Simulating Noisy Quantum Circuits with Matrix Product Density Operators

Simulating quantum circuits with classical computers requires resources growing exponentially in terms of system size. Real quantum computer with noise, however, may be simulated polynomially with various methods considering different noise models. In this work, we simulate random quantum circuits in 1D with Matrix Product Density Operators (MPDO), for different noise models such as dephasing, depolarizing, and amplitude damping. We show that the method based on Matrix Product States (MPS) fails to approximate the noisy output quantum states for any of the noise models considered, while the MPDO method approximates them well. Compared with the method of Matrix Product Operators (MPO), the MPDO method reflects a clear physical picture of noise (with inner indices taking care of the noise simulation) and quantum entanglement (with bond indices taking care of two-qubit gate simulation). Consequently, in case of weak system noise, the resource cost of MPDO will be significantly less than that of the MPO due to a relatively small inner dimension needed for the simulation. In case of strong system noise, a relatively small bond dimension may be sufficient to simulate the noisy circuits, indicating a regime that the noise is large enough for an `easy' classical simulation. Moreover, we propose a more effective tensor updates scheme with optimal truncations for both the inner and the bond dimensions, performed after each layer of the circuit, which enjoys a canonical form of the MPDO for improving simulation accuracy. With truncated inner dimension to a maximum value $\kappa$ and bond dimension to a maximum value $\chi$, the cost of our simulation scales as $\sim ND\kappa^3\chi^3$, for an $N$-qubit circuit with depth $D$.

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

[2]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[3]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations , 2015, Physical review letters.

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

[5]  Keisuke Fujii,et al.  Quantum Commuting Circuits and Complexity of Ising Partition Functions , 2013, ArXiv.

[6]  H Neven,et al.  A blueprint for demonstrating quantum supremacy with superconducting qubits , 2017, Science.

[7]  Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) , 1906, Science.

[8]  Ryan LaRose,et al.  Overview and Comparison of Gate Level Quantum Software Platforms , 2018, Quantum.

[9]  Shor,et al.  Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. , 1995, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

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

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

[12]  F. Verstraete,et al.  Matrix product operator representations , 2008, 0804.3976.

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

[14]  M B Plenio,et al.  Generic entanglement can be generated efficiently. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[15]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  The computational complexity of linear optics , 2010, STOC '11.

[16]  Nobuyasu Ito,et al.  Massively parallel quantum computer simulator, eleven years later , 2018, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[17]  Norbert Schuch,et al.  Efficient description of many-body systems with Matrix Product Density Operators , 2020 .

[18]  A. Harrow,et al.  Random Quantum Circuits are Approximate 2-designs , 2008, 0802.1919.

[19]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Quantum computing, postselection, and probabilistic polynomial-time , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[20]  R. Jozsa,et al.  Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[21]  Danna Zhou,et al.  d. , 1934, Microbial pathogenesis.

[22]  Juan Pino,et al.  Progress toward scalable quantum computing at Honeywell Quantum Solutions , 2019 .

[23]  Roman Orus,et al.  A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States , 2013, 1306.2164.

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

[25]  Bill Fefferman,et al.  Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one dimension , 2020, Quantum.

[26]  A. Steane.  Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[27]  Tyson Jones,et al.  QuEST and High Performance Simulation of Quantum Computers , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[28]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[29]  Kieran J. Woolfe.  Matrix Product Operator Simulations of Quantum Algorithms , 2015 .

[30]  Xiaobo Zhu,et al.  Experimental verification of five-qubit quantum error correction with superconducting qubits , 2019 .

[31]  Berkeley,et al.  Decoherence-Free Subspaces and Subsystems , 2003, quant-ph/0301032.

[32]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments , 2016, CCC.

[33]  I. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: Bibliography , 2010 .

[34]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  qHiPSTER: The Quantum High Performance Software Testing Environment , 2016, ArXiv.

[35]  March,et al.  Quantum Volume , 2017 .

[36]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Pseudo-Random Unitary Operators for Quantum Information Processing , 2003, Science.