei of the position of the sec- models. This investigation is however left for future ond minima. (in this case, the gate realizing the operator works as it is clearly outside the scope of the present 9
a b
c d
FIG. 4: Minima hopping in the ferromagnetic Ising model. Panel a. Potential energy landscape of the Ns = 3 Ising model with J = 1. The two degenerate solutions of associate classical model (with Γ = 0) are the configurations ”000” and ”111”. At finite, small, field (here Γ = J/10), the two lowest lying eigenstates are made of the symmetric and antisymmetric combination of these two configurations (these wavefunctions are shifted vertically by the corresponding eigenvalues). Notice the similarity the double-well example of Fig.1.a. Panel b. The QPE circuit defined with a state register of Ns qubits and a count register of n qubits. See text for details. The red block is the state preparation circuit, which is empty in this example as we start from the ”000” state, and aim to hop to the ”111” local minima. If we want to start in the opposite minima, we can prepare this state by means of Ns X-gates, one for each qubit. We checked that, if we prepare here one of the eigenstates of HIsing instead, the state remains unchanged at the end of the execution. Panel c. Histogram of the read-outs of the state register, with n = 10. As the initial state ”000” has overlap with both ψ0 and ψ1, there is sizable probability to collapse into the state ”111”. Panel d. This probability reaches the limiting value of 0.5 as the number of iterations n is increased, for every problem size considered. manuscript. a rigorous connection from a quantum system to a clas- For completeness,in AppendixB, we apply the same sical diffusion problem. Here we proceed in the reverse quantum algorithms to an Hamiltonian defined directly direction, as we aim to solve classical statistical mechan- using the position and momentum operators (in real ics using quantum formalism, algorithms, and hardware, space) as in Sect.VA, obtaining the same outcomes. eventually. The approach is completely unrelated to the quantum walk quantum primitive, and only requires a parametrization of the potential energy surface v(x). VI. CONCLUSIONS We show how this idea can be used to address three important applications, which are ubiquitous in We introduce an elegant, decades-old formalism, physics, chemistry, machine learning, and optimization: stochastic quantization, to the realm of quantum compu- (i) sampling from the un-normalized canonical distribu- v(x)/T tation, to enable applications related to sampling in real- tion e− , and the reaction current j(x), (ii) comput- space problems. This formalism allows us to establish ing reaction rates in case of multistable energy surfaces, 10 and (iii) achieve a faster exploration of the energy land- the potential energy term the counts are obtained by scape. In the latter case, the quantum formalism allows measuring in the position basis where measurements can us to generate effective and automatic global moves and straightly be applied whereas the kinetic term requires can be complemented with classical Markov Chain algo- applying a QFT beforehand to ensure that measure- rithm to sample the local basin of attraction, taking the ments are done in the momentum basis. Note that to best of the two worlds. This method can be used also in account for negative values of the momentum, a shift n 1 2π optimization related tasks, especially when more than a of pc = ∆p2 − , where ∆p = 2n∆x , is applied placing single candidate solution is needed. the zero momentum value at the center of the Brillouin The merits and the weakness of the approach, as well zone. This choice implies the use of a centered Quan- as the possibility for achieving a quantum advantage in tum Fourier Transform (cQFT) operator to implement all the above applications, is critically discussed. For ex- the switch from the position to the momentum space. ample, the quadratic speed-up in the calculation of the In the case where the momentum space in centered rates could be overshadowed by the large prefactor typi- exactly around the middle of the array we can simply cal of QPU operations. add a X gate on the last qubit right before and after the 1 The hybrid classical-quantum sampling scheme, which QFT and QFT− operations such that they undergo a could offer an exponential speed-up compared to local- cyclic permutation: updates Metropolis sampling as the ratio of the barrier height over the temperature ratio increases, should be 1 0 ··· benchmarked against the best possible classical Monte . .. Carlo sampling method, which crucially depends on the ··· (i) 0 1 application chosen. Future research direction include: cQFT = ··· QFT. (A4) assess the threshold for quantum advantage in realistic 1 0 ···. and important problems in physics and chemistry, and .. (ii) generalize the present framework to discrete models. 0 1 ··· To conclude, we believe that this work could stimulate ··· further investigations in the quest for quantum speedup 44 in realistic problems in classical statistical mechanics. More details can be found in Ref. . Acknowledgements. We acknowledge discussions with Pietro Faccioli, Giuseppe Carleo, Almudena Carrera-Vazquez, Stefan Woerner, and Antonio Mezza- Appendix B: Minima hopping in a real space model capo. In this section we show another numerical example Appendix A: Measuring a real space model of the QPE-based minima hopping algorithm, using an hamiltonian with VQE hamiltonian operator constructed from grid discretized, real-space continuos operator. We suppose to have a po- tential V (x) showing a double well shape. The kinetic Assuming a hamiltonian of the form H = K+V , where operator can be constructed in momentum space, using V is a potential operator, diagonal in the computational 2 the Quantum Fourier Transform, which matrix form is 1 d basis, and K is a kinetic operator K = 2m dx2 , the given by energy, E, of the variational state is calculated− as,
2n 1 1 2 1 X− K = QF T †[k ]QF T (B1) E = N (j)V [j ∆x L/2] (A1) −2m∗ V N counts × − shots j=0 2 n where [k ] is a short hand notation for a diagonal matrix, 2 1 1 X− 1 which diagonal contains an array of the form c[i2], with E = N (j)(j ∆p)2 (A2) K N 2m counts × i = 0, , 2n 1, and c = π2n+1/L is a constant, n is shots j=0 the number··· of− qubits used to discretize the simulation and box of side L with 2n points. More details can be found in Ref.27. E = EV + EK (A3) The effective mass m∗ controlling the kinetic operator where EV and EK are the potential and kinetic energy is related, in the formalism introduced in the main text, respectively. Nshots is the total number of measurements to the temperature via 2m∗ = 1/T (see Eq.7). However, done on the quantum computer to obtain the statistics, here we keep the ”mass” parameter for reader’s conve- per basis. Therefore these sums contain only a finite nience, to compare with the existing literature, such as 27,44,56 number of elements. Ncounts(j) (with 0 Ncounts(j) Refs that also explain how to perform real-time P ≤ ≤ Nshots, j Ncounts(j) = Nshots) is the number of mea- dynamics of a quantum state evolving on a potential en- surement that collapsed onto the qubit basis state corre- ergy surface. sponding to the binary representation of integer j. For We adopt a minimal model with n = 2. The potential 11
shape is shown in Fig.5.a, and the full Hamiltonian reads a
J t1 t2 t1 t −3J t −t H = − 1 − 1 2 (B2) t2 t1 3J t1 t −t t −J − 1 2 − 1 b
with parameters J = 1, t 0.39, and t 0.20, which 1 ≈ 2 ≈ results from arbitrarily setting m∗ = 0.5 and L = 10. Also in this numerical experiment we numerically con- struct the controlled unitaries via direct matrix exponen- FIG. 5: Minima hopping in a real-space double well tiation. We apply the same circuit depicted in Fig.4.c, model. Panel a. Potential energy landscape of the with starting state in the left well: x = 0 = ”00”. model (black upper line) and the first two eigenstates L Fig.5.b, we observe that after a sufficient number of ap- (below). Arbitrary units are assumed to label the plication of controlled unitaries, we reach a state that vertical axis. Panel b. Histogram of the read-outs of the enable hopping to the right well (”11”), with 50% state register, with n = 4. probability. ≈
1 Michael P Allen and Dominic J Tildesley, Computer sim- simulations in statistical physics (Cambridge university ulation of liquids (Oxford university press, 2017). press, 2014). 2 Scott Kirkpatrick, C Daniel Gelatt, and Mario P Vecchi, 10 Gabriele C Sosso, Ji Chen, Stephen J Cox, Martin Fitzner, “Optimization by simulated annealing,” science 220, 671– Philipp Pedevilla, Andrea Zen, and Angelos Michaelides, 680 (1983). “Crystal nucleation in liquids: Open questions and future 3 Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W Rosenbluth, Marshall N challenges in molecular dynamics simulations,” Chemical Rosenbluth, Augusta H Teller, and Edward Teller, “Equa- reviews 116, 7078–7116 (2016). tion of state calculations by fast computing machines,” 11 Bingqing Cheng, Guglielmo Mazzola, Chris J Pickard, The journal of chemical physics 21, 1087–1092 (1953). and Michele Ceriotti, “Evidence for supercritical behaviour 4 W Keith Hastings, “Monte carlo sampling methods using of high-pressure liquid hydrogen,” Nature 585, 217–220 markov chains and their applications,” (1970). (2020). 5 Isabel Beichl and Francis Sullivan, “The metropolis al- 12 Ken A Dill and Justin L MacCallum, “The protein-folding gorithm,” Computing in Science & Engineering 2, 65–69 problem, 50 years on,” science 338, 1042–1046 (2012). (2000). 13 Peter H¨anggi, Peter Talkner, and Michal Borkovec, 6 Daan Frenkel and Berend Smit, Understanding molecular “Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after kramers,” Reviews simulation: from algorithms to applications, Vol. 1 (Else- of modern physics 62, 251 (1990). vier, 2001). 14 Michael Betancourt, “A conceptual introduction to hamil- 7 Ulli Wolff, “Collective monte carlo updating for spin sys- tonian monte carlo,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.02434 tems,” Physical Review Letters 62, 361 (1989). (2017). 8 Robert H Swendsen and Jian-Sheng Wang, “Nonuniver- 15 Simon Duane, Anthony D Kennedy, Brian J Pendleton, sal critical dynamics in monte carlo simulations,” Physical and Duncan Roweth, “Hybrid monte carlo,” Physics letters review letters 58, 86 (1987). B 195, 216–222 (1987). 9 David P Landau and Kurt Binder, A guide to Monte Carlo 16 David J Earl and Michael W Deem, “Parallel temper- 12
ing: Theory, applications, and new perspectives,” Physical 37 Ulrich Weiss, Hermann Grabert, Peter H¨anggi, and Pe- Chemistry Chemical Physics 7, 3910–3916 (2005). ter Riseborough, “Incoherent tunneling in a double well,” 17 Alessandro Laio and Michele Parrinello, “Escaping free- Physical Review B 35, 9535 (1987). energy minima,” Proceedings of the National Academy of 38 Ian R Craig and David E Manolopoulos, “Quantum statis- Sciences 99, 12562–12566 (2002). tics and classical mechanics: Real time correlation func- 18 Glenn M Torrie and John P Valleau, “Nonphysical sam- tions from ring polymer molecular dynamics,” The Journal pling distributions in monte carlo free-energy estimation: of Chemical Physics 121, 3368–3373 (2004). Umbrella sampling,” Journal of Computational Physics 39 Jeremy O Richardson, Stuart C Althorpe, and David J 23, 187–199 (1977). Wales, “Instanton calculations of tunneling splittings for 19 Kristan Temme, Tobias J Osborne, Karl G Vollbrecht, water dimer and trimer,” The Journal of Chemical Physics David Poulin, and Frank Verstraete, “Quantum metropo- 135, 124109 (2011). lis sampling,” Nature 471, 87–90 (2011). 40 Guglielmo Mazzola, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, and Matthias 20 Man-Hong Yung and Al´anAspuru-Guzik, “A quantum– Troyer, “Quantum monte carlo tunneling from quantum quantum metropolis algorithm,” Proceedings of the Na- chemistry to quantum annealing,” Physical Review B 96, tional Academy of Sciences 109, 754–759 (2012). 134305 (2017). 21 Lov Grover and Terry Rudolph, “Creating superpositions 41 Jeremy O Richardson and Stuart C Althorpe, “Ring- that correspond to efficiently integrable probability distri- polymer molecular dynamics rate-theory in the deep- butions,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/0208112 (2002). tunneling regime: Connection with semiclassical instan- 22 Andrei N Soklakov and R¨udigerSchack, “Efficient state ton theory,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 131, 214106 preparation for a register of quantum bits,” Physical re- (2009). view A 73, 012307 (2006). 42 Federico Becca and Sandro Sorella, c, 1st ed. (Cambridge 23 Ashley Montanaro, “Quantum speedup of monte carlo University Press). methods,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathe- 43 Ivan Kassal, Stephen P Jordan, Peter J Love, Masoud matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 471, 20150301 Mohseni, and Al´an Aspuru-Guzik, “Polynomial-time (2015). quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynam- 24 Gemma De las Cuevas, Wolfgang D¨ur,Maarten Van den ics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, Nest, and Miguel A Martin-Delgado, “Quantum algo- 18681–18686 (2008). rithms for classical lattice models,” New Journal of Physics 44 Pauline J Ollitrault, Guglielmo Mazzola, and Ivano 13, 093021 (2011). Tavernelli, “Nonadiabatic molecular quantum dynamics 25 Pawel Wocjan and Anura Abeyesinghe, “Speedup via with quantum computers,” Physical Review Letters 125, quantum sampling,” Physical Review A 78, 042336 (2008). 260511 (2020). 26 Peter C Richter, “Quantum speedup of classical mixing 45 Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang, Quantum Compu- processes,” Physical Review A 76, 042306 (2007). tation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- 27 Rolando D Somma, Sergio Boixo, Howard Barnum, and tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010). Emanuel Knill, “Quantum simulations of classical anneal- 46 Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man- ing processes,” Physical review letters 101, 130504 (2008). Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´anAspuru- 28 Dominik S Wild, Dries Sels, Hannes Pichler, and Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue Mikhail D Lukin, “Quantum sampling algorithms for near- solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nature Commu- term devices,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14059 (2020). nications 5 (2014). 29 Philipp Hauke, Giovanni Mattiotti, and Pietro Faccioli, 47 Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Rajiv Krishnakumar, Guglielmo “Dominant reaction pathways by quantum computing,” Mazzola, Nikitas Stamatopoulos, Stefan Woerner, and arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.13788 (2020). William J Zeng, “A threshold for quantum advantage 30 Christof Zalka, “Simulating quantum systems on a quan- in derivative pricing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.03819 tum computer,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- (2020). don. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering 48 Alexandru Macridin, Panagiotis Spentzouris, James Sciences 454, 313–322 (1998). Amundson, and Roni Harnik, “Electron-phonon systems 31 Stephen Wiesner, “Simulations of many-body quan- on a universal quantum computer,” Physical Review Let- tum systems by a quantum computer,” arXiv preprint ters 121, 110504 (2018). arXiv:quant-ph/9603028 (1996). 49 Boris Khoromskij, “o(dlogn)-quantics approximation of n- 32 Jessica Lemieux, Bettina Heim, David Poulin, Krysta d tensors in high-dimensional numerical modeling.” Constr Svore, and Matthias Troyer, “Efficient quantum walk cir- Approx 34, 257–280 (2011). cuits for metropolis-hastings algorithm,” Quantum 4, 287 50 Michael Lubasch, Jaewoo Joo, Pierre Moinier, Martin (2020). Kiffner, and Dieter Jaksch, “Variational quantum algo- 33 Hannes Risken, The Fokker-Planck Equation (Springer, rithms for nonlinear problems,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 010301 1996) pp. 63–95. (2020). 34 Giorgio Parisi and Yong Shi Wu, “Perturbation theory 51 Dave Wecker, Matthew B Hastings, and Matthias Troyer, without gauge fixing,” Sci. sin 24, 483–496 (1981). “Progress towards practical quantum variational algo- 35 Marc Bernstein and Lowell S. Brown, “Supersymmetry rithms,” Physical Review A 92, 042303 (2015). and the bistable fokker-planck equation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Giuseppe Carleo, 52, 1933–1935 (1984). and Antonio Mezzacapo, “Precise measurement of quan- 36 Sorin T˘anase-Nicola and Jorge Kurchan, “Metastable tum observables with neural-network estimators,” Physical states, transitions, basins and borders at finite temper- Review Research 2, 022060 (2020). atures,” Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 1201–1245 53 James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe (2004). Carleo, “Quantum natural gradient,” Quantum 4, 269 13
(2020). 63 Almudena Carrera Vazquez and Stefan Woerner, “Effi- 54 Barnaby van Straaten and B´alint Koczor, “Measurement cient state preparation for quantum amplitude estima- cost of metric-aware variational quantum algorithms,” tion,” Physical Review Applied 34, 034027 (2021). arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.05172 (2020). 64 Christoph Dellago, Peter G Bolhuis, F´elixS Csajka, and 55 Daniel S Abrams and Seth Lloyd, “Quantum algorithm David Chandler, “Transition path sampling and the calcu- providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenval- lation of rate constants,” The Journal of chemical physics ues and eigenvectors,” Physical Review Letters 83, 5162 108, 1964–1977 (1998). (1999). 65 Christoph Dellago, Peter Bolhuis, and Phillip L Geissler, 56 Giuliano Benenti and Giuliano Strini, “Quantum simula- “Transition path sampling,” Advances in chemical physics tion of the single-particle schr¨odingerequation,” American 123, 1–78 (2002). Journal of Physics 76, 657–662 (2008). 66 David Chandler, “Statistical mechanics of isomerization 57 Stefan Woerner and Daniel J Egger, “Quantum risk anal- dynamics in liquids and the transition state approxima- ysis,” npj Quantum Information 5, 1–8 (2019). tion,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 68, 2959–2970 58 Richard Cleve, Artur Ekert, Chiara Macchiavello, and (1978). Michele Mosca, “Quantum algorithms revisited,” Proceed- 67 Donald G Truhlar, Bruce C Garrett, and Stephen J Klip- ings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathe- penstein, “Current status of transition-state theory,” The matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 454, 339–354 Journal of physical chemistry 100, 12771–12800 (1996). (1998). 68 Guglielmo Mazzola, S a Beccara, Pietro Faccioli, and 59 A Yu Kitaev, “Quantum measurements and the abelian Henri Orland, “Fluctuations in the ensemble of reaction stabilizer problem,” arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 pathways,” The Journal of chemical physics 134, 164109 (1995). (2011). 60 Robert B Griffiths and Chi-Sheng Niu, “Semiclassical 69 P Faccioli, M Sega, F Pederiva, and H Orland, “Dominant fourier transform for quantum computation,” Physical Re- pathways in protein folding,” Physical review letters 97, view Letters 76, 3228 (1996). 108101 (2006). 61 Sam McArdle, Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Si- 70 Silvio a Beccara, Tatjana Skrbi´c,Robertoˇ Covino, Cristian mon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Variational ansatz- Micheletti, and Pietro Faccioli, “Folding pathways of a based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution,” knotted protein with a realistic atomistic force field,” PLoS npj Quantum Information 5, 1–6 (2019). Comput Biol 9, e1003002 (2013). 62 Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian TK Tan, Matthew J 71 Craig Gidney and Austin G Fowler, “Efficient magic state O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J Minnich, Fernando GSL factories with a catalyzed |ccz > to 2|t > transformation,” Brandao, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, “Determining eigen- Quantum 3, 135 (2019). states and thermal states on a quantum computer using 72 H´ectorAbraham, Ismail Yunus Akhalwaya, Gadi Alek- quantum imaginary time evolution,” Nature Physics 16, sandrowicz, et al., “Qiskit: An open-source framework for 205–210 (2020). quantum computing,” (2019)