- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Crossing a topological phase transition with a quantum computer

Adam Smith1,2,3,*, Bernhard Jobst1, Andrew G. Green4, and Frank Pollmann1,5

  • 1Department of Physics, T42, Technische Universität München, James-Franck-Straße 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany
  • 2Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, England, United Kingdom
  • 3School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England, United Kingdom
  • 4London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AH, England, United Kingdom
  • 5Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstrasse 4, D-80799 München, Germany

  • *adam.smith1@nottingham.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022020 – Published 25 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022020

Abstract

Quantum computers promise to perform computations beyond the reach of modern computers with profound implications for scientific research. Due to remarkable technological advances, small scale devices are now becoming available for use. One of the most apparent applications for such a device is the study of complex many-body quantum systems, where classical computers are unable to deal with the generic exponential complexity of quantum states. Even zero-temperature equilibrium phases of matter and the transitions between them have yet to be fully classified, with topologically protected phases presenting major difficulties. We construct and measure a continuously parametrized family of states crossing a symmetry protected topological phase transition on the IBM Q quantum computers. We present two complementary methods for measuring string order parameters that reveal the transition, and additionally analyze the effects of noise in the device using simple error models. The simulation that we perform is easily scalable and is a practical demonstration of the utility of near-term quantum computers for the study of quantum phases of matter and their transitions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (46)

  1. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 2010)
  2. C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019).
  3. C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, A Ten-Qubit solid-state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019).
  4. C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, R. Harper, W. Huang, T. Evans, J. C. C. Hwang, B. Hensen, A. Laucht, T. Tanttu, F. E. Hudson, S. T. Flammia, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, S. D. Bartlett, and A. S. Dzurak, Silicon qubit fidelities approaching incoherent noise limits via pulse engineering, Nat. Electron. 2, 151 (2019).
  5. G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017).
  6. M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020).
  7. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  8. S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices, Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018).
  9. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  10. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  11. P. J. J. O'Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus et al., Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016).
  12. K. Choo, C. W. von Keyserlingk, N. Regnault, and T. Neupert, Measurement of the Entanglement Spectrum of a Symmetry-Protected Topological State Using the IBM Quantum Computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086808 (2018).
  13. Y. Wang, Y. Li, Z.-Q. Yin, and B. Zeng, 16-qubit IBM universal quantum computer can be fully entangled, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 46 (2018).
  14. A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simulating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 106 (2019).
  15. F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, and D. Gerace, Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators: state-of-art and perspectives, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900052 (2020).
  16. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  17. X.-G. Wen, Choreographed entangle dances: Topological states of quantum matter, arXiv:1906.05983.
  18. C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Non-Abelian anyons and topological quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008).
  19. K. J. Satzinger, Y.-Jie. Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. Newman, C. Jones, Z. Chen, C. Quintana, X. Mi, A. Dunsworth, C. Gidney, I. Aleiner, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson et al., and Realizing topologically ordered states on a quantum processor, arXiv:2104.01180.
  20. G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, et al., Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242 (2021).
  21. IBM Quantum. https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/, 2021.
  22. F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010).
  23. X. Chen, Z. C. Gu, Z. X. Liu, and X. G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013).
  24. J. Haegeman, D. Pérez-García, I. Cirac, and N. Schuch, Order Parameter for Symmetry-Protected Phases in One Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050402 (2012).
  25. F. Pollmann and A. M. Turner, Detection of symmetry-protected topological phases in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125441 (2012).
  26. A. Elben, J. Yu, G. Zhu, M. Hafezi, F. Pollmann, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Many-body topological invariants from randomized measurements, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz3666 (2020).
  27. R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, One-dimensional symmetry protected topological phases and their transitions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165124 (2017).
  28. R. Verresen, N. G. Jones, and F. Pollmann, Topology and Edge Modes in Quantum Critical Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 057001 (2018).
  29. M. M. Wolf, G. Ortiz, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum phase transitions in matrix product systems, arXiv:0512180 (2005).
  30. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022020 for additional details on the connection between quantum circuits and MPS, explicit definitions of unitary gates featured in the main text, error mitigation techniques used, details of the interferometry circuits, and additional error modelling.
  31. D. Pérez-García, M. M. Wolf, M. Sanz, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, String Order and Symmetries in Quantum Spin Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 167202 (2008).
  32. G. Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007).
  33. F. Barratt, J. Dborin, M. Bal, V. Stojevic, F. Pollmann, and A. G. Green, Parallel quantum simulation of large systems on small quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 79 (2021).
  34. G. Aleksandrowicz et al., Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing (2019).
  35. J. Vovrosh, K. E. Khosla, S. Greenaway, C. Self, M. S. Kim, and J. Knolle, Simple mitigation of global depolarizing errors in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. E 104, 035309 (2021).
  36. C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Sequential Generation of Entangled Multiqubit States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005).
  37. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  38. S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021).
  39. M. C. Bañuls, D. Pérez-García, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Sequentially generated states for the study of two-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052306 (2008).
  40. M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005).
  41. O. Buerschaper, M. Aguado, and G. Vidal, Explicit tensor network representation for the ground states of string-net models, Phys. Rev. B 79, 085119 (2009).
  42. Z.-C. Gu, M. Levin, B. Swingle, and X.-G. Wen, Tensor-product representations for string-net condensed states, Phys. Rev. B 79, 085118 (2009).
  43. E. Grant, M. Benedetti, S. Cao, A. Hallam, J. Lockhart, V. Stojevic, A. G. Green, and S. Severini, Hierarchical quantum classifiers, npj Quantum Inf. 4, 65 (2018).
  44. I. Cong, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum convolutional neural networks, Nat. Phys. 15, 1273 (2019).
  45. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
  46. A. Kay, Tutorial on the quantikz package, arXiv:1809.03842.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022020– Published 25 April, 2022
  • Received 17 February 2021
  • Revised 25 November 2021
  • Accepted 8 March 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation