* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Survey

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Renormalization group wikipedia, lookup

Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Renormalization wikipedia, lookup

Topological quantum field theory wikipedia, lookup

Probability amplitude wikipedia, lookup

Quantum decoherence wikipedia, lookup

Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia, lookup

Molecular Hamiltonian wikipedia, lookup

Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia, lookup

Particle in a box wikipedia, lookup

Quantum entanglement wikipedia, lookup

Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia, lookup

Density matrix wikipedia, lookup

Quantum field theory wikipedia, lookup

Bell's theorem wikipedia, lookup

Scalar field theory wikipedia, lookup

Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia, lookup

Quantum fiction wikipedia, lookup

Hydrogen atom wikipedia, lookup

Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Path integral formulation wikipedia, lookup

Coherent states wikipedia, lookup

Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia, lookup

Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia, lookup

Quantum computing wikipedia, lookup

Quantum teleportation wikipedia, lookup

Quantum key distribution wikipedia, lookup

Quantum group wikipedia, lookup

Quantum state wikipedia, lookup

History of quantum field theory wikipedia, lookup

Quantum machine learning wikipedia, lookup

Quantum cognition wikipedia, lookup

Hidden variable theory wikipedia, lookup

Transcript

Quantum Gibbs Samplers Fernando G.S.L. Brandão QuArC, Microsoft Research Q-QuArC Retreat, 2015 Dynamical Properties Hij Hamiltonian: State at time t: Compute: Expectation values: Temporal correlations: Quantum Simulators, Dynamical Quantum Computer Can simulate the dynamics of every multi-particle quantum system Spin models Fermionic and bosonic models Topological quantum field theory Quantum field theory Quantum Chemestry (Lloyd ‘96, …, Berry, Childs, Kothari ‘15) (Bravyi, Kitaev ’00, …) (Freedman, Kitaev, Wang ‘02) (Jordan, Lee, Preskill ‘11) (Hastings, Wecker, Bauer, Triyer ’14) Quantum Simulators Can simulate the dynamics of particular models Optical Lattices Ion Traps Superconducting systems … Static Properties Static Properties Hij Hamiltonian: Static Properties Hij Hamiltonian: Groundstate: Thermal state: Compute: local expectation values (e.g. magnetization), correlation functions (e.g. ), … Static Properties Can we prepare groundstates? Warning: in general hard, even for one-dimensional translational(…, Gottesman-Irani ‘09) invariant models Static Properties Can we prepare groundstates? Warning:I in general hard, even for one-dimensional translational(…, Gottesman-Irani ‘09) invariant models Method 1: Adiabatic Evolution; works if Δ ≥ n-c H(sf) H(si) ψi H(s) ψs H(s)ψs = E0,sψs Δ := min Δ(s) Method 2: Phase Estimation; works if can find a “simple” state |0> such that * (Abrams, Lloyd ‘99) Static Properties Can we prepare thermal states? Warning: NP-hard to estimate energy of general classical Gibbs states Static Properties Can we prepare thermal states? Warning: NP-hard to estimate energy of general classical Gibbs states Are quantum computers useful in some cases? Plan 1. Classical Glauber dynamics 2. Mixing in space vs mixing in time 3. Quantum Master Equations 4. Mixing in space vs mixing in time for commuting quantum systems 5. Approach to non-commuting 6. Potential Applications Thermalization Can we prepare thermal states? Method 1: Couple to a bath of the right temperature and wait. S B But size of environment might be huge. Maybe not efficient. No guarantee Gibbs state will be reached Method 2 (classical): Metropolis Sampling Consider e.g. Ising model: Coupling to bath modeled by stochastic map Q i j Metropolis Update: The stationary state is the thermal (Gibbs) state: Method 2 (classical): Metropolis Sampling Consider e.g. Ising model: Coupling to bath modeled by stochastic map Q i j Metropolis Update: The stationary state is the thermal (Gibbs) state: • (Metropolis et al ’53) “We devised a general method to calculate the properties of any substance comprising individual molecules with classical statistics” • Example of Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. Extremely useful algorithmic technique Glauber Dynamics A stochastic map R = eG is a Glauber dynamics for a (classical) Hamiltonian if it’s generator G is local and the unique fixed point of R is e-βH/Z(β) (+ detailed balance) Ex: Metropolis, Heat-bath generator, …. Glauber Dynamics A stochastic map R = eG is a Glauber dynamics for a (classical) Hamiltonian if it’s generator G is local and the unique fixed point of R is e-βH/Z(β) (+ detailed balance) Ex: Metropolis, Heat-bath generator, …. When is Glauber dynamics effective for sampling from Gibbs state? (Stroock, Zergalinski ’92; Martinelli, Olivieri ’94, …) Rapidly mixing Glauber dynamics Gibbs state with finite correlation length (Proved only for hard core mode and 2-spin antiferromagetic model) (Sly ‘10) Gibbs Sampling in P (vs NP -hard) Temporal Mixing transition matrix after t time steps eigenprojectors eigenvalues Convergence time given by the gap Δ = 1- λ1: Time of equilibration ≈ n/Δ We have rapid mixing if Δ = constant Spatial Mixing Let be the Gibbs state for a model in the lattice V with boundary conditions τ, i.e. blue: V, red: boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ex. τ = (0, … 0) Spatial Mixing Let be the Gibbs state for a model in the lattice V with boundary conditions τ, i.e. blue: V, red: boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ex. τ = (0, … 0) def: The Gibbs state has correlation length ξ if for every f, g f g Temporal Mixing <-> Spatial Mixing (Stroock, Zergalinski ’92; Martinelli, Olivieri ’94, …) For every classical Hamiltonian, the Gibbs state has finite correlation length if, and only if, the Glauber dynamics has a finite gap Temporal Mixing <-> Spatial Mixing (Stroock, Zergalinski ’92; Martinelli, Olivieri ’94, …) For every classical Hamiltonian, the Gibbs state has finite correlation length if, and only if, the Glauber dynamics has a finite gap Obs1: Same is true for the log-Sobolev constant of the system Obs2: For many models, when correlation length diverges, gap is exponentially small in the system size (e.g. Ising model) Obs3: Any model in 1D, and any model in arbitrary dim. at high enough temperature, has a finite correlation length (connected to uniqueness of the phase, e.g. Dobrushin’s condition) Temporal Mixing <-> Spatial Mixing (Stroock, Zergalinski ’92; Martinelli, Olivieri ’94, …) For every classical Hamiltonian, the Gibbs state has finite correlation length if, and only if, the Glauber dynamics has a finite gap Obs1: Same is true for the log-Sobolev constant of the system Obs2: For many models, when correlation length diverges, gap is exponentially small in the system size (e.g. Ising model) Obs3: Any model in 1D, and any model in arbitrary dim. at high enough temperature, has a finite correlation length (connected to uniqueness of the phase, e.g. Dobrushin’s condition) Does something similar hold in the quantum case? 1st step: Need a quantum version of Glauber dynamics… Preparing Quantum Thermal States (Terhal and diVincenzo ’00, …) Simulate interaction of system with heat bath no run-time estimate (Poulin, Wocjan ’09, …) Grover-type speed-up for preparing Gibbs states exponential run-time Quantum metropolis: Quantum channel s.t. (i) can be implemented efficiently on a quantum computer and (ii) has Gibbs state as fixed point no run-time estimate (Temme et al ‘09) Amplitude amplification applied to quantum metropolis: Square-root speed-up on spectral gap. no run-time estimate (Yung, Aspuru-Guzik ‘10) (Hastings ’08; Bilgin, Boixo ’10) Poly-time quantum/classical algorithm for every 1D model restricted to 1D Quantum Master Equations Canonical example: cavity QED Lindblad Equation: (most general Markovian and time homogeneous q. master equation) Quantum Master Equations Canonical example: cavity QED Lindblad Equation: (most general Markovian and time homogeneous q. master equation) Generator completely positive tracepreserving map: fixed point: How fast does it converge? Determined by gap of of Lindbladian Quantum Master Equations Canonical example: cavity QED Lindblad Equation: Local master equations: L is k-local if all Ai act on at most k sites Ai (Kliesch et al ‘11) Time evolution of every k-local Lindbladian on n qubits can be simulated in time poly(n, 2^k) in the circuit model Davies Maps Lindbladian: Lindblad terms: : spectral density Davies Maps Lindbladian: Lindblad terms: : spectral density Hij Sα (Xα, Yα, Zα) Thermal state is the unique fixed point: (satisfies q. detailed balance: ) Why Davies Maps? (Davies ‘74) Rigorous derivation in the weak-coupling limit: Coarse grain over time t ≈ λ-2 >> max(1/ (Ei – Ej + Ek - El)) (Ei: eigenvalues of H) Interacting Ham. Why Davies Maps? (Davies ‘74) Rigorous derivation in the Interacting Ham. weak-coupling limit: Coarse grain over time t ≈ λ-2 >> max(1/ (Ei – Ej + Ek - El)) (Ei: eigenvalues of H) But: for n spin Hamiltonian H: max(1/ (Ei – Ej + Ek - El)) = exp(O(n)) Consequence: Sα(ω) are non-local (act on n qubits); But for commuting Hamiltonian H, it is local Gap The relevant gap is given by L2 weighted inner product: Variance: Gap equal to spectral gap of Mixing time of order Previous Results Gap has been estimated for: (Alicki, Fannes, Horodecki ‘08) Λ = Ω(1) for 2D toric code (Alicki, Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki ‘08) Λ = exp(-Ω(n)) for 4D toric code (Temme ‘14) Λ > exp(- βε)/n, with ε the energy barrier, for stabilizer Hamiltonians Equivalence of Clustering in Space and Time for Quantum Commuting thm For commuting Hamiltonians in a finite dimensional lattice, the Davies generator has a constant gap if, and only if, the Gibbs state satisfies strong clustering of correlations (Kastoryano, B. 1409.3435) Equivalence of Clustering in Space and Time for Quantum Commuting thm For commuting Hamiltonians in a finite dimensional lattice, the Davies generator has a constant gap if, and only if, the Gibbs state satisfies strong clustering of correlations Strong Clustering holds true in: • 1D at any temperature • Any D at sufficiently high temperature (critical T determined only by dim and interaction range) Equivalence of Clustering in Space and Time for Quantum Commuting thm For commuting Hamiltonians in a finite dimensional lattice, the Davies generator has a constant gap if, and only if, the Gibbs state satisfies strong clustering of correlations Strong Clustering holds true in: • 1D at any temperature • Any D at sufficiently high temperature (critical T determined only by dim and interaction range) Gives first polynomial-time quantum algorithm for preparing Gibbs states of commuting models at high temperature. Caveat: At high temperature cluster expansion works well for computing local expectation values. (Open: How the two threshold T’s compare?) Q advantage: we get the full Gibbs state (e.g. could perform swap test of purifications of two Gibbs states. Good for anything?) Strong Clustering A B def: Strong clustering holds if there is ξ>0 s.t. for every A and B and operator f acting on Conditional Covariance: Conditional Expectation: Xc : complement of X d(X, Y) : distance between regions X and Y Strong Clustering A B Fact 1: Fact 2: Strong clustering follows if def: Strong clustering holds if there is ξ>0 s.t. for every A and B and operator f acting on Strong Clustering -> Gap We show that under the clustering condition: Getting: A B V : entire lattice V0 : sublattice of size O(ξ) Follows idea of a proof of the classical analogue for Glauber dynamics (Bertini et al ‘00) Key lemma: If then Gap -> Strong Clustering Employs the following mapping between Liouvillians for commuting Hamiltonians and local Hamiltonians on a larger space: Apply the detectability lemma (Aharonov et al ‘10) to prove gap -> strong clustering (strengthening proof previous proof that gap -> clustering) Non-Commuting Hamiltonians? Davies Master Equation is Non-Local… Question: Can it be implemented efficiently on a quantum computer? Non-Commuting Hamiltonians? Davies Master Equation is Non-Local… Beyond master equations: def: Hamiltonian H satisfies local indistinguishability (LI) if for every Λ A B Non-Commuting Hamiltonians? Davies Master Equation is Non-Local… Beyond master equations: def: Hamiltonian H satisfies local indistinguishability (LI) if for every thm Suppose H (local Ham in d dim) satisfies LI and for everyregion A, l A Bl Then e-H/T/Z(T) can be created by a quantum circuit of size exp(O(logd(n))) Based on recent lower bound by Fawzi and Renner on conditional mutual information Non-Commuting Hamiltonians? Davies Master Equation is Non-Local… Beyond master equations: def: Hamiltonian H satisfies local indistinguishability (LI) if for every thm Suppose H (local Ham in d dim) satisfies LI and for everyregion A, l A Then e-H/T/Z(T) can be created by a quantum circuit of size exp(O(logd(n))) • When is the requirement on mutual information true? (always true for commuting models) • Can we improve to poly(n) time? Bl Applications of Q. Gibbs Samplers 1. Machine Learning? (Nate’s talk) 2. Quantum Algorithms for semidefinite programming? O(d4log(1/ε))-time algorithm (interior point methods) For sparse Ai, Y, is there a polylog(d) quantum algorithm? (think of HHL quantum algorithm for linear equations) Applications of Q. Gibbs Samplers 1. Machine Learning? (Nate’s talk) 2. Quantum Algorithms for semidefinite programming? O(d4log(1/ε))-time algorithm (interior point methods) For sparse Ai, Y, is there a polylog(d) quantum algorithm? (think of HHL quantum algorithm for linear equations) No, unless NP in BQP Applications of Q. Gibbs Samplers 1. Machine Learning? (Nate’s talk) 2. Quantum Algorithms for semidefinite programming? (Peng, Tangwongsan ‘12) For Ai > 0 (||A||<1), can reduce the problem to polylog(d) evaluations of (for λi < log(d)/ε) Applications of Q. Gibbs Samplers 1. Machine Learning? (Nate’s talk) 2. Quantum Algorithms for semidefinite programming? (Peng, Tangwongsan ‘12) For Ai > 0 (||A||<1), can reduce the problem to polylog(d) evaluations of (for λi < log(d)/ε) Are there interesting choices of {Ai} for which quantum gives an advantage to compute the Gibbs states above?