Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 65 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 51 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 29 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 80 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 182 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 453 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 34 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

On the feasibility of performing quantum chemistry calculations on quantum computers (2306.02620v3)

Published 5 Jun 2023 in quant-ph and cond-mat.str-el

Abstract: Quantum chemistry is envisioned as an early and disruptive application for quantum computers. Yet, closer scrutiny of the proposed algorithms shows that there are considerable difficulties along the way. Here, we propose two criteria for evaluating two leading quantum approaches for finding the ground state of molecules. The first criterion applies to the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm. It sets an upper bound to the level of imprecision/decoherence that can be tolerated in quantum hardware as a function of the targeted precision, the number of gates and the typical energy contribution from states populated by decoherence processes. We find that decoherence is highly detrimental to the accuracy of VQE and performing relevant chemistry calculations would require performances that are expected for fault-tolerant quantum computers, not mere noisy hardware, even with advanced error mitigation techniques. Physically, the sensitivity of VQE to decoherence originates from the fact that, in VQE, the spectrum of the studied molecule has no correlation with the spectrum of the quantum hardware used to perform the computation. The second criterion applies to the quantum phase estimation (QPE) algorithm, which is often presented as the go-to replacement of VQE upon availability of (noiseless) fault-tolerant quantum computers. QPE requires an input state with a large enough overlap with the sought-after ground state. We provide a criterion to estimate quantitatively this overlap based on the energy and the energy variance of said input state. Using input states from a variety of state-of-the-art classical methods, we show that the scaling of this overlap with system size does display the standard orthogonality catastrophe, namely an exponential suppression with system size. This in turns leads to an exponentially reduced QPE success probability.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (14)
  1. P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994) pp. 124–134.
  2. L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997).
  3. E. M. Stoudenmire and X. Waintal, Grover’s algorithm offers no quantum advantage (2023), arXiv:2303.11317 [quant-ph] .
  4. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Physical Review A 92, 042303 (2015), arXiv:1507.08969 .
  5. D. Ceperley, G. V. Chester, and M. H. Kalos, Monte carlo simulation of a many-fermion study, Phys. Rev. B 16, 3081 (1977).
  6. D. Stilck França and R. García-Patrón, Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices, Nature Physics 17, 1221 (2021), arXiv:2009.05532 .
  7. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Simulator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Physical Review X 7, 021050 (2017), arXiv:1611.09301 .
  8. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Physical Review Letters 119, 180509 (2017), arXiv:1612.02058 .
  9. S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical Quantum Error Mitigation for Near-Future Applications, Physical Review X 8, 031027 (2018), arXiv:1712.09271 .
  10. X. Waintal, What determines the ultimate precision of a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042318 (2019).
  11. P. W. Anderson, Infrared catastrophe in fermi gases with local scattering potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1049 (1967).
  12. C. Mora and X. Waintal, Variational wave functions and their overlap with the ground state, Physical review letters 99, 030403 (2007).
  13. R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre, and J. A. Pople, Self‐consistent molecular‐orbital methods. ix. an extended gaussian‐type basis for molecular‐orbital studies of organic molecules, The Journal of Chemical Physics 54, 724 (1971), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1674902 .
  14. T. H. Dunning, Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. i. the atoms boron through neon and hydrogen, The Journal of Chemical Physics 90, 1007 (1989), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.456153 .
Citations (4)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube