Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userEvolutionary Algorithms for Hard Quantum Control
82
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Although quantum control typically relies on greedy (local) optimization, traps (irregular critical points) in the control landscape can make optimization hard by foiling local search strategies. We demonstrate the failure of greedy algorithms to realize two fast quantum computing gates: a qutrit phase gate and a controlled-not gate. Then we show that our evolutionary algorithm circumvents the trap to deliver effective quantum control in both instances. Even when greedy algorithms succeed, our evolutionary algorithm delivers a superior control procedure because less time resolution is required for the control sequence.
rate research
Read More
We investigate two classes of quantum control problems by using frequency-domain optimization algorithms in the context of ultrafast laser control of quantum systems. In the first class, the system model is known and a frequency-domain gradient-based optimization algorithm is applied to searching for an optimal control field to selectively and robustly manipulate the population transfer in atomic Rubidium. The other class of quantum control problems involves an experimental system with an unknown model. In the case, we introduce a differential evolution algorithm with a mixed strategy to search for optimal control fields and demonstrate the capability in an ultrafast laser control experiment for the fragmentation of Pr(hfac)$_3$ molecules.
Designing a high-quality control is crucial for reliable quantum computation. Among the existing approaches, closed-loop leaning control is an effective choice. Its efficiency depends on the learning algorithm employed, thus deserving algorithmic comparisons for its practical applications. Here, we assess three representative learning algorithms, including GRadient Ascent Pulse Engineering (GRAPE), improved Nelder-Mead (NMplus) and Differential Evolution (DE), by searching for high-quality control pulses to prepare the Bell state. We first implement each algorithm experimentally in a nuclear magnetic resonance system and then conduct a numerical study considering the impact of some possible significant experimental uncertainties. The experiments report the successful preparation of the high-fidelity target state with different convergence speeds by the three algorithms, and these results coincide with the numerical simulations when potential uncertainties are negligible. However, under certain significant uncertainties, these algorithms possess distinct performance with respect to their resulting precision and efficiency. This study provides insight to aid in the practical application of different closed-loop learning algorithms in realistic physical scenarios.
The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, QAOA, uses a shallow depth quantum circuit to produce a parameter dependent state. For a given combinatorial optimization problem instance, the quantum expectation of the associated cost function is the parameter dependent objective function of the QAOA. We demonstrate that if the parameters are fixed and the instance comes from a reasonable distribution then the objective function value is concentrated in the sense that typical instances have (nearly) the same value of the objective function. This applies not just for optimal parameters as the whole landscape is instance independent. We can prove this is true for low depth quantum circuits for instances of MaxCut on large 3-regular graphs. Our results generalize beyond this example. We support the arguments with numerical examples that show remarkable concentration. For higher depth circuits the numerics also show concentration and we argue for this using the Law of Large Numbers. We also observe by simulation that if we find parameters which result in good performance at say 10 bits these same parameters result in good performance at say 24 bits. These findings suggest ways to run the QAOA that reduce or eliminate the use of the outer loop optimization and may allow us to find good solutions with fewer calls to the quantum computer.
Quantum computers can execute algorithms that dramatically outperform classical computation. As the best-known example, Shor discovered an efficient quantum algorithm for factoring integers, whereas factoring appears to be difficult for classical computers. Understanding what other computational problems can be solved significantly faster using quantum algorithms is one of the major challenges in the theory of quantum computation, and such algorithms motivate the formidable task of building a large-scale quantum computer. This article reviews the current state of quantum algorithms, focusing on algorithms with superpolynomial speedup over classical computation, and in particular, on problems with an algebraic flavor.
As we begin to reach the limits of classical computing, quantum computing has emerged as a technology that has captured the imagination of the scientific world. While for many years, the ability to execute quantum algorithms was only a theoretical possibility, recent advances in hardware mean that quantum computing devices now exist that can carry out quantum computation on a limited scale. Thus it is now a real possibility, and of central importance at this time, to assess the potential impact of quantum computers on real problems of interest. One of the earliest and most compelling applications for quantum computers is Feynmans idea of simulating quantum systems with many degrees of freedom. Such systems are found across chemistry, physics, and materials science. The particular way in which quantum computing extends classical computing means that one cannot expect arbitrary simulations to be sped up by a quantum computer, thus one must carefully identify areas where quantum advantage may be achieved. In this review, we briefly describe central problems in chemistry and materials science, in areas of electronic structure, quantum statistical mechanics, and quantum dynamics, that are of potential interest for solution on a quantum computer. We then take a detailed snapshot of current progress in quantum algorithms for ground-state, dynamics, and thermal state simulation, and analyze their strengths and weaknesses for future developments.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
