400 likes | 605 Views
Quantum Information and the simulation of quantum systems. José Ignacio Latorre Universitat de Barcelona Perugia, July 2007. In collaboration with: Sofyan Iblisdir, Luca Tagliacozzo Arnau Riera, Thiago Rodrigues de Oliveira, José María Escartín, Vicent Picó
E N D
Quantum Informationandthe simulation of quantum systems José Ignacio Latorre Universitat de Barcelona Perugia, July 2007 In collaboration with: Sofyan Iblisdir, Luca Tagliacozzo Arnau Riera, Thiago Rodrigues de Oliveira, José María Escartín, Vicent Picó Román Orús, Artur García-Sáez, Frank Verstraete, Miguel Aguado, Ignacio Cirac
Physics Theory 1 Theory 2 Exact solution Approximated methods Simulation Classical Simulation Quantum Simulation
Classical Theory • Classical simulation • Quantum simulation • Quantum Mechanics • Classical simulation • Quantum simulation Classical computer ? Quantum computer Classical simulation of Quantum Mechanics is related to our ability to support large entanglement Classical simulation may be enough to handle e.g. ground states Quantum simulation needed for typical evolution of Quantum systems (linear entropy growth to maximum)
Is it possible to classically simulate faithfully a quantum system? represent Heisenberg model evolve read
Misconception: NO Exponential growth of Hilbert space n Classical representation requires dn complex coefficients A random state carries maximum entropy
Refutation • Realistic quantum systems are not random • symmetries (translational invariance, scale invariance) • local interactions • We do not have to work on the computational basis • use an entangled basis
e.g: efficient description for slightly entangled states Schmidt decomposition A B = min(dim HA, dim HB) Schmidt number A product state will have
Vidal 03: Iterate this process A product state iff • Slight entanglement iff poly(n)<<dn • Representation is efficient • Single qubit gates involve only local update • Two-qubit gates reduces to local updating efficient simulation
Matrix Product States i α canonical form PVWC06 Approximate physical states with a finite MPS
Graphic representation of a MPS Efficient computation of scalar products operations
Intelligent way to represent and manipulate entanglement Classical analogy: I want to send 16,24,36,40,54,60,81,90,100,135,150,225,250,375,625 Instruction: take all 4 products of 2,3,5 MPS= compression algorithm
i2=1 i2=2 i2=3 i2=4 Crazy ideas: Image compression | i2 i1 | i1 105| 2,1 i1=1 i1=2 i1=3 i1=4 RG addressing level of grey pixel address
QPEG • Read image by blocks • Fourier transform • RG address and fill • Set compression level: • Find optimal • gzip (lossless, entropic compression) • (define discretize Γ’s to improve gzip) • diagonal organize the frequencies and use 1d RG • work with diferences to a prefixed table Max = 81 = 1 PSNR=17 = 4 PSNR=25 = 8 PSNR=31
Crazy ideas: Differential equations Crazy ideas: Differential equations Crazy ideas: Shor’s algorithm with MPS Crazy ideas: Shor’s algorithm with MPS Constructed: adder, multiplier, multiplier mod(N) Note: classical problems with a direct product structure!
Back to the central idea: entanglement support Success of MPS will depend on how much entanglement is present in the physical state Physics Simulation If MPS is in very bad shape
Exact entropy for a reduced block in spin chains At Quantum Phase Transition Away from Quantum Phase Transition
Maximum entropy support for MPS Maximum supported entanglement
Faithfullness = Entanglement support MPS Spin chains Spin networks PEPS Area law Computations of entropies are no longer academic exercises but limits on simulations
Physics Simulation VLRK02-03 OL04 For 3-SAT LLRV04 Exact RG on states VCLRW05 OLRV05 Lipkin model 100-qubit Ex-cover instance BOLP05 Image compression L05 OLEC06 RL06 Area law ILO06 Laughlin ILO06 Continuous variables
Local (12 levels), nearest neighbor H is QMA-complete!! AGK07
Keep in mind: Area law << Volume law Translational symmetry and locality have reduced dramatically the amount of entanglement Worst case (max entropy) remains at phase transition points • MPS and PEPS are a good representation of QM • Approach new problems • Precision • Can we do any better than DMRG? • e.g.: Faithfull numbers for entropy? Exact solutions? Smaller errors? • Can we simulate better than lattice Monte Carlo? • Are MPS and PEPS the best simulation solution?
Simulation of the Laughlin wave function Local basis: a=0,..,n-1 Dimension of the Hilbert space Analytic expression for the reduced entropy ILO06
Exact MPS representation of Laughlin wave function Clifford algebra Optimal solution! (all matrices equal but the last!)
Example: Normalization of wave function for m=2 So far, we have not managed to exploit the product structure
Translational invariant spin chains Vidal05: iTEBD translationaly invariant infinite system algorithm commute commute All even gates can be performe simultaneously All odd gates can be performe simultaneously Use Trotter to combine them
are isometries = Energy
Trotter 2nd order Heisenberg model Trotter 2 order, =.001 Exponential distribution λ Poorness of DMRG
Advantage: clean results for infinite half chain entropy Problem: Poor convergence of entropy entropy energy Maximum half-chain entanglement for Heisenberg model Consistent with central charge c=1 Attention to spontaneous symmetry breaking
To compute block entropies, use exact coarse graining of MPS Local basis Optimal choice! VCLRW remains the same and locks the physical index! After L spins are sequentially blocked Entropy is bounded Exact description of non-critical systems
Exact solution for =2 min = S= .485704202
Numerics Precision for entropy requires some extra effort Trotter higher order Random seeds (avoiding hysteresis cycles associated to the minimization procedure) Boost
S Perfect alignement M
So far • Simulation technique • representation • evolution • observables Physics Entanglement Entanglement support Exploit MPS, PEPS, MERA NEXT
Contraction of PEPS is #P Yet, for translational invariant systems, it comes to iTEBD JOVVC07 Beats quantum Montecarlo!!
VIDAL Beyond MPS: Entanglement RG MERA Unitary networks Building the program: detailed check vs MPS