Abstract
Numerical simulation is an important method for verifying the quantum circuits used to simulate low-energy nuclear states. However, real-world applications of quantum computing for nuclear theory often generate deep quantum circuits that place demanding memory and processing requirements on conventional simulation methods. Here, we present advances in high-performance numerical simulations of deep quantum circuits to efficiently verify the accuracy of low-energy nuclear physics applications. Our approach employs novel methods for accelerating the numerical simulation including management of simulated mid-circuit measurements to verify projection based state preparation circuits. We test these methods across a variety of high-performance computing systems and our results show that circuits up to 21 qubits and more than 115,000,000 gates can be efficiently simulated.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
This manuscript has no associated data. [Authors’ comment: The simulation software is available under NWQSim repository at: https://github.com/pnnl/NWQ-Sim/tree/mid-measure. Another code necessary topostprocess the simulations will be made available on GitHub as well, after a required release process.]
References
I.C. Cloët, M.R. Dietrich, J. Arrington, A. Bazavov, M. Bishof, A. Freese, A.V. Gorshkov, A. Grassellino, K. Hafidi, Z. Jacob et al., Opportunities for nuclear physics & quantum information science. arXiv:1903.05453 (2019)
D. Beck, J. Carlson, Z. Davoudi, J. Formaggio, S. Quaglioni, M. Savage, J. Barata, T. Bhattacharya, M. Bishof, I. Cloet et al., Quantum information science and technology for nuclear physics. input into us long-range planning arXiv:2303.00113 2023 (2023)
D.-B. Zhang, H. Xing, H. Yan, E. Wang, S.-L. Zhu, Selected topics of quantum computing for nuclear physics. Chin. Phys. B 30(2), 020306 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/abd761
M.J. Cervia, A.B. Balantekin, S.N. Coppersmith, C.W. Johnson, P.J. Love, C. Poole, K. Robbins, M. Saffman, Lipkin model on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. C 104, 024305 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024305
W. Qian, R. Basili, S. Pal, G. Luecke, J.P. Vary, Solving hadron structures using the basis light-front quantization approach on quantum computers. Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043193 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043193
I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, J. Carlson, Variational approaches to constructing the many-body nuclear ground state for quantum computing. Phys. Rev. C 105, 064308 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064308
A.M. Romero, J. Engel, H.L. Tang, S.E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm. Phys. Rev. C 105, 064317 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064317
E.F. Dumitrescu, A.J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G.R. Jansen, T.D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R.C. Pooser, D.J. Dean, P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.210501
P. Siwach, P. Arumugam, Quantum computation of nuclear observables involving linear combinations of unitary operators. Phys. Rev. C 105, 064318 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064318
W.A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. Płoskoń, F. Ringer, X. Yao, Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the Schwinger model. Phys. Rev. D 106, 054508 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.054508
O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Vallecorsa, T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the \({}^6\)Li nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters. Phys. Rev. C (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034325
F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, D. Gerace, Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Adv. Quantum Technol. 3(3), 1900052 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/qute.201900052
M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S.C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J.R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., Variational quantum algorithms. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3(9), 625–644 (2021)
S. Raeisi, N. Wiebe, B.C. Sanders, Quantum-circuit design for efficient simulations of many-body quantum dynamics. N. J. Phys. 14(10), 103017 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103017
A. Pérez-Obiol, A.M. Romero, J. Menéndez, A. Rios, A. García-Sáez, B. Juliá-Díaz, Nuclear shell-model simulation in digital quantum computers. Sci. Rep. 13, 12291 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39263-7
I. Stetcu, A. Baroni, J. Carlson, Projection algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers. Phys. Rev. C 108, 031306 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L031306
O. Kiss, M. Grossi, A. Roggero, Importance sampling for stochastic quantum simulations. Quantum 7, 977 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-04-13-977
J. Wright, M. Gowrishankar, D. Claudino, P.C. Lotshaw, T. Nguyen, A.J. McCaskey, T.S. Humble, Numerical simulations of noisy quantum circuits for computational chemistry. Mater. Theory 6(1), 18 (2022)
S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians. Phys. Lett. B 251(2), 288–292 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(90)90938-3
M. Piarulli, A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lovato, E. Lusk, L.E. Marcucci, S.C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, M. Viviani, R.B. Wiringa, Light-nuclei spectra from chiral dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 052503 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503
D. Lonardoni, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, J.E. Lynn, K.E. Schmidt, A. Schwenk, X.B. Wang, Properties of nuclei up to \(a=16\) using local chiral interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 122502 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.122502
P. Maris, R. Roth, E. Epelbaum, R.J. Furnstahl, J. Golak, K. Hebeler, T. Hüther, H. Kamada, H. Krebs, H. Le, U.-G. Meißner, J.A. Melendez, A. Nogga, P. Reinert, R. Skibiński, J.P. Vary, H. Witała, T. Wolfgruber, Nuclear properties with semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral interactions beyond \({\rm n\mathit{}^{2}\rm LO}\). Phys. Rev. C 106, 064002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.064002
S. Cohen, D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1p shell. Nucl. Phys. 73(1), 1–24 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5582(65)90148-3
P. Jordan, E. Wigner, Über das paulische äquivalenzverbot. Zeitschrift für Physik 47(9), 631–651 (1928). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01331938
M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, ninth dover printing, tenth GPO, printing. (Dover, New York, 1964)
S.B. Bravyi, A.Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation. Ann. Phys. 298(1), 210–226 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2002.6254
A. Tranter, S. Sofia, J. Seeley, M. Kaicher, J. McClean, R. Babbush, P.V. Coveney, F. Mintert, F. Wilhelm, P.J. Love, The Bravyi–Kitaev transformation: properties and applications. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115(19), 1431–1441 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.24969
A. Tranter, P.J. Love, F. Mintert, P.V. Coveney, A comparison of the Bravyi–Kitaev and Jordan–Wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quantum chemistry. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14(11), 5617–5630 (2018)
J.T. Seeley, M.J. Richard, P.J. Love, The Bravyi–Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure. J. Chem. Phys. 137(22), 224109 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4768229
S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S.C. Benjamin, X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003
D.W. Berry, M. Kieferová, A. Scherer, Y.R. Sanders, G.H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, R. Babbush, Improved techniques for preparing eigenstates of fermionic Hamiltonians. npj Quantum Inform. 4(1), 22 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0071-5
Y. Shee, P.-K. Tsai, C.-L. Hong, H.-C. Cheng, H.-S. Goan, Qubit-efficient encoding scheme for quantum simulations of electronic structure. Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023154 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023154
J.P. Vary, The many-fermion-dynamics shell-model code (Iowa State University, Iowa, 1992). (unpublished)
B.A. Brown, W.D.M. Rae, The shell-model code nushellx@msu. Nuclear Data Sheets 120, 115–118 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2014.07.022
T. Dytrych, P. Maris, K.D. Launey, J.P. Draayer, J.P. Vary, D. Langr, E. Saule, M.A. Caprio, U. Catalyurek, M. Sosonkina, Efficacy of the su(3) scheme for ab initio large-scale calculations beyond the lightest nuclei. Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 202–210 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.06.006
C.W. Johnson, W.E. Ormand, K.S. McElvain, H. Shan, BIGSTICK: a flexible configuration-interaction shell-model code. arXiv:1801.08432 [physics.comp-ph] (2018)
O. Di Matteo, A. McCoy, P. Gysbers, T. Miyagi, R.M. Woloshyn, P. Navrátil, Improving Hamiltonian encodings with the gray code. Phys. Rev. A 103, 042405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042405
B.H. Wildenthal, Empirical strengths of spin operators in nuclei. Progress Particle Nuclear Phys. 11, 5–51 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6410(84)90011-5
B.A. Brown, W.A. Richter, New USD Hamiltonians for the \(\mathit{sd}\) shell. Phys. Rev. C 74, 034315 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.034315
Y. Ge, J. Tura, J.I. Cirac, Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits. J. Math. Phys. 60, 022202 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5027484
M. Motta, C. Sun, A.T.K. Tan, M.J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A.J. Minnich, F.G.S.L. Brandão, G.K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution. Nat. Phys. 16(2), 205–210 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4. arXiv:1901.07653 [quant-ph]
K. Choi, D. Lee, J. Bonitati, Z. Qian, J. Watkins, Rodeo algorithm for quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040505 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.040505
P. Jouzdani, C.W. Johnson, E.R. Mucciolo, I. Stetcu, Alternative approach to quantum imaginary time evolution. Phys. Rev. A 106, 062435 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.062435
D. Lacroix, Symmetry-assisted preparation of entangled many-body states on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 230502 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.230502
E.A. Ruiz Guzman, D. Lacroix, Accessing ground-state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers. Phys. Rev. C 105, 024324 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024324
R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J.E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quantum networks. Phys. Rev. A 65, 042323 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042323
J. Calrson, Improved state preparation with projection algorithm. in preparation (2024)
A. Li, B. Fang, C. Granade, G. Prawiroatmodjo, B. Heim, M. Roetteler, S. Krishnamoorthy, Sv-sim: scalable pgas-based state vector simulation of quantum circuits. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1–14 (2021)
A. Li, O. Subasi, X. Yang, S. Krishnamoorthy, Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the bsp machine on modern gpu clusters. In: SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1–15 (2020). IEEE
T. Grurl, R. Kueng, J. Fuß, R. Wille, Stochastic quantum circuit simulation using decision diagrams. In: 2021 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pp. 194–199 IEEE (2021)
T. Nguyen, D. Lyakh, E. Dumitrescu, D. Clark, J. Larkin, A. McCaskey, Tensor network quantum virtual machine for simulating quantum circuits at exascale. arXiv:2104.10523 (2021)
S. Aaronson, D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Phys. Rev. A 70(5), 052328 (2004)
X. Fu, M.A. Rol, C.C. Bultink, J. Van Someren, N. Khammassi, I. Ashraf, R. Vermeulen, J. De Sterke, W. Vlothuizen, R. Schouten, et al. An experimental microarchitecture for a superconducting quantum processor. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pp. 813–825 (2017)
T. Jones, A. Brown, I. Bush, S.C. Benjamin, Quest and high performance simulation of quantum computers. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 1–11 (2019)
Y.-T. Chen, C. Farquhar, R.M. Parrish, Low-rank density-matrix evolution for noisy quantum circuits. npj Quantum Inform. 7(1), 1–12 (2021)
I.L. Markov, Y. Shi, Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks. SIAM J. Comput. 38(3), 963–981 (2008)
D.M. Miller, M.A. Thornton, D. Goodman, A decision diagram package for reversible and quantum circuit simulation. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 2428–2435 IEEE (2006)
T. Grurl, J. Fuß, R. Wille, Considering decoherence errors in the simulation of quantum circuits using decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 1–7 (2020)
S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions. Quantum 3, 181 (2019)
D.C. McKay, T. Alexander, L. Bello, M.J. Biercuk, L. Bishop, J. Chen, J. M. Chow, A.D. Córcoles, D. Egger, S. Filipp, et al. Qiskit backend specifications for openqasm and openpulse experiments. arXiv:1809.03452 (2018)
A. Barenco, C.H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D.P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J.A. Smolin, H. Weinfurter, Elementary gates for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 52(5), 3457 (1995)
A. Cross, The ibm q experience and qiskit open-source quantum computing software. In: APS March Meeting Abstracts, 2018, 58–003 (2018)
Microsoft: What are Q# and the Quantum Development Kit? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/overview-what-is-qsharp-and-qdk. Accessed: 16 Aug 2023
T.M. Mintz, A.J. Mccaskey, E.F. Dumitrescu, S.V. Moore, S. Powers, P. Lougovski, Qcor: a language extension specification for the heterogeneous quantum-classical model of computation. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. (JETC) 16(2), 1–17 (2020)
A.W. Cross, L.S. Bishop, J.A. Smolin, J.M. Gambetta, Open quantum assembly language. arXiv:1707.03429 (2017)
Microsoft: Quantum intermediate representation (2023). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/concepts-qir
M. Smelyanskiy, N.P. Sawaya, A. Aspuru-Guzik, qhipster: The quantum high performance software testing environment. arXiv:1601.07195 (2016)
T. Häner, D.S. Steiger, 5 petabyte simulation of a 45-qubit quantum circuit. In: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1–10 (2017)
M. Broughton, G. Verdon, T. McCourt, A.J. Martinez, J.H. Yoo, S.V. Isakov, P. Massey, R. Halavati, M.Y. Niu, A. Zlokapa et al., Tensorflow quantum: A software framework for quantum machine learning. arXiv:2003.02989 (2020)
Y. Suzuki, Y. Kawase, Y. Masumura, Y. Hiraga, M. Nakadai, J. Chen, K.M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, R. Imai, S. Tamiya et al., Qulacs: a fast and versatile quantum circuit simulator for research purpose. Quantum 5, 559 (2021)
B. Fang, M.Y. Özkaya, A. Li, Ü.V. Çatalyürek, S. Krishnamoorthy, Efficient hierarchical state vector simulation of quantum circuits via acyclic graph partitioning. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER), pp. 289–300 (2022). IEEE
T.T.S. Kuo, G.E. Brown, Reaction matrix elements for the 0f–1p shell nuclei. Nuclear Phys. A 114(2), 241–279 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(68)90353-9
A. Poves, A. Zuker, Theoretical spectroscopy and the fp shell. Phys. Rep. 70(4), 235–314 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(81)90153-8
I. Stetcu, C.W. Johnson, Random phase approximation vs exact shell-model correlation energies. Phys. Rev. C 66, 034301 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.66.034301
A. Roggero, C. Gu, A. Baroni, T. Papenbrock, Preparation of excited states for nuclear dynamics on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. C 102, 064624 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.102.064624
A.M. Childs, N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations 12(11–12), 901–924 (2012)
A.M. Childs, R. Kothari, R.D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision. SIAM J. Comput. 46(6), 1920–1950 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1087072
Z. Holmes, G. Muraleedharan, R.D. Somma, Y. Subasi, B. Şahinoğlu, Quantum algorithms from fluctuation theorems: Thermal-state preparation. arXiv:2203.08882 [quant-ph] (2022)
V.V. Shende, S.S. Bullock, I.L. Markov, Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 25(6), 1000–1010 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2005.855930
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, National Quantum Information Science Research Centers, Quantum Science Center (QSC). TSH, AL, and AB acknowledge QSC support for advances in numerical simulation methods and quantum circuit synthesis. The work of IS was carried out under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the US Department of Energy at Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. 89233218CNA000001. IS gratefully acknowledge partial support by the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a US Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Code availability statement
Code/software will be made available on reasonable request. [Author’s comment: The Jordan-Wigner mapped nuclear Hamiltonian used to generate the results, as well as the simulation results will be made available upon reasonable request.]
Notice
This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a non-exclusive, paid up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of the manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. The DOE will provide public access to these results in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
Additional information
Communicated by Thomas Duguet.
Implementation of the Ge et al. algorithm
Implementation of the Ge et al. algorithm
We briefly review here the algorithm used for state preparation that follows the work of Ref. [40] and describe how it has been implemented. We consider an Hamiltonian with spectrum in an interval \(I\in (0,1)\), spectral gap \(\Delta \), an initial trial state \(|{\Phi } \rangle \) with overlap \(\chi \) with the ground state \(|{\Psi _0} \rangle \), and we assume we know the ground state energy E. After defining the shifted Hamiltonian \(H^\prime =H-E\,\textbf{1}\) the state defined below
becomes close to the exact ground state, if the power of M is chosen as in Ref. [40]. It is possible to approximate the operator in Eq. (13) as a linear combination of unitaries in the following way:
with
and \(m_0\) properly chosen in order to vanish the quantity of R, a prescription is provided in Ref. [40]. The implementation of the above operator can be done using Linear Combination of Unitaries using the Prepare and Select oracles of Ref. [75] and briefly reviewed below. Given the \(2m_0+1\) unitaries of Eq. 14 we define an ancillary register of dimension \(n_A=\lceil \log _2(2m_0+1)\rceil \). We can implement a block encoding of the linear combination of unitaries using the algorithm originally developed in Ref. [76, 77] and using the approach reported in Ref. [78]. In particular we first need a prepare operator P acting only on the ancillary register defined by the following equation:
and \(\alpha =\sum _{k=-m_0}^{m_0}|\alpha _k|\). Following Ref. [78] for the general case the gate decomposition of the unitary P can be done using generic circuit synthesis as originally reported in Ref. [79] whose exponential scaling should not be a limitation for the problems at hand (i. e. for \(10^3\) unitaries only 10 ancillary qubits will be needed). After we define the select oracle, acting both on the ancillary register and the target register, in the following way
where \(U=e^{-2iH}\). Although the implementetion in principle requires applying several multi-controlled unitaries, in Ref. [78], Lemma 3.5, has been shown that only a number of single controlled unitaries equal to the number of ancillary qubits are necessary and sufficient. Therefore the implementation of the Linear-combination-of-unitaries (LCU) method for the problem at hand can be expressed as in Fig. 2 of Ref. [78]. We are now ready to discuss the success probability of the procedure that is similar to Ref. [75]. Specifically, we define the following quantity:
for which we have defined the operator \(O=\sum _{k=-m_0}^{m_0}\alpha _k U^k\). The success probability of postselecting all 0s on the ancillary qubit is thus:
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
Li, A., Baroni, A., Stetcu, I. et al. Deep quantum circuit simulations of low-energy nuclear states. Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 106 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01286-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01286-7