Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Exact block encoding of imaginary time evolution with universal quantum neural networks

Published 25 Mar 2024 in quant-ph, math-ph, and math.MP | (2403.17273v1)

Abstract: We develop a constructive approach to generate quantum neural networks capable of representing the exact thermal states of all many-body qubit Hamiltonians. The Trotter expansion of the imaginary-time propagator is implemented through an exact block encoding by means of a unitary, restricted Boltzmann machine architecture. Marginalization over the hidden-layer neurons (auxiliary qubits) creates the non-unitary action on the visible layer. Then, we introduce a unitary deep Boltzmann machine architecture, in which the hidden-layer qubits are allowed to couple laterally to other hidden qubits. We prove that this wave function ansatz is closed under the action of the imaginary-time propagator and, more generally, can represent the action of a universal set of quantum gate operations. We provide analytic expressions for the coefficients for both architectures, thus enabling exact network representations of thermal states without stochastic optimization of the network parameters. In the limit of large imaginary time, the ansatz yields the ground state of the system. The number of qubits grows linearly with the system size and total imaginary time for a fixed interaction order. Both networks can be readily implemented on quantum hardware via mid-circuit measurements of auxiliary qubits. If only one auxiliary qubit is measured and reset, the circuit depth scales linearly with imaginary time and system size, while the width is constant. Alternatively, one can employ a number of auxiliary qubits linearly proportional to the system size, and circuit depth grows linearly with imaginary time only.

Authors (2)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (70)
  1. Steven R. White. Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups. Phys. Rev. B, 48:10345–10356, Oct 1993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345.
  2. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac. Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions. 7 2004.
  3. G. Vidal. Entanglement renormalization. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:220405, Nov 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.220405. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.220405.
  4. Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems. Advances in Physics, 57(2):143–224, 2008. doi: 10.1080/14789940801912366.
  5. Ulrich Schollwöck. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Annals of Physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011. ISSN 0003-4916. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012. January 2011 Special Issue.
  6. Román Orús. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Annals of Physics, 349:117–158, 2014. ISSN 0003-4916. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013.
  7. Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553):436–444, May 2015. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature14539.
  8. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. Science, 355(6325):602–606, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aag2302.
  9. Machine learning topological states. Phys. Rev. B, 96:195145, Nov 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195145. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195145.
  10. Machine learning phases of matter. Nature Physics, 13(5):431–434, May 2017.
  11. Recurrent neural network wave functions. Phys. Rev. Res., 2:023358, Jun 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023358. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023358.
  12. Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards, 49:409–435, 1952. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2207234.
  13. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017.
  14. J.C. Spall. Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(3):332–341, 1992. doi: 10.1109/9.119632.
  15. Shun-Ichi Amari. Natural gradient works efficiently in learning. Neural Comput., 10(2):251–276, feb 1998. ISSN 0899-7667. doi: 10.1162/089976698300017746. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/089976698300017746.
  16. J. A. Nelder and R. Mead. A Simplex Method for Function Minimization. The Computer Journal, 7(4):308–313, 01 1965. ISSN 0010-4620. doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308.
  17. Variational monte-carlo studies of hubbard model. i. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 56(4):1490–1506, 1987. doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.56.1490. URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.56.1490.
  18. T. Giamarchi and C. Lhuillier. Phase diagrams of the two-dimensional hubbard and t-j models by a variational monte carlo method. Phys. Rev. B, 43:12943–12951, Jun 1991. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.12943. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.12943.
  19. Shell model monte carlo methods. Physics Reports, 278(1):1–77, 1997. ISSN 0370-1573. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00017-8. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157396000178.
  20. Sandro Sorella. Wave function optimization in the variational monte carlo method. Phys. Rev. B, 71:241103, Jun 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.241103. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.241103.
  21. Quantum monte carlo calculations of neutron matter with nonlocal chiral interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:221103, Jun 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221103. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221103.
  22. Auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo simulations of neutron matter in chiral effective field theory. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:182503, Oct 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.182503. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.182503.
  23. Quantum monte carlo methods for nuclear physics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 87:1067–1118, Sep 2015. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067.
  24. Ingo Tews. Quantum monte carlo methods for astrophysical applications. Frontiers in Physics, 8, 2020. ISSN 2296-424X. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00153. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00153.
  25. M. H. Kalos. Monte carlo calculations of the ground state of three- and four-body nuclei. Phys. Rev., 128:1791–1795, Nov 1962. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.128.1791. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.128.1791.
  26. James B. Anderson. A random‐walk simulation of the Schrödinger equation: H+3. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 63(4):1499–1503, 08 1975. ISSN 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.431514. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.431514.
  27. Ground state of the electron gas by a stochastic method. Phys. Rev. Lett., 45:566–569, Aug 1980. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.566. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.566.
  28. J. Carlson. Green’s function monte carlo study of light nuclei. Phys. Rev. C, 36:2026–2033, Nov 1987. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.36.2026. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.36.2026.
  29. Quantum monte carlo calculations of A≤6𝐴6\mathit{A}\leq 6italic_A ≤ 6 nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74:4396–4399, May 1995. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4396. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4396.
  30. Steven C. Pieper. Quantum monte carlo calculations of light nuclei. Nuclear Physics A, 751:516–532, 2005. ISSN 0375-9474. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.018. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947405001247. Proceedings of the 22nd International Nuclear Physics Conference (Part 1).
  31. Quantum monte carlo calculations of neutron matter. Phys. Rev. C, 68:025802, Aug 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.025802. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.025802.
  32. K.E. Schmidt and S. Fantoni. A quantum monte carlo method for nucleon systems. Physics Letters B, 446(2):99–103, 1999. ISSN 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01522-6. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269398015226.
  33. Finite-temperature auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo technique for bose-fermi mixtures. Phys. Rev. A, 86:053606, Nov 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.053606. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.053606.
  34. Solutions of the two-dimensional hubbard model: Benchmarks and results from a wide range of numerical algorithms. Phys. Rev. X, 5:041041, Dec 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.041041. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.041041.
  35. Constrained-path auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo for coupled electrons and phonons. Phys. Rev. B, 103:115123, Mar 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115123. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.115123.
  36. Auxiliary field diffusion monte carlo calculations of light and medium-mass nuclei with local chiral interactions. Phys. Rev. C, 97:044318, Apr 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044318. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044318.
  37. Some recent developments in auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo for real materials. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 154(2):024107, 01 2021. ISSN 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/5.0031024. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0031024.
  38. Sign problem in the numerical simulation of many-electron systems. Phys. Rev. B, 41:9301–9307, May 1990. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.9301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.41.9301.
  39. Representation basis in quantum monte carlo calculations and the negative-sign problem. Physics Letters A, 163(4):246–249, 1992. ISSN 0375-9601. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(92)91006-D. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037596019291006D.
  40. Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:170201, May 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.170201. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.170201.
  41. Bridging lattice-scale physics and continuum field theory with quantum monte carlo simulations. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 4(1):179–215, 2013. doi: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-030212-184215. URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-030212-184215.
  42. Representational Power of Restricted Boltzmann Machines and Deep Belief Networks. Neural Computation, 20(6):1631–1649, 06 2008. ISSN 0899-7667. doi: 10.1162/neco.2008.04-07-510. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.04-07-510.
  43. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313(5786):504–507, 2006. doi: 10.1126/science.1127647. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1127647.
  44. Classification using discriminative restricted boltzmann machines. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’08, page 536–543, New York, NY, USA, 2008. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781605582054. doi: 10.1145/1390156.1390224. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1390156.1390224.
  45. An analysis of single-layer networks in unsupervised feature learning. In Geoffrey Gordon, David Dunson, and Miroslav Dudík, editors, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 15 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 215–223, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 11–13 Apr 2011. PMLR. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v15/coates11a.html.
  46. Restricted boltzmann machines in quantum physics. Nature Physics, 15(9):887–892, Sep 2019. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0545-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0545-1.
  47. Exact representations of many-body interactions with restricted-Boltzmann-machine neural networks. Phys. Rev. E, 103(1):013302, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.103.013302.
  48. Stephen R Clark. Unifying neural-network quantum states and correlator product states via tensor networks. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(13):135301, feb 2018. doi: 10.1088/1751-8121/aaaaf2. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aaaaf2.
  49. Neural-network quantum states, string-bond states, and chiral topological states. Phys. Rev. X, 8:011006, Jan 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011006. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011006.
  50. Equivalence of restricted boltzmann machines and tensor network states. Phys. Rev. B, 97:085104, Feb 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.085104. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.085104.
  51. Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks. Nature Communications, 8(1):662, Sep 2017. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00705-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00705-2.
  52. A one-way quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86:5188–5191, May 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188.
  53. A.Yu. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003. ISSN 0003-4916. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491602000180.
  54. Criticality, the area law, and the computational power of projected entangled pair states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:220601, Jun 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220601. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.220601.
  55. Constructing exact representations of quantum many-body systems with deep neural networks. Nature Communications, 9(1):5322, Dec 2018. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07520-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07520-3.
  56. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications, 5(1):4213, Jul 2014. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213.
  57. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, feb 2016. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023.
  58. The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022. ISSN 0370-1573. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157322003118. The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.
  59. Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):75, Sep 2019. ISSN 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0187-2.
  60. Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution. Nature Physics, 16(2):205–210, Feb 2020. ISSN 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0704-4.
  61. Imaginary-time propagation on a quantum chip. Phys. Rev. A, 105:022440, Feb 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022440. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022440.
  62. Efficient quantum imaginary time evolution by drifting real-time evolution: An approach with low gate and measurement complexity. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(13):3868–3876, Jul 2023. ISSN 1549-9618. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00071. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00071.
  63. P. Jordan and E. Wigner. Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 47(9-10):631–651, September 1928. doi: 10.1007/BF01331938.
  64. Fermionic Quantum Computation. Annals of Physics, 298(1):210–226, May 2002. doi: 10.1006/aphy.2002.6254.
  65. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations. Quantum Inf. Comput., 12:901–924, 2012. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17705652.
  66. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019, page 193–204, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450367059. doi: 10.1145/3313276.3316366. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316366.
  67. Unitary-coupled restricted boltzmann machine ansatz for quantum simulations. npj Quantum Information, 7(1):19, 2021.
  68. Jacob Biamonte James D. Whitfield and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Simulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quantum computers. Molecular Physics, 109(5):735–750, 2011. doi: 10.1080/00268976.2011.552441. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2011.552441.
  69. Qiskit contributors. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, 2023.
  70. Rupert G. Miller. The jackknife–a review. Biometrika, 61(1):1–15, 1974. ISSN 00063444. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2334280.
Citations (2)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

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

Open Problems

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

Continue Learning

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

Collections

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

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.