The Trotter step size required for accurate quantum simulation of quantum chemistry

The simulation of molecules is a widely anticipated application of quantum computers. However, recent studies [1, 2] have cast a shadow on this hope by revealing that the complexity in gate count of such simulations increases with the number of spin orbitals N as N8, which becomes prohibitive even for molecules of modest size N ∼ 100. This study was partly based on a scaling analysis of the Trotter step required for an ensemble of random artificial molecules. Here, we revisit this analysis and find instead that the scaling is closer to N6 in worst case for real model molecules we have studied, indicating that the random ensemble fails to accurately capture the statistical properties of real-world molecules. Actual scaling may be significantly better than this due to averaging effects. We then present an alternative simulation scheme and show that it can sometimes outperform existing schemes, but that this possibility depends crucially on the details of the simulated molecule. We obtain further improvements using a version of the coalescing scheme of [1]; this scheme is based on using different Trotter steps for different terms. The method we use to bound the complexity of simulating a given molecule is efficient, in contrast to the approach of [1, 2] which relied on exponentially costly classical exact simulation.

[1]  Toru Sakai,et al.  Numerical-Diagonalization Study of Spin Gap Issue of the Kagome Lattice Heisenberg Antiferromagnet , 2011, 1103.5829.

[2]  Amnon Ta-Shma,et al.  Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge , 2003, STOC '03.

[3]  E. Knill,et al.  Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations , 2000, cond-mat/0012334.

[4]  Christof Zalka,et al.  Efficient Simulation of Quantum Systems by Quantum Computers , 1996, quant-ph/9603026.

[5]  G. Chan,et al.  Entangled quantum electronic wavefunctions of the Mn₄CaO₅ cluster in photosystem II. , 2013, Nature chemistry.

[6]  Matthew B. Hastings,et al.  Improving quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry , 2014, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[7]  Barry C. Sanders,et al.  Simulating quantum dynamics on a quantum computer , 2010, 1011.3489.

[8]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Universal Quantum Simulators , 1996, Science.

[9]  J. Whitfield,et al.  Simulating chemistry using quantum computers. , 2010, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[10]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Quantum random access memory. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[11]  Andrew M. Childs,et al.  Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians , 2013, Forum of Mathematics, Sigma.

[12]  M. Hastings,et al.  Can quantum chemistry be performed on a small quantum computer , 2013 .

[13]  M. Head‐Gordon,et al.  Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies , 2005, Science.

[14]  R. Feynman Simulating physics with computers , 1999 .

[15]  Charles R. Johnson,et al.  Matrix analysis , 1985, Statistical Inference for Engineers and Data Scientists.

[16]  A. Läuchli,et al.  Ground-state energy and spin gap of spin-1/2 Kagome-Heisenberg antiferromagnetic clusters: Large-scale exact diagonalization results , 2011, 1103.1159.

[17]  Peter J. Love,et al.  Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry based on the sparsity of the CI-matrix , 2013, 1312.2579.

[18]  Paul Fleurat-Lessard,et al.  On the transition-state region of the O(3P) + O2(3Σg-) potential energy surface , 2004 .

[19]  J. Whitfield,et al.  Simulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quantum computers , 2010, 1001.3855.

[20]  Andrew M. Childs,et al.  Black-box hamiltonian simulation and unitary implementation , 2009, Quantum Inf. Comput..

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

[22]  Andreas M. Lauchli,et al.  Numerical study of magnetization plateaux in the spin-1/2 kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet , 2013, 1307.0975.