Benchmarking treewidth as a practical component of tensor-network-based quantum simulation

Tensor networks are powerful factorization techniques which reduce resource requirements for numerically simulating principal quantum many-body systems and algorithms. The computational complexity of a tensor network simulation depends on the tensor ranks and the order in which they are contracted. Unfortunately, computing optimal contraction sequences (orderings) in general is known to be a computationally difficult (NP-complete) task. In 2005, Markov and Shi showed that optimal contraction sequences correspond to optimal (minimum width) tree decompositions of a tensor network’s line graph, relating the contraction sequence problem to a rich literature in structural graph theory. While treewidth-based methods have largely been ignored in favor of dataset-specific algorithms in the prior tensor networks literature, we demonstrate their practical relevance for problems arising from two distinct methods used in quantum simulation: multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA) datasets and quantum circuits generated by the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). We exhibit multiple regimes where treewidth-based algorithms outperform domain-specific algorithms, while demonstrating that the optimal choice of algorithm has a complex dependence on the network density, expected contraction complexity, and user run time requirements. We further provide an open source software framework designed with an emphasis on accessibility and extendability, enabling replicable experimental evaluations and future exploration of competing methods by practitioners.

[1]  White,et al.  Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups. , 1992, Physical review letters.

[2]  A. H. Werner,et al.  Positive Tensor Network Approach for Simulating Open Quantum Many-Body Systems. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[3]  Chi-Chung Lam,et al.  On Optimizing a Class of Multi-Dimensional Loops with Reductions for Parallel Execution , 1997, Parallel Process. Lett..

[4]  G. Vidal Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[5]  E. Rico,et al.  Tensor Networks for Lattice Gauge Theories and Atomic Quantum Simulation , 2013, 1312.3127.

[6]  Christian Komusiewicz,et al.  The First Parameterized Algorithms and Computational Experiments Challenge , 2017, IPEC.

[7]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  Computing Treewidth on the GPU , 2017, IPEC.

[8]  J. Preskill,et al.  Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence , 2015, 1503.06237.

[9]  Andrew J. Ferris,et al.  Tensor Networks and Quantum Error Correction , 2013, Physical review letters.

[10]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  NCON: A tensor network contractor for MATLAB , 2014, 1402.0939.

[11]  David Poulin,et al.  Tensor-Network Simulations of the Surface Code under Realistic Noise. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[12]  Glen Evenbly,et al.  Improving the efficiency of variational tensor network algorithms , 2014 .

[13]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2014, 1411.4028.

[14]  David Pérez-García,et al.  Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and projected entangled pair states , 2011 .

[15]  Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg,et al.  Optimising Matrix Product State Simulations of Shor's Algorithm , 2017, Quantum.

[16]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Simulating Quantum Computation by Contracting Tensor Networks , 2008, SIAM J. Comput..

[17]  Eugene Dumitrescu,et al.  Tree tensor network approach to simulating Shor's algorithm , 2017, 1705.01140.

[18]  E. Rico,et al.  Real-time Dynamics in U(1) Lattice Gauge Theories with Tensor Networks , 2015, 1505.04440.

[19]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  A Partial k-Arboretum of Graphs with Bounded Treewidth , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[20]  John A. Gunnels,et al.  Breaking the 49-Qubit Barrier in the Simulation of Quantum Circuits , 2017, 1710.05867.

[21]  G. Vidal Class of quantum many-body states that can be efficiently simulated. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[22]  Vibhav Gogate,et al.  A Complete Anytime Algorithm for Treewidth , 2004, UAI.

[23]  G. Evenbly,et al.  Algorithms for entanglement renormalization , 2007, 0707.1454.

[24]  J. Eisert,et al.  Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy , 2010 .

[25]  F. Verstraete,et al.  Matrix product density operators: simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[26]  Dirk Merkel,et al.  Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment , 2014 .

[27]  Ioan Todinca,et al.  Treewidth and Minimum Fill-in: Grouping the Minimal Separators , 2001, SIAM J. Comput..

[28]  Christian Komusiewicz,et al.  The PACE 2017 Parameterized Algorithms and Computational Experiments Challenge: The Second Iteration , 2017, IPEC.

[29]  Frank Verstraete,et al.  Faster identification of optimal contraction sequences for tensor networks. , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  Jason Morton,et al.  Tensor Network Contractions for #SAT , 2014, Journal of Statistical Physics.

[31]  Derek G. Corneil,et al.  Complexity of finding embeddings in a k -tree , 1987 .

[32]  Krysta Marie Svore,et al.  LIQUi|>: A Software Design Architecture and Domain-Specific Language for Quantum Computing , 2014, ArXiv.

[33]  J. Biamonte,et al.  Tensor Networks in a Nutshell , 2017, 1708.00006.

[34]  H. Neven,et al.  Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices , 2016, Nature Physics.