What limits the simulation of quantum computers

It is imperative that useful quantum computers be very difficult to simulate classically; otherwise classical computers could be used for the applications envisioned for the quantum ones. Perfect quantum computers are unarguably exponentially difficult to simulate: the classical resources required grow exponentially with the number of qubits $N$ or the depth $D$ of the circuit. Real quantum computing devices, however, are characterized by an exponentially decaying fidelity $\mathcal{F} \sim (1-\epsilon)^{ND}$ with an error rate $\epsilon$ per operation as small as $\approx 1\%$ for current devices. In this work, we demonstrate that real quantum computers can be simulated at a tiny fraction of the cost that would be needed for a perfect quantum computer. Our algorithms compress the representations of quantum wavefunctions using matrix product states (MPS), which capture states with low to moderate entanglement very accurately. This compression introduces a finite error rate $\epsilon$ so that the algorithms closely mimic the behavior of real quantum computing devices. The computing time of our algorithm increases only linearly with $N$ and $D$. We illustrate our algorithms with simulations of random circuits for qubits connected in both one and two dimensional lattices. We find that $\epsilon$ can be decreased at a polynomial cost in computing power down to a minimum error $\epsilon_\infty$. Getting below $\epsilon_\infty$ requires computing resources that increase exponentially with $\epsilon_\infty/\epsilon$. For a two dimensional array of $N=54$ qubits and a circuit with Control-Z gates, error rates better than state-of-the-art devices can be obtained on a laptop in a few hours. For more complex gates such as a swap gate followed by a controlled rotation, the error rate increases by a factor three for similar computing time.

[1]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier , 2012, 1203.5813.

[2]  D. Glattli,et al.  Coherent control of single electrons: a review of current progress , 2018, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[3]  Tongyang Li,et al.  Sampling-based sublinear low-rank matrix arithmetic framework for dequantizing Quantum machine learning , 2019, STOC.

[4]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits , 2004, ArXiv.

[5]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

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

[7]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond , 2018, Quantum.

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

[9]  Thomas Kohler,et al.  Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states , 2019, Annals of Physics.

[10]  John A. Gunnels,et al.  Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simulate Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits , 2019, 1910.09534.

[11]  C. Beenakker Random-matrix theory of quantum transport , 1996, cond-mat/9612179.

[12]  G. Vidal Entanglement renormalization. , 2005, Physical review letters.

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

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

[15]  Frank Pollmann,et al.  Isometric Tensor Network States in Two Dimensions. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[16]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary edition) , 2011 .

[17]  Yaoyun Shi,et al.  Classical Simulation of Intermediate-Size Quantum Circuits , 2018, 1805.01450.

[18]  Pan Zhang,et al.  Contracting Arbitrary Tensor Networks: General Approximate Algorithm and Applications in Graphical Models and Quantum Circuit Simulations. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[19]  U. Schollwoeck The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states , 2010, 1008.3477.

[20]  Akira SaiToh A multiprecision C++ library for matrix-product-state simulation of quantum computing: Evaluation of numerical errors , 2013 .

[21]  B. Bauer,et al.  Neural-network states for the classical simulation of quantum computing , 2018, 1808.05232.

[22]  Xavier Waintal,et al.  What determines the ultimate precision of a quantum computer , 2017, Physical Review A.

[23]  Andrew J. Ferris,et al.  Perfect Sampling with Unitary Tensor Networks , 2012, 1201.3974.

[24]  Xiang Fu,et al.  General-Purpose Quantum Circuit Simulator with Projected Entangled-Pair States and the Quantum Supremacy Frontier. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[25]  F. Verstraete,et al.  Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems , 2008, 0907.2796.

[26]  H. Neven,et al.  Simulation of low-depth quantum circuits as complex undirected graphical models , 2017, 1712.05384.