Abstract
Several applications of quantum machine learning (QML) rely on a quantum measurement followed by training algorithms using the measurement outcomes. However, recently developed QML models, such as variational quantum circuits (VQCs), can be implemented directly on the state of the quantum system (quantum data). Here, we propose to use a qubit as a probe to estimate the degree of non-Markovianity of the environment. Using VQCs, we find an optimal sequence of qubit-environment interactions that yield accurate estimations of the degree of non-Markovianity for the amplitude damping, phase damping, and the combination of both models. This work contributes to practical quantum applications of VQCs and delivers a feasible experimental procedure to estimate the degree of non-Markovianity.
This is a preview of subscription content,
to check access.



Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notes
For the PD channel, using \(\check{\mathcal {N}}=\text {max}\left( w_0+w_1\langle \sigma _z\rangle ,0\right) \) as the estimate of the degree of non-Markovianity, we obtained \(1.7\times 10^{-6}\) for the MSE over the test data.
References
Acampora G, Schiattarella R (2021) Deep neural networks for quantum circuit mapping. Neural Comput Appl 33:13723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06009-3
Beer K, Bondarenko D, Farrelly T, Osborne TJ, Salzmann R, Scheiermann D, Wolf R (2020) Training deep quantum neural networks. Nat Comms 11:808. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14454-2
Bellomo B, Lo Franco R, Compagno G (2007) Non-Markovian effects on the dynamics of entanglement. Phys Rev Lett 99(16):160502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.160502
Benedetti M et al (2019) Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models. Quantum Sci Technol 4:043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ab4eb5
Bergholm V et al (2020) PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantumclassical computations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.04968v3
Berk GD, Garner BAJP, Yadin, Modi K, Pollock FA (2021) Resource theories of multi-time processes: a window into quantum non-Markovianity. Quantum 5:435. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-04-20-435
Bharti K, Cervera-Lierta A, Kyaw TH, Haug T, Alperin-Lea, S, Anand A, Degroote M, Heimonen H, Kottmann JS, Menke T, Mok W-K, Sim S, Kwek L-C, Aspuru-Guzik A (2022) Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) algorithms. Rev Mod Phys 94:015004. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004
Biamonte J, Wittek P, Pancotti N, Rebentrost P, Wiebe N, Lloyd S (2017) Quantum machine learning. Nature 549, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23474
Blais A, Girvin SM, Oliver WD (2020) Quantum information processing and quantum optics with circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nat Phys 16: 247–256 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0806-z
Breuer HP, Petruccione F (2007) The theory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Breuer H-P, Laine EM, Piilo J (2009) Measure for the degree of non-Markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems. Phys Rev Lett. 103(21):210401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401
Breuer HP, Laine EM, Piilo J, Vacchini B (2016) Colloquium: non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems. Rev Mod Phys 88(2):021002. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021002
Bukov M, Day GR, Sels D, Weinberg PAP, Mehta P (2018) Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control. Phys Rev X 8(3):031086. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031086
Bylicka B, Chruscinski D, Maniscalco S (2014) Non-Markovianity and reservoir memory of quantum channels: a quantum information theory perspective. Sci Rep 4:5720. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05720
Cambria MC, Norambuena A, Dinani HT, Thiering G, Gardill A, Kemeny I, Li Y, Lordi AV, Gali Maze JR, Kolkowitz S (2023) Temperature-dependent spin-lattice relaxation of the nitrogen-vacancy spin triplet in diamond. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(25):256903. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.256903
Cerezo M et al (2021) Variational quantum algorithms. Nat Rev Phys 3:625. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9
Chin AW, Huelga SF, Plenio MB (2012) Quantum metrology in non-Markovian environments. Phys Rev Lett 109(23):233601. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.233601
Chruściński D, Kossakowski A, Rivas A (2011) Measures of non-Markovianity: divisibility versus backflow of information. Phys Rev A 83:052128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.052128
Daffer S, Wódkiewicz K, Cresser JD, McIver JK (2004) Depolarizing channel as a completely positive map with memory. Phys Rev A 70(1):010304. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.010304
de Lange G, van der Sar T, Blok M, Wang Z-H, Dobrovitski V, Hanson R (2012) Controlling the quantum dynamics of a mesoscopic spin bath in diamond ambient conditions. Sci Rep 2:382. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00382
De Vega I, Alonso D (2017) Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems. Rev Mod Phys 89(1):015001. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015001
Duchi J, Hazan E, Singer Y (2011) Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12:2121
Dunjko V, Briegel H (2018) Machine learning and artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. Rep Prog Phys 81:074001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aab406
Fanchini F, Karpat G, Rossatto DZ, Norambuena A, Coto R (2021) Estimating the degree of non-Markovianity using machine learning. Phys Rev A 103(2):022425. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.022425
Fosel T, Tighineanu P, Weiss TFM (2018) Reinforcement learning with neural networks for quantum feedback. Phys Rev X 8(3):031084. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031084
García-Pérez G, Rossi MAC, Maniscalco S (2020) IBM Q experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simulating open quantum systems. npj Quantum Information 6:1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0235-y
Goswami K, Giarmatzi C, Monterola C, Shrapnel S, Romero J, Costa F (2021) Experimental characterisation of a non-Markovian quantum process. Phys Rev A 104(2):022432. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022432
Guo C, Modi K, Poletti D (2020) Tensor-network-based machine learning of non-Markovian quantum processes. Phys Rev A 102(6):062414. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.062414
Haikka P, Maniscalco S (2010) Non-Markovian dynamics of a damped driven two-state system. Phys Rev A 81(5):052103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.052103
Head-Marsden K, Krastanov S, Mazziotti DA, Narang P (2021) Capturing non-Markovian dynamics on near-term quantum computers. Phys Rev Research 3(1):013182. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.013182
Hill S, Wootters WK (1997) Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys Rev Lett 78(26):5022. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022
Hinton G, Srivastava N, Swersky K (2012) Neural networks for machine learning lecture 6a overview of mini-batch gradient descent. 14:2
Johansson J, Nation P, Nori F (2012) QuTIP: an open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput Phys Commun 183:1760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021
Laine E-M, Breuer H-P, Piilo J (2014) Nonlocal memory effects allow perfect teleportation with mixed states. Sci Rep 4:4620. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04620
Li C-F, Guo G-C, Piilo J (2020) Non-Markovian quantum dynamics: what is it good for? EPL 128:30001. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/128/30001
Luchnikov IA, Vintskevich SV, Grigoriev DA, Filippov SN (2020) Machine learning non-Markovian quantum dynamics. Phys Rev Lett 124(14):140502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.140502
Luo S, Fu S, Song H (2012) Quantifying non-Markovianity via correlations. Phys Rev A 86(4):044101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.044101
McClean JR, Romero J, Babbush R, Aspuru-Guzik A (2016) The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New J Phys 18:023023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023
Mitarai K, Negoro M, Kitagawa MKF (2018) Quantum circuit learning. Phys Rev A 98(3):032309. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032309
Morris J, Pollock FA, Modi K (2022) Quantifying non-Markovian memory in a superconducting quantum computer. Open Systems & Information Dynamics 29(2):2250007. https://doi.org/10.1142/S123016122250007X
Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simple method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308
Neto AC, Karpat G, Fanchini FF (2016) Inequivalence of correlation-based measures of non-Markovianity. Phys Rev A 94(3):032105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032105
Nielsen MA, Chuang I (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 032105
Norambuena A, Muñoz E, Dinani HT, Jarmola A, Maletinsky P, Budker D, Maze JR (2018) Spin-lattice relaxation of individual solidstate spins. Phys Rev B 97(9):022110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.094304
Norambuena A, Maze JR, Rabl P, Coto R (2020) Quantifying phononinduced non-Markovianity in color centers in diamond. Phys Rev A 101(2):022110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.022110
Paladino E, Galperin YM, Falci G, Altshuler BL (2014) 1=f noise: implications for solid-state quantum information. Rev Mod Phys 86(2):361. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.361
Palmieri AM, Bianchi F, Paris MGA, Benedetti C (2021) Multiclass classification of dephasing channels. Phys Rev A 104(5):052412. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052412
Papič M, de Vega I (2022) Neural-network-based qubit-environment characterization. Phys Rev A 105(2):022605. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022605
Pollock FA, Rodríguez-Rosario C, Frauenheim T, Paternostro M, Modi K (2018) Operational Markov condition for quantum processes. Phys Rev Lett 120(4):040405. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.040405
Preskill J (2018) Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2:79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
Reich D, Katz N, Koch C (2015) Exploiting non-Markovianity for quantum control. Sci Rep 5:12430. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12430
Rivas A, Huelga S, Plenio MB Entanglement and non-Markovianity of quantum evolutions. Phys Rev Lett 105(5):050403. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.050403
Robbins H, Monro S (1951) A stochastic approximation method Ann Math Stat 22:400. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729586
Ruder S (2016) An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. Preprint at arXiv:1609.04747
Sarma D, Deng DL, Duan LM (2019) Machine learning meets quantum physics. Physics Today 72(3):48. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4164
Schuld, M (2021) ’Quantum machine learning models are kernel methods. Preprint at arXiv:2101.11020
Schuld M, Bergholm V, Gogolin C, Izaac J (2019) Killoran, N Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware. Phys Rev A 99(3):032331. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032331
Schuld M, Sinayskiy I, Petruccione F (2015) An introduction to quantum machine learning. Contemp Phys 56(2):172–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2014.964942
Shrapnel S, Costa F, Milburn G (2018) Quantum Markovianity as a supervised learning task. International Journal of Quantum Information 16(08):1840010. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749918400105
Vasile R, Olivares S, Paris MGA, Maniscalco S (2011) Continuous-variable quantum key distribution in non-Markovian channels. Phys Rev A 83:042321. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.042321
Whalen SJ (2016) Carmichael HJ (2016) Time-local Heisenberg-Langevin equations and the driven qubit. Phys Rev A 93(6):063820. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.063820
White GAL, Hill CD, Pollock FA, Hollenberg LCL, Modi K (2020) Demonstration of non-Markovian process characterisation and control on a quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 11:6301. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20113-3
Wilde MM (2013) Quantum information theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zhang YH, Zheng PL, Zhang Y, Deng DL (2020) Topological quantum compiling with reinforcement learning. Phys Rev Lett 125:170501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.170501
Zhu D et al (2019) Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer. Sci Adv 5:9918. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9918
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mauro Cirio for helpful comments on the manuscript. H.T.D. acknowledges support from Universidad Mayor through a postdoctoral fellowship. D.T acknowledges financial support from Universidad Mayor through the Doctoral fellowship. F.F.F. acknowledges support from Fundacão de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Project No. 2019/05445-7. A. N. acknowledges financial support from Fondecyt Iniciación No 11220266. R.C. acknowledges financial support from FONDECYT Iniciación No. 11180143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.T.D., R.C., and D.T. conceptualized the idea. F.F.F. provided the dataset for PD and AD channels. A.N. advised on the experimental implementations of the proposed scheme. H.T.D. performed the numerical simulations. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing and review of the paper
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A. Adagrad
Here, following Ref. (Ruder 2016), we give some details about the Adagrad optimizer that we used in our simulations. Adaptive gradient (Adagrad) is a variation of the gradient descent (GD) optimizer. In the GD algorithm, the parameters, labeled by \(\varphi \) here, are updated in the opposite direction of the gradient of the cost function \(C(\varphi )\). In other words, for every parameter \(\varphi _i\) at each time step t, the update rule can be written as
where \(\eta \) is the learning rate, which is assumed to be constant and independent of \(\varphi _i\) thorough the learning process.
In Adagrad, a different learning rate is used for every parameter \(\varphi _i\) at every time step. In the update rule for Adagrad, the learning rate at each time step t for every parameter \(\varphi _i\) is based on the past gradients that have been calculated for \(\varphi _i\) (Ruder 2016)
Here, \(g_{t+1,i}\) is the sum of the squares of the gradients with respect to \(\varphi _i\) up to time step \(t+1\),
where \(g_0=0\), and \(\varepsilon \) (usually chosen on the order of \(10^{-8}\)) is for avoiding division by zero.
The weakness of Adagrad is the accumulation of the squared gradients in the denominator. The accumulated sum keeps growing during the training process as the added terms are all positive. As a result, the learning rate could approach zero, and therefore, the algorithm stops learning. To avoid this issue in our simulations, when the rate of learning became very small, we reinitialized the optimization process with the newly found hyperparameters as the initial values.
Appendix B. RMSprop
Root mean square propagation (RMSprop) is a variation of Adagrad algorithm which uses a decaying average of squared gradients in the adaptation of the step size for each parameter (Ruder 2016). The use of a decaying average allows the algorithm to forget early gradients and only focus on the most recent gradients during the optimization process. As a result, RMSprop overcomes the AdaGrad’s diminishing learning rates. In RMSprop, the parameter update rule is
In this case, we have
where \(g_{0}=0\), and for \(\gamma \) it is suggested to use \(\gamma =0.9\) (Hinton et al. 2012).
In our simulations, using RMSprop algorithm, a local minima of the cost function reached quickly (in less number of steps than Adagrad). However, the algorithm then started to diverge, resulting in large values for the cost function. Therefore, once RMSprop reached the local minima, we followed the optimization process with Adagrad to reach the desired accuracy.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dinani, H.T., Tancara, D., Fanchini, F.F. et al. Estimating the degree of non-Markovianity using variational quantum circuits. Quantum Mach. Intell. 5, 29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00120-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00120-5