Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lattice field theories

Published 26 Feb 2024 in hep-lat and quant-ph | (2402.16780v1)

Abstract: In the quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, gauge symmetry can be either fixed or encoded as a redundancy of the Hilbert space. While gauge-fixing reduces the number of qubits, keeping the gauge redundancy can provide code space to mitigate and correct quantum errors by checking and restoring Gauss's law. In this work, we consider the correctable errors for generic finite gauge groups and design the quantum circuits to detect and correct them. We calculate the error thresholds below which the gauge-redundant digitization with Gauss's law error correction has better fidelity than the gauge-fixed digitization. Our results provide guidance for fault-tolerant quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (66)
  1. A. Polkovnikov and V. Gritsev, Breakdown of the adiabatic limit in low-dimensional gapless systems, Nature Physics 4, 477 (2008).
  2. A. Riera, C. Gogolin, and J. Eisert, Thermalization in nature and on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 080402 (2012).
  3. H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Parton physics on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013272 (2020a), arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat] .
  4. C. W. Bauer, M. Freytsis, and B. Nachman, Simulating Collider Physics on Quantum Computers Using Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 212001 (2021), arXiv:2102.05044 [hep-ph] .
  5. T. V. Zache, D. González-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Fermion-qudit quantum processors for simulating lattice gauge theories with matter (2023a), arXiv:2303.08683 [quant-ph] .
  6. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  7. M. C. Bañuls et al., Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 165 (2020), arXiv:1911.00003 [quant-ph] .
  8. C. W. Bauer et al., Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023a), arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph] .
  9. Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu (NuQS), Gluon Field Digitization via Group Space Decimation for Quantum Computers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14221 [hep-lat] .
  10. A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum Simulation of Lattice QCD with Improved Hamiltonians (2023), arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat] .
  11. E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D91, 054506 (2015), arXiv:1409.3085 [quant-ph] .
  12. E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, Primitive Quantum Gates for an S⁢U⁢(2)𝑆𝑈2SU(2)italic_S italic_U ( 2 ) Discrete Subgroup: Binary Octahedral (2023), arXiv:2312.10285 [hep-lat] .
  13. E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Cold-Atom Quantum Simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125304 (2013a), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph] .
  14. E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Simulating Compact Quantum Electrodynamics with ultracold atoms: Probing confinement and nonperturbative effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 125302 (2012), arXiv:1204.6574 [quant-ph] .
  15. E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum Simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph] .
  16. H. Singh and S. Chandrasekharan, Qubit regularization of the O⁢(3)𝑂3O(3)italic_O ( 3 ) sigma model, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054505 (2019), arXiv:1905.13204 [hep-lat] .
  17. H. Singh, Qubit O⁢(N)𝑂𝑁O(N)italic_O ( italic_N ) nonlinear sigma models (2019), arXiv:1911.12353 [hep-lat] .
  18. R. C. Brower, D. Berenstein, and H. Kawai, Lattice Gauge Theory for a Quantum Computer, PoS LATTICE2019, 112 (2019), arXiv:2002.10028 [hep-lat] .
  19. S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Toward scalable simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094501 (2020), arXiv:2005.10271 [quant-ph] .
  20. E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simulations of gauge theories with ultracold atoms: local gauge invariance from angular momentum conservation, Phys. Rev. A88, 023617 (2013b), arXiv:1303.5040 [quant-ph] .
  21. J. Bender and E. Zohar, Gauge redundancy-free formulation of compact qed with dynamical matter for quantum and classical computations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114517 (2020).
  22. A. Yamamoto, Real-time simulation of (2+1)-dimensional lattice gauge theory on qubits, PTEP 2021, 013B06 (2021), arXiv:2008.11395 [hep-lat] .
  23. C. W. Bauer and D. M. Grabowska, Efficient Representation for Simulating U(1) Gauge Theories on Digital Quantum Computers at All Values of the Coupling (2021), arXiv:2111.08015 [hep-ph] .
  24. N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph] .
  25. A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, A Trailhead for Quantum Simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills Lattice Gauge Theory in the Local Multiplet Basis (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph] .
  26. T. V. Zache, D. González-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Quantum and classical spin network algorithms for q𝑞qitalic_q-deformed Kogut-Susskind gauge theories (2023b), arXiv:2304.02527 [quant-ph] .
  27. T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, Breaking new ground for quantum and classical simulations of SU⁢(3)SU3\mathrm{SU(3)}roman_SU ( 3 ) Yang-Mills theory (2023), arXiv:2306.12324 [hep-lat] .
  28. E. Zohar and B. Reznik, Confinement and lattice QED electric flux-tubes simulated with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 275301 (2011), arXiv:1108.1562 [quant-ph] .
  29. I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Solving gauss’s law on digital quantum computers with loop-string-hadron digitization, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033039 (2020).
  30. Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Search for Efficient Formulations for Hamiltonian Simulation of non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories (2020), arXiv:2009.11802 [hep-lat] .
  31. S. Caspar and H. Singh, From Asymptotic Freedom to θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ Vacua: Qubit Embeddings of the O(3) Nonlinear σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 022003 (2022), arXiv:2203.15766 [hep-lat] .
  32. J. R. Stryker, Oracles for Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A99, 042301 (2019), arXiv:1812.01617 [quant-ph] .
  33. H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Suppressing Coherent Gauge Drift in Quantum Simulations (2020b), arXiv:2005.12688 [quant-ph] .
  34. E. Mathew and I. Raychowdhury, Protecting local and global symmetries in simulating (1+1)D non-Abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054510 (2022), arXiv:2206.07444 [hep-lat] .
  35. J. C. Halimeh and P. Hauke, Stabilizing Gauge Theories in Quantum Simulators: A Brief Review (2022) arXiv:2204.13709 [cond-mat.quant-gas] .
  36. M. Van Damme, J. C. Halimeh, and P. Hauke, Gauge-Symmetry Violation Quantum Phase Transition in Lattice Gauge Theories (2020), arXiv:2010.07338 [cond-mat.quant-gas] .
  37. C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Breaking of Gauge Symmetry in Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091601 (2021a).
  38. C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Lattice gauge theories in the presence of a linear gauge-symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. E 104, 014140 (2021b).
  39. E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Robustness of Gauge Digitization to Quantum Noise (2023), arXiv:2301.10207 [hep-lat] .
  40. J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, and P. Hauke, Gauge protection in non-Abelian lattice gauge theories (2021), arXiv:2106.09032 [cond-mat.quant-gas] .
  41. A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries, npj Quantum Information 9, 41 (2023a).
  42. B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015).
  43. J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics 60, 226 (2019).
  44. Scaling IonQ’s quantum computers: The roadmap (2020).
  45. The IBM Quantum Development Roadmap (2021).
  46. H. Neven, Day 1 opening keynote by Hartmut Neven (quantum summer symposium 2020) (2020).
  47. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Hierarchical qubit maps and hierarchically implemented quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062425 (2021), arXiv:2109.01953 [quant-ph] .
  48. A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 41 (2023b), arXiv:2112.05186 [quant-ph] .
  49. J. del Pino and O. Zilberberg, Dynamical Gauge Fields with Bosonic Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171901 (2023), arXiv:2211.12119 [quant-ph] .
  50. A. J. Landahl and B. C. A. Morrison, Logical fermions for fault-tolerant quantum simulation (2021), arXiv:2110.10280 [quant-ph] .
  51. Y.-A. Chen, A. V. Gorshkov, and Y. Xu, Error-correcting codes for fermionic quantum simulation (2022), arXiv:2210.08411 [quant-ph] .
  52. P. W. Shor, Fault tolerant quantum computation (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605011 .
  53. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM Journal on Computing 38, 1207 (2008).
  54. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation, Science 279, 342 (1998).
  55. J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975).
  56. J. Carlsson and B. H. McKellar, Direct improvement of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 64, 094503 (2001a), arXiv:hep-lat/0105018 .
  57. J. Carlsson and B. H. J. McKellar, Direct improvement of hamiltonian lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 64, 094503 (2001b).
  58. C. Gattringer and C. B. Lang, Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice, Vol. 788 (Springer, Berlin, 2010).
  59. N. Ligterink, N. Walet, and R. Bishop, Toward a many-body treatment of hamiltonian lattice SU(n) gauge theory, Annals of Physics 284, 215 (2000).
  60. V. Müller and W. Rühl, The energy gap of su(2) lattice gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions, Nuclear Physics B 230, 49 (1984).
  61. J. B. Bronzan, Explicit hamiltonian for su(2) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2020 (1985).
  62. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Theory of quantum error-correcting codes, Phys. Rev. A 55, 900 (1997).
  63. P. M. van Den Broek and J. F. Cornwell, Clebsch-gordan coefficients of symmetry groups, physica status solidi (b) 90, 211 (1978).
  64. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
  65. H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), General Methods for Digital Quantum Simulation of Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [hep-lat] .
  66. P. Butera and M. Pernici, Sums of permanental minors using Grassmann algebra (2014), arXiv:1406.5337 [hep-lat] .
Citations (13)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Collections

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

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free