The present disclosure generally relates to a method of generating an entangling gate in an ion trap quantum computer, and more specifically, to a method of stabilizing the entangling gate against fluctuations in frequencies of collective motional modes of trapped ions.
In quantum computing, quantum bits or qubits, which are analogous to bits representing a “0” and a “1” in a classical (digital) computer, are required to be prepared, manipulated, and measured (read-out) with near perfect control during a computation process. Imperfect control of the qubits leads to errors that can accumulate over the computation process, limiting the size of a quantum computer that can perform reliable computations.
Among physical systems upon which it is proposed to build large-scale quantum computers, is a chain of ions (e.g., charged atoms), which are trapped and suspended in vacuum by electromagnetic fields. The ions have internal hyperfine states which are separated by frequencies in the several GHz range and can be used as the computational states of a qubit (referred to as “qubit states”). These hyperfine states can be controlled using radiation provided from a laser, or sometimes referred to herein as the interaction with laser beams. The ions can be cooled to near their motional ground states using such laser interactions. The ions can also be optically pumped to one of the two hyperfine states with high accuracy (preparation of qubits), manipulated between the two hyperfine states (single-qubit gate operations) by laser beams, and their internal hyperfine states detected by fluorescence upon application of a resonant laser beam (read-out of qubits). A pair of ions can be controllably entangled (two-qubit gate operations) by qubit-state dependent force using laser pulses that couple the ions to the collective motional modes of a chain of trapped ions, which arise from their Coulombic interaction between the ions. As the size of a quantum computer increases, implementation of two-qubit gate operations between a pair of ions increases complexity, and thus errors associated with the implementation and resources required for the implementation, such as frequencies of the collective motional modes and laser powers, increase.
To increase the size of a quantum computer that may be able to implement algorithms to solve problems otherwise intractable in classical computer, there is a need for a procedure to accurately control qubits to perform in the presence of errors associated with the implementation and resources.
Embodiments of the present disclosure generally relate to a method of performing a computation using a quantum computer includes generating a first laser pulse and a second laser pulse to cause entanglement interaction between a first trapped ion and a second trapped ion of a plurality of trapped ions that are aligned in a first direction, each of the plurality of trapped ions having two frequency-separated states defining a qubit, and applying the generated first laser pulse to the first trapped ion and the generated second laser pulse to the second trapped ion. Generating the first laser pulse and the second laser pulse includes stabilizing the entanglement interaction between the first and second trapped ions against fluctuations in frequencies of collective motional modes of the plurality of trapped ions in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
So that the manner in which the above-recited features of the present disclosure can be understood in detail, a more particular description of the disclosure, briefly summarized above, may be had by reference to embodiments, some of which are illustrated in the appended drawings. It is to be noted, however, that the appended drawings illustrate only typical embodiments of this disclosure and are therefore not to be considered limiting of its scope, for the disclosure may admit to other equally effective embodiments.
To facilitate understanding, identical reference numerals have been used, where possible, to designate identical elements that are common to the figures. In the figures and the following description, an orthogonal coordinate system including an X-axis, a Y-axis, and a Z-axis is used. The directions represented by the arrows in the drawing are assumed to be positive directions for convenience. It is contemplated that elements disclosed in some embodiments may be beneficially utilized on other implementations without specific recitation.
An overall system that is able to perform quantum computations using trapped ions will include a classical computer, a system controller, and a quantum register. The classical computer performs supporting and system control tasks including selecting a quantum algorithm to be run by use of a user interface, such as graphics processing unit (GPU), compiling the selected quantum algorithm into a series of universal logic gates, translating the series of universal logic gates into laser pulses to apply on the quantum register, and pre-calculating parameters that optimize the laser pulses by use of a central processing unit (CPU). A software program for performing the task of decomposing and executing the quantum algorithms is stored in a non-volatile memory within the classical computer. The quantum register includes trapped ions that are coupled with various hardware, including lasers to manipulate internal hyperfine states (qubit states) of the trapped ions and an acousto-optic modulator to read-out the internal hyperfine states (qubit states) of the trapped ions. The system controller receives from the classical computer the pre-calculated parameters for power-optimal pulses at the beginning of running the selected algorithm on the quantum register, controls various hardware associated with controlling any and all aspects used to run the selected algorithm on the quantum register, and returns a read-out of the quantum register and thus output of results of the quantum computation(s) at the end of running the algorithm to the classical computer.
Among several known sets of universal logic gates by which any quantum algorithm can be decomposed, a set of universal logic gates, commonly denoted as {R, XX}, is native to a quantum computing system of trapped ions described herein. Here, the R gate corresponds to manipulation of individual qubit states of trapped ions, and the XX gate (also referred to as an “entangling gate”) corresponds to manipulation of the entanglement of two trapped ions. For those of ordinary skill in the art, it should be clear the R gate can be implemented with near perfect fidelity, while the formation of the XX gate is complex and requires optimization for a given type of trapped ions, number of ions in a chain of trapped ions, and the hardware and environment in which the trapped ions are trapped, to name just a few factors, such that the fidelity of the XX gate is increased and computational errors within a quantum computer are avoided or decreased.
In the following discussion, methods of generating and optimizing a pulse used to perform computations based the formation of an XX gate that has an improved fidelity in the presence of errors associated with the implementation and resources required for the implementation will be described.
An imaging objective 104, such as an objective lens with a numerical aperture (NA), for example, of 0.37, collects fluorescence along the Y-axis from the ions and maps each ion onto a multi-channel photo-multiplier tube (PMT) 106 for measurement of individual ions. Non-copropagating Raman laser beams from a laser 108, which are provided along the X-axis, perform operations on the ions. A diffractive beam splitter 110 creates an array of static Raman beams 112 that are individually switched using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) 114 and is configured to selectively act on individual ions. A global Raman laser beam 116 illuminates all ions at once. The system controller (also referred to as a “RF controller”) 118 controls the AOM 114. The system controller 118 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 120, a read-only memory (ROM) 122, a random access memory (RAM) 124, a storage unit 126, and the like. The CPU 120 is a processor of the RF controller 118. The ROM 122 stores various programs and the RAM 124 is the working memory for various programs and data. The storage unit 126 includes a nonvolatile memory, such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a flash memory, and stores various programs even if power is turned off. The CPU 120, the ROM 122, the RAM 124, and the storage unit 126 are interconnected via a bus 128. The RF controller 118 executes a control program which is stored in the ROM 122 or the storage unit 126 and uses the RAM 124 as a working area. The control program will include one or more software applications that include program code (e.g., instructions) that may be executed by processor in order to perform various functionalities associated with receiving and analyzing data and controlling any and all aspects of the methods and hardware used to create the ion trap quantum computer system 100 discussed herein.
During operation, a sinusoidal voltage V1 (with an amplitude VRF/2) is applied to an opposing pair of the electrodes 202, 204 and a sinusoidal voltage V2 with a phase shift of 180° from the sinusoidal voltage V1 (and the amplitude VRF/2) is applied to the other opposing pair of the electrodes 206, 208 at a driving frequency ωRF, generating a quadrupole potential. In some embodiments, a sinusoidal voltage is only applied to one opposing pair of the electrodes 202, 204, and the other opposing pair 206, 208 is grounded. The quadrupole potential creates an effective confining force in the X-Y plane perpendicular to the Z-axis (also referred to as a “radial direction,” “transverse direction,” or “second direction”) for each of the trapped ions, which is proportional to a distance from a saddle point (i.e., a position in the axial direction (Z-direction)) at which the RF electric field vanishes. The motion in the radial direction (i.e., direction in the X-Y plane) of each ion is approximated as a harmonic oscillation (referred to as secular motion) with a restoring force towards the saddle point in the radial direction and can be modeled by spring constants kx and ky, respectively, as is discussed in greater detail below. In some embodiments, the spring constants in the radial direction are modeled as equal when the quadrupole potential is symmetric in the radial direction. However, undesirably in some cases, the motion of the ions in the radial direction may be distorted due to some asymmetry in the physical trap configuration, a small DC patch potential due to inhomogeneity of a surface of the electrodes, or the like and due to these and other external sources of distortion the ions may lie off-center from the saddle points.
p, where nph denotes the number of motional quanta (in units of energy excitation, referred to as phonons) in the motional mode, and the number of motional modes P in a given transverse direction is equal to the number of trapped ions N in the chain 102.
p having the highest energy, where P is the number of motional modes. In the common motional mode |n
P, all ions oscillate in phase in the transverse direction.
P-1 which has the second highest energy. In the tilt motional mode, ions on opposite ends move out of phase in the transverse direction (i.e., in opposite directions).
3 which has a lower energy than that of the tilt motional mode |nph
P-1, and in which the ions move in a more complicated mode pattern.
It should be noted that the particular configuration described above is just one among several possible examples of a trap for confining ions according to the present disclosure and does not limit the possible configurations, specifications, or the like of traps according to the present disclosure. For example, the geometry of the electrodes is not limited to the hyperbolic electrodes described above. In other examples, a trap that generates an effective electric field causing the motion of the ions in the radial direction as harmonic oscillations may be a multi-layer trap in which several electrode layers are stacked and an RF voltage is applied to two diagonally opposite electrodes, or a surface trap in which all electrodes are located in a single plane on a chip. Furthermore, a trap may be divided into multiple segments, adjacent pairs of which may be linked by shuttling one or more ions, or coupled by photon interconnects. A trap may also be an array of individual trapping regions arranged closely to each other on a micro-fabricated ion trap chip. In some embodiments, the quadrupole potential has a spatially varying DC component in addition to the RF component described above.
and |1
, where the hyperfine ground state (i.e., the lower energy state of the 2S1/2 hyperfine states) is chosen to represent |0
. Hereinafter, the terms “hyperfine states,” “internal hyperfine states,” and “qubits” may be interchangeably used to represent |0
and |1)
. Each ion may be cooled (i.e., kinetic energy of the ion may be reduced) to near the motional ground state |0
p for any motional mode p with no phonon excitation (i.e., nph=0) by known laser cooling methods, such as Doppler cooling or resolved sideband cooling, and then the qubit state prepared in the hyperfine ground state |0
by optical pumping. Here, |0
represents the individual qubit state of a trapped ion whereas |0
p with the subscript p denotes the motional ground state for a motional mode p of a chain 102 of trapped ions.
An individual qubit state of each trapped ion may be manipulated by, for example, a mode-locked laser at 355 nanometers (nm) via the excited 2P1/2 level (denoted as |e). As shown in
and |e
, as illustrated in
and |1
. When the one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ is much larger than a two-photon transition detuning frequency (also referred to simply as “detuning frequency”) δ=ω1−ω2−ω01 (hereinafter denoted as ±μ, μ being a positive value), single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams), at which Rabi flopping between states |0) and |e
and between states |1
and |e
respectively occur, and a spontaneous emission rate from the excited state |e
, Rabi flopping between the two hyperfine states |0
and |1
(referred to as a “carrier transition”) is induced at the two-photon Rabi frequency Ω(t). The two-photon Rabi frequency Ω(t) has an intensity (i.e., absolute value of amplitude) that is proportional to Ω0eΩ1e/2Δ, where Ω0e and Ω1e are the single-photon Rabi frequencies due to the first and second laser beams, respectively. Hereinafter, this set of non-copropagating laser beams in the Raman configuration to manipulate internal hyperfine states of qubits (qubit states) may be referred to as a “composite pulse” or simply as a “pulse,” and the resulting time-dependent pattern of the two-photon Rabi frequency Ω(t) may be referred to as an “amplitude” of a pulse or simply as a “pulse,” which are illustrated and further described below. The detuning frequency δ=ω1−ω2−ω01 may be referred to as detuning frequency of the composite pulse or detuning frequency of the pulse. The amplitude of the two-photon Rabi frequency Ω(t), which is determined by amplitudes of the first and second laser beams, may be referred to as an “amplitude” of the composite pulse.
It should be noted that the particular atomic species used in the discussion provided herein is just one example of atomic species which has stable and well-defined two-level energy structures when ionized and an excited state that is optically accessible, and thus is not intended to limit the possible configurations, specifications, or the like of an ion trap quantum computer according to the present disclosure. For example, other ion species include alkaline earth metal ions (Be+, Ca+, Sr+, Mg+, and Ba+) or transition metal ions (Zn+, Hg+, Cd+).
(represented as the north pole of the Bloch sphere) and |1
(the south pole of the Bloch sphere) to occur. Adjusting time duration and amplitudes of the composite pulse flips the qubit state from |0
to |1
(i.e., from the north pole to the south pole of the Bloch sphere), or the qubit state from |1
to |0
(i.e., from the south pole to the north pole of the Bloch sphere). This application of the composite pulse is referred to as a “π-pulse”. Further, by adjusting time duration and amplitudes of the composite pulse, the qubit state |0
may be transformed to a superposition state |0
+|1
, where the two qubit states |0
and |1
are added and equally-weighted in-phase (a normalization factor of the superposition state is omitted hereinafter without loss of generality) and the qubit state |1
to a superposition state |0
-|1
, where the two qubit states |0
and |1
are added equally-weighted but out of phase. This application of the composite pulse is referred to as a “π/2-pulse”. More generally, a superposition of the two qubits states |0
and |1
that are added and equally-weighted is represented by a point that lies on the equator of the Bloch sphere. For example, the superposition states |0
±|1
correspond to points on the equator with the azimuthal angle ϕ being zero and π, respectively. The superposition states that correspond to points on the equator with the azimuthal angle ϕ are denoted as |0
+eiϕ|1
(e.g., |0
±i|1
for ϕ=±π/2). Transformation between two points on the equator (i.e., a rotation about the Z-axis on the Bloch sphere) can be implemented by shifting phases of the composite pulse.
In an ion trap quantum computer, the motional modes may act as a data bus to mediate entanglement between two qubits and this entanglement is used to perform an XX gate operation. That is, each of the two qubits is entangled with the motional modes, and then the entanglement is transferred to an entanglement between the two qubits by using motional sideband excitations, as described below. p having frequency ωp according to one embodiment. As illustrated in
and |1
(carrier transition) occurs. When the detuning frequency of the composite pulse is positive (i.e., the frequency difference between the first and second laser beams is tuned higher than the carrier frequency, δ=ω1−ω2−ω01=μ>0, referred to as a blue sideband), Rabi flopping between combined qubit-motional states |0
|nph
p and |1
|nph+1
p occurs (i.e., a transition from the p-th motional mode with n-phonon excitations denoted by |nph
p to the p-th motional mode with (nph+1)-phonon excitations denoted by |nph+1
p occurs when the qubit state |0
flips to |1
). When the detuning frequency of the composite pulse is negative (i.e., the frequency difference between the first and second laser beams is tuned lower than the carrier frequency by the frequency ωp of the motional mode |nph
p, δ=ω1−ω2−ω01<0, referred to as a red sideband), Rabi flopping between combined qubit-motional states |0
|nph
p and |1
|nph−1
p occurs (i.e., a transition from the motional mode |nph
p to the motional mode |nph−1
p with one less phonon excitations occurs when the qubit state |0
flips to |1
). A π/2-pulse on the blue sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional state |0
|nph
p into a superposition of |0
|nph
p and |1
|nph+1
p. A π/2-pulse on the red sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional |0
|nph
p into a superposition of |0
|nph
p and |1
|nph−1
p. When the two-photon Rabi frequency Ω(t) is smaller as compared to the detuning frequency δ=ω1−ω2−ω01=±μ, the blue sideband transition or the red sideband transition may be selectively driven. Thus, a qubit can be entangled with a desired motional mode by applying the right type of pulse, such as a π/2-pulse, which can be subsequently entangled with another qubit, leading to an entanglement between the two qubits. Entanglement between qubits is needed to perform an XX-gate operation in an ion trap quantum computer.
By controlling and/or directing transformations of the combined qubit-motional states as described above, an XX-gate operation may be performed on two qubits (i-th and j-th qubits). In general, the XX-gate operation (with maximal entanglement) respectively transforms two-qubit states |0i|0
j, |0
i|1
j, |1
i|0
j, and |1
i|1
j as follows:
|0i|0
j→|0
i|0
j−i|1
i|1
j
|0i|1
j→|0
i|1
j−i|1
i|0
j
|1i|0
j→i|0
i|1
j−|1
i|0
j
|1i|1
j→−i|0
i|0
j+|1
i|1
j
For example, when the two qubits (i-th and j-th qubits) are both initially in the hyperfine ground state |0 (denoted as |0
i|0
i) and subsequently a π/2-pulse on the blue sideband is applied to the i-th qubit, the combined state of the i-th qubit and the motional mode |0
i|nph
p is transformed into a superposition of |0
i|nph
p and |1
i|nph+1
p, and thus the combined state of the two qubits and the motional mode is transformed into a superposition of |0
i|0
j|nph
p and |1
i|0
nph+1
p. When a π/2-pulse on the red sideband is applied to the j-th qubit, the combined state of the j-th qubit and the motional mode |0
j|nph
p is transformed to a superposition of |0
j|nph
p and |1
j|nph−1
p and the combined state |0
j|nph+1
p is transformed into a superposition of |0
j|nph+1
p and |1
j|nph
p.
Thus, applications of a π/2-pulse on the blue sideband on the i-th qubit and a π/2-pulse on the red sideband on the j-th qubit may transform the combined state of the two qubits and the motional mode |0i|0
j|nph
p into a superposition of |0
i|0
j|nph
p and |1
|1
j|nph
p, the two qubits now being in an entangled state. For those of ordinary skill in the art, it should be clear that two-qubit states that are entangled with motional mode having a different number of phonon excitations from the initial number of phonon excitations nph (i.e., |1
i|0
j|nph+1
p and |0
i|1
j|nph−1
p) can be removed by a sufficiently complex pulse sequence, and thus the combined state of the two qubits and the motional mode after the XX-gate operation may be considered disentangled as the initial number of phonon excitations nph in the p-th motional mode stays unchanged at the end of the XX-gate operation. Thus, qubit states before and after the XX-gate operation will be described below generally without including the motional modes.
More generally, the combined state of i-th and j-th qubits transformed by the application of pulses on the sidebands for duration τ (referred to as a “gate duration”), having amplitude Ω(i)(t) and detuning frequency μ(i)(t), and amplitude Ω(j)(t) and detuning frequency μ(j)(t), respectively, can be described in terms of an entanglement interaction χij(τ) as follows:
|0i|0
j→cos(χij(τ)/2)|0
i|0
j−i sin(×ij(τ)/2)|1
i|1
j
|0i|1
j→cos(χij(τ)/2)|0
i|0
j−i sin(×ij(τ)/2)|1
i|0
j
|1i|0
j→−i sin(χij(τ)/2)|0
i|0
j+cos(×ij(τ)/2)|1
i|0
j
|1i|1
j→−i sin(χij(τ)/2)|0
i|0
j+cos(×ij(τ)/2)|1
i|1
j
where,
χij(τ)=4Σp=1pηp(i)ηp(j)∫0τdt2∫0t
and ηp(i)(l=i,j) is the Lamb-Dicke parameter that quantifies the coupling strength between the l-th ion and the p-th motional mode having the frequency ωp, ψ(l)(t) is an accumulated phase ψ(l)(t)=ψ0(l)+∫0tμ(l)(t′) dt′ of the pulse, ψ0(l) is an initial phase which may be assumed to be zero (0) hereinafter for simplicity without loss of generality, and P is the number of the motional modes (equal to the number N of ions in the chain 102).
The entanglement interaction between two qubits described above can be used to perform an XX-gate operation. The XX-gate operation (XX gate) along with single-qubit operation (R gate) forms a set of universal gates {R, XX} that can be used to build a quantum computer that is configured to perform desired computational processes. To perform an XX-gate operation between m-th and n-th qubits, pulses that satisfy the condition χij(τ)=θij(0<θij≤π/2) (i.e., the entanglement interaction χij(τ) has a desired value θij, referred to as condition for a non-zero entanglement interaction) are constructed and applied to the i-th and the j-th qubits. The transformations of the combined state of the i-th and the j-th qubits described above corresponds to the XX-gate operation with maximal entanglement when θij=π/2. The amplitudes and the detuning frequencies, (Ω(l)(t),μ(l)(t)) and (Ω(j))(t), μ(j)(t)), of the pulses to be applied to the i-th and the j-th qubits are control parameters that can be adjusted to ensure a non-zero tunable entanglement of the i-th and the j-th qubits to perform a desired XX gate operation on i-th and j-th qubits.
The control parameters, the amplitudes and detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)t))(l=i,j) of the pulses, must also satisfy conditions that all of the N trapped ions in the chain 102 that are displaced from their initial positions as the motional modes are excited by the delivery of the pulse return to the initial positions. The l-th qubit in a superposition state |0+|1
is displaced due to the excitation of the p-th motional mode during the gate duration τ and follows the trajectories ±αp(l)(t′) in phase space (position and momentum) of the p-th motional mode. The phase space trajectories αp(i)(t′)=ηp(l)∫g(i)(t)eiω
The control parameters, the amplitudes and detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(i)(t)) (l=i, j) of the pulses are also adjusted such that the resulting pulse is power-optimal, in which the required laser power is minimized (referred to as condition for minimized power). Since the required laser power is inversely proportional to the gate duration τ, a power-optimal pulse implements an XX gate operation with minimum power requirement if gate duration τ is fixed, or with shortest gate duration τ if a laser power budget is fixed.
In some embodiments, the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) (l=i, j) are chosen to be symmetric or anti-symmetric in time with respect to a middle point of the gate duration,
In the example described below, the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t),μ(l)(t)) are chosen to be symmetric (Ω(l)(+)(t) and μ(l)(+)(t)) for simplicity and may be referred to as Ω(l)(t) and μ(l)(t) without the subscript (+). With the symmetric detuning frequency μ(l)(t), the accumulated phase ψ(l)(t) is anti-symmetric,
The condition for returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values can be rewritten in terms of the anti-symmetric component g(l)(−)(t) of the pulse function g(l)(t) (simply referred to as “pulse function” and denoted by g(l)(t) without the script (−) hereinafter), as
The pulse functions g(l)(t) that are determined by the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) of the pulse (l=i, j) are derived such that these conditions are satisfied, by dividing the gate duration into NA equi-spaced segments (n=1, 2, . . . , NA), and varying the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) of the pulse, thus varying the pulse functions g(l)(t), from one segment to another. Here, for example, the pulse function g(l)(t) is expanded in Fourier-sine oasis,
over the gate duration τ, using basis function
and pulse function coefficients gn(l). The condition for returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values can be rewritten as
where Mpn is defined as
Equivalently, the condition for returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values (e.g., closure of phase space trajectories) can be written as M(l)=0 in a matrix form, where M is a P×NA coefficient matrix of Mpn and
(l) is a NA pulse function coefficient vector of gn(l). The number of the segments NA is chosen to be larger than the number of motional modes P. Thus, there are N0(=NA−P) non-trivial (i.e., at least one of the pulse function coefficients An(l) is non-zero) pulse function vectors
(l)[α](α=1, 2, . . . , N0) that satisfy the condition for returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values. The non-trivial pulse function vectors
(l)[α](α=1, 2, . . . , N0) are null-space vectors of the matrix M (i.e., M
(l)[α]=0).
The conditions for non-zero entanglement interaction and decoupling can be rewritten
where Dnn′(i,j) is defined as
or equivalently, ((i))TD(i,j)
(j)=θij in a matrix form, where D(i,j) is a NA×NA coefficient matrix of Dnn′(i,j) and (
(l))T is a transposed vector of
(l). Since (
(i))TD(i,j)
(j) is a scalar, the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction can be further rewritten in terms of a symmetric matrix S(i,j)=(D(i,j)+D(i,j)
(i))TS(i,j)
(j)=θij.
The condition for minimized power corresponds to minimizing a power function,
P(t)=∥g(l)(t)∥2=2/τ∫0τ[g(l)(t)]2dt=Σn=1N
that is the absolute square value of the pulse function g(l)(t) averaged over the gate duration τ. Accordingly, a power-optimal pulse can be constructed by computing a linear combination (α(i)) of the non-trivial pulse function vectors
Thus, the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) of the pulses (l=i,j) can be computed based on the pulse functions g(l)(t) having the pulse function coefficients gn(l) (n=1, 2, . . . , NA) or equivalently the pulse function coefficient vector (l), that satisfy the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction and the condition for minimized power. It should be noted the condition for returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values and the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction are in linear algebraic forms in terms of the pulse function coefficient vector
(l). Thus, the pulse function coefficients gn(l) that satisfy these conditions, along with the condition for minimized power, can be computed by known linear algebraic computational methods without approximation or iterations.
The expansion of the pulse function g(l)(t) in terms of pulse function coefficients gn(l) corresponds to construction of a pulse in a frequency domain (with a frequency 2πn/τ), and thus a pulse constructed by the pulse function g(l)(t) may be directly implemented by multi-tone lasers (i.e., laser beams having multiple tones, each tone having a distinct amplitude and a corresponding frequency). That is, NA-tone laser beams each having a frequency 2πn/τ and amplitude gn(l) (n=1, 2, . . . , NA), with the phases of the laser beams fixed, may directly perform an XX gate operation. The pulse function may be expanded using any functions that form a complete set or an incomplete set over the gate duration. However, when the pulse function is expanded in an incomplete set, there is no guarantee that the pulse function g(l)(t) computed by the method described above is power-optimal.
It should be noted that the particular example embodiments described above are just some possible examples of a method of construction of pulse functions according to the present disclosure and do not limit the possible configuration, specifications, or the like of methods of construction of pulse functions. For example, the symmetry of the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ωl(t), μ(l)(t))(l=i, j) may be selected to be anti-symmetric (having a negative parity), or have mixed symmetry (having a mixed parity), based on convenience related to configurations, specifications, or the like of the system 100. However, imposing a symmetry in the amplitudes and the detuning frequencies (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) may lead to eliminating errors that have certain symmetries.
In the construction of a power-optimal pulse, additional conditions can be added without substantially increasing the complexity in computing the Fourier coefficient vector (l)(l=i,j) due to the linear algebraic forms of the conditions imposed on the coefficient vector
(l)(l=i,j). For example, a condition for stabilizing the pulse against external errors, such as fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes and the intensities of laser beams, can be additionally imposed while maintaining the linear algebraic forms of all the conditions. In the ion trap quantum computer, or system 100, there can be fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes due to stray electric fields, build-up charges in the ion trap 200 caused by photoionization or temperature fluctuations. Typically over a time span of minutes, the frequencies ωp of the motional modes drift with excursion of Δωp/(2π)≈1 kHz. The conditions for non-zero entanglement interaction, returning of trapped ions to their original positions and momentum values, and minimized power based on the frequencies ωp of the motional modes are no longer satisfied when the frequencies ωp of the motional modes have drifted to ωp+Δωp, resulting in a reduction of the fidelity of the XX gate operation. It is known the infidelity 1−F of an XX gate operation between i-th and j-th qubits at zero temperature of the motional-mode phonons, is given by 1−F=⅘Σp(|αi,p|2+|αj,p|2) This suggests the XX-gate operation can be stabilized against fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes by requiring that k-th order variations of the phase space trajectories αl,p of the l-th qubit (l=i,j) with respect to the fluctuations ωp in ωp,
be zero (referred to as k-th order stabilization), where Kα is a maximal desired degree of stabilization for α. The pulse computed by requiring this condition for stabilization can perform an XX gate operation that is resilient against noise (i.e., fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes).
The fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes may also affect the value of the entanglement interaction χij(τ), since the entanglement interaction χij(τ) is related to the frequencies ωp of the motional modes. That is, the resulting entanglement interaction χij(τ) may have a different value from the desired value θij that is set in the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction, as discussed above. Thus, in some embodiments, the condition for stabilizing the entanglement interaction against fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes may also require that k-th order variations of the entanglement interaction χij(τ) with respect to the fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp. of the motional modes,
be zero (referred to as k-th order stabilization), where Kχ is a maximal desired degree of stabilization.
As noted above, the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction for a power-optimal pulse is written as {right arrow over (Λ)}(i)α(l)) of the pulse function
(l) of the power-optimal pulse (l=i,j). Thus, the condition for the stabilization of the entanglement interaction against fluctuations in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes up to k-th order with respect to fluctuations Δωp in ωp.(k-th order stabilization) is written in a matrix form,
χij,p(k)={right arrow over (Λ)}(i)
where the matrix Rp(i,j)(k) has elements Rαβ,p(i,j)(k)=α(i)
β(j) and the matrix Sp(i,j)(k)is defined as
In some embodiments, an identical pulse is applied to both the i-th qubit and the j-th qubit (i.e., the coefficient vectors {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) and {right arrow over (Λ)}(j) are the same) to perform an XX gate operation between the i-th qubit and the j-th qubit. Then, the matrix Rp(i,j)(k) and the coefficient vector {right arrow over (Λ)}(i)(={right arrow over (Λ)}(j)) may be spectrally decomposed using the ν-th eigenvalue λν,p(i,j)(k) of Rp(i,j)(k) and the corresponding eigenvector |λν,p(i,j)(k), as Rp(i,j)(k)=Σν=1N
λν,p(i,j)(k)|, and {right arrow over (Λ)}(i)={right arrow over (Λ)}(j)=Σν=1N
, respectively. In this spectral decomposition, the condition for the stabilization of a power-optimal pulse may be written as χij,p(k)=Σν=1N
α(l) of a power-optimal pulse, which has a large eigenvalue) λν,p(i,j)(k) un-stabilize against fluctuations in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes.
To stabilize the entanglement interaction against fluctuations Δωp in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes in the first order to a certain extent, the components in the power-optimal pulse {right arrow over (g(l))}=Σα=1Nα(l) that have large eigenvalues) λν,p(i,j)(k) are removed, and the resulting pulse is renormalized to obtain the entanglement condition χij=π/2.
In some embodiments, a pulse applied to the i-th ion is chosen that is different from a pulse applied to the j-th ion such that the coefficient vectors {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) and {right arrow over (Λ)}(j) are orthogonal. Specifically, a pulse having the coefficient vector {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) to be applied to the i-th qubit to perform is chosen. Using the chosen coefficient vector {right arrow over (Λ)}(i), the coefficient vector {right arrow over (Λ)}(j) of a pulse to be applied to the j-th qubit is determined such that coefficient vector {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) satisfies the condition for the stabilization of the entanglement interaction χij,p(k)={right arrow over (Λ)}(i)Rp(i,j)(k){right arrow over (Λ)}(j)=0 (k=1, 2, . . . Kχ) as described above and the pulse is power-optimal. In some embodiments, the coefficient vectors {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) and {right arrow over (Λ)}(j) are chosen such that each of the coefficient vectors {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) and {right arrow over (Λ)}(i) satisfies the condition for the stabilization of the entanglement interaction in the single-pulse stabilization described above.
Fluctuations in intensities of the laser beams and Lamb-Dicke parameters ηi,p may also affect the value of the entanglement interaction χij(τ), since the entanglement interaction χij(τ) is related to the amplitude An (n=1, 2, . . . , NA) of each tone. That is, the resulting entanglement interaction χij(τ) may have a different value from the desired value θij that is set in the condition for non-zero entanglement interaction. Thus, in some embodiments, known broadband laser pulse sequences, typically applicable for single-qubit gate operations, such as Solovay-Kitaev (SK) sequence and Suzuki-Trotter sequences, can be used to mitigate errors in the entanglement interaction χij(τ) with respect to, for instance, offsets in Lamb-Dicke parameters ηi,p. The same technique may be used to stabilize the entanglement interaction χij(τ) against any error sources that perturbs the entanglement interaction χij(τ) value.
Alternatively or additionally to the stabilization of the entanglement interaction χu(τ), the resulting entanglement interaction χij(τ) can be calibrated to the desired value θij by modifying the amplitude Ω(t) of the pulse.
To apply the power-optimal and error-resilient pulse on the l-th qubit (l=i, j), the amplitude and the detuning frequency (Ω(l)(t), μ(l)(t)) of the power-optimal pulse need to be demodulated (i.e., the amplitude and the detuning frequency (Ω(l)(t),μ(l)(t)) are extracted and the pulse function g(l) (t) is converted into a pulse having a series of time-dependent pulse segments of a single laser beam) from the determined pulse function g(l)=Ω(l)(t) sin (ψ(l)(t)) (l=i, j), where ψ(l)(t)=∫0tμ(l)(t′)dt′ is the phase accumulated due to the detuning frequency μ(l)(t). If this demodulation process is performed with a fixed detuning frequency, i.e., μ(l)(t)=μ0, the resulting pulse is amplitude-modulated (AM) pulse, in which the amplitude Ω(l)(t) is modulated. If the demodulation process is performed with a fixed amplitude, i.e., Ω(l)(t)=Ω0, the resulting pulse is a phase-modulated (PM) pulse, in which the phase ψ(l)(t) is modulated. If the phase ψ(l)(t) is implemented by modulating detuning frequency μ(l)(t), the resulting pulse is a frequency-modulated (FM) pulse. The demodulation process can be performed in any combined modulation of amplitude Ω(l)(t), phase ψ(l)(t) (thereby the detuning frequency μ(l)(t)), and frequency to construct a power-optimal pulse by conventional demodulation methods known in the art of signal processing.
The first step of an exemplary demodulation process is to find zeros of the pulse function g (t)=Ω(l)(t) sin (ψ(l)(t)) at t=ζj(j=0, 1, . . . , Nz−1) (i.e., g(ζi)=0). Here, Nz is a total number of zeros of the pulse function g(l)(t). The amplitude Ω(l)(t) can be chosen such that the amplitude Ω(l)(t) does not have zeros. Thus, the pulse function g(l) (t) is zero when sin (ψ(l)(t)) is zero (i.e., sin (ψ(l)(ζj))=0). Due to the nature of the sine function, sin (ψ(l)(ζj)=0 when ψ(l)(ζj)=jπ(j=0, 1, . . . , Nz−1), including the zeros at the beginning and the end of the gate duration τ of the pulse (i.e. t=ζ0=0 and t=ζN
The second step of the demodulation process is to compute the detuning frequency μ(l)(t) based on the zeros of the pulse function g(l)(t). In some embodiments, the detuning frequency μ(l)(t) is approximated as a constant value between adjacent zeros of the pulse function g(l) (t) (i.e., μ(l)(t)≈μj for ζj-1t<ζj, j=1, 2, . . . , Nz−1). Since the phase ψ(l)(t) is accumulated due to the detuning frequency μ(l)(t) as in ψ(l)(t)=∫0tμ(l)(t′)dt′, the difference between the phase at t=ζi and t=ζj-1 is
Consequently, the detuning frequency μj between t=ζj-1 and t=ζj is determined as μj=π/(ζj−ζj-1). The third step of the demodulation process is compute the amplitude Ω(l)(t). A time derivative of the pulse function g(l)(t)=Ω(l)(t) sin (ψ(l)(t)) at t=ζj is
(g(l))′(ζj)=(Ω(l))′(ζj)sin(ψ(l)(ζj))+Ω(l)(ζj)cos(ψ(ζj))(ψ(l))′(ζj)=(−1)jΩ(l)(ζj)μ(l)(ζj),
where ψ(l)(ζj)=jπ and ψ(l)(t)=∫0tμ(l)(t′)dt′ are used. Thus, the amplitude Ω(l)(t) at t=ζj is computed as Ω(l)(ζj)=(−1)j(g(l))ζ(ζj/μ(l)(ζj) using the time derivative of the computed pulse function g(l)(t)=Σn=1N
In some embodiments, a set of the computed detuning frequencies μj (j=1, 2, . . . , Nz−1) is interpolated with splines (e.g., functions defined piecewise by one or more polynomials or other algebraic expressions) and the interpolated values of the detuning frequency μ(l)(t) is used for μ(l)(ζj) for computing the amplitude Ω(l)(ζj). In some embodiments, μ(l)(ζj) is (i) μj, (ii) μj+1, or (iii) (μj+μj+1)/2 is used as μ(l)(ζj) for computing the amplitude Ω(l)(ζj).
In some embodiments, a set of the computed amplitude Ω(l)(ζj) is also interpolated with splines to compute the time-dependent amplitude Ω(l)(t).
If the demodulation process for a phase-modulated (PM) pulse, a set of the computed phase ψ(l)(ζj) may be interpolated with splines to compute the time-dependent phase ψ(l)(t).
In the following, examples of stabilization against fluctuations Δω in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes according to the embodiments described above are shown.
In
The infidelity 1−F of the XX gate operation without the stabilization 702 increases substantially as a fluctuation Δω in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes increases, as the phase space trajectories αp(l)(τ) are related to the frequencies ωp of the p-th motional mode and thus sensitive to a fluctuation Δω in the frequencies ωp. Thus, the pulse determined using inaccurate frequencies ωp (i.e., the frequencies that are different from the actual frequencies) causes an XX gate operation to be inaccurate (i.e., different from the desired XX gate operation). The infidelity 1−F of an XX gate operation in which the first-order stabilization 704 is applied will stay low for small fluctuation Δω of the frequencies ωp (up to about 0.5 kHz). That is, the XX gate operation can be robust against fluctuations in the frequency of the motional mode with the first-order stabilization. The widths of the infidelity curves in
However, with the stabilization, the required laser power increases, for example, up to 40% in the example described herein. Hence, there is a trade-off between the degree of stabilization and the optimization of the required laser power. The power requirement of the stabilized pulses for each order of stabilization k the requirement scales linearly in the order of stabilization k as shown in
As described above, methods of generating power-optimum laser pulses to perform an entangling gate operation between two qubits such that the entangling gate operation can be stabilized against external errors, leading to an improved fidelity of the entangling gate operation.
Additionally, determining control parameters in generating power optimum and error-resilient laser pulses to perform an entangling gate operation includes solving a set of linear equations. Thus, determining the control parameters and subsequently constructing a power-optimal and error-resilient laser pulse can be performed in an efficient manner. At the end of running the desired quantum algorithm, the population of the qubit states (trapped ions) within the quantum register is measured (read-out), so that the results of the quantum computation(s) with the desired quantum algorithm can be determined and provided to the classical computer for use to obtain solutions to the problems that may be intractable by the classical computer.
While the foregoing is directed to specific embodiments, other and further embodiments may be devised without departing from the basic scope thereof, and the scope thereof is determined by the claims that follow.
This application claims the benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/851,280, filed May 22, 2019, and the benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/851,394, filed May 22, 2019, which are both incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
8633437 | Dantus et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
9335606 | Hanson et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9858531 | Monroe et al. | Jan 2018 | B1 |
10790807 | Debnath | Sep 2020 | B1 |
11152925 | Debnath | Oct 2021 | B2 |
20060249670 | Monroe et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20090213444 | Goto et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20180114138 | Monroe et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20200372392 | Nam | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20220067565 | Blumel | Mar 2022 | A1 |
20220101166 | Blumel | Mar 2022 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Farhang Haddadfarshi et al. “High Fidelity Quantum Gates of Trapped Ions in the Presence of Motional Heating”, New Journal of Physics, vol. 18, No. 12, Dec. 2, 2016, p. 123007, XP055722925. |
International Search Report dated Sep. 4, 2020 for Application No. PCT/US2020/034008. |
International Search Report dated May 29, 2020 for Application PCT/US2020/015232. |
Pak Hong Leung et al., Entangling an Arbitrary Prior of Qubits in a Long Ion Crystal. arXiv:1808.02555 [quant-ph] (2018). |
G. M. Amdahl, Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. AFIPS Conf. Proc. 30, 483-485 (1967). |
R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467-488 (1982). |
Y. Wang, M. Um, J. Zhang, S. An, M. Lyu, J.-N. Zhang, L.-M. Duan, D. Yum, K. Kim, Single-qubit quantum memory exceeding ten-minute coherence time. Nature Photon 11, 646-650 (2017). |
A. Spörl, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, S. J. Glaser, V. Bergholm, M. J. Storcz, J. Ferber, F. K. Wilhelm, Optimal control of coupled Josephson qubits. Physical Review A75, 012302 (2007). |
D. Maslov, Y. S. Nam, J. Kim, An outlook for quantum computing, Proc. IEEE, 107, 5-10 (2019). |
Y. Nam, D. Maslov, Low cost quantum circuits for classically intractable instances of the Hamiltonian dynamics simulation problem. arXiv:1805.04645 [quant-ph] (2018). |
J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, S. T. Merkel, F. K. Wilhelm, Analytic control methods for high-fidelity unitary operations in a weakly nonlinear oscillator. Physical Review A 83, 012308 (2011). |
S. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, (Cambridge Press, New York, NY, 2004). |
S. Beauregard, Circuit for Shor's algorithm using 2n+3 qubits. Quant. Inf. Comp. 3, 175-185 (2003). |
D. Maslov, Y. Nam, Use of global interactions in efficient quantum circuit constructions. New J. Phys. 20, 033018 (2018). |
E. Bernstein, U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1411-1473 (1997). |
W. van Dam, S. Hallgren, L. Ip, Quantum algorithms for some hidden shift problems. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 763-778 (2006). |
F. A. Calderon-Vargas, G. S. Barron, X.-H. Deng, A. J. Sigillito, E. Barnes, S. E. Economou, Fast high-fidelity entangling gates in Si double quantum dots. arXiv:1902.02350 [quant-ph] (2019). |
L. S. Theis, F. Motzoi, F. K. Wilhelm, M. Saman, High-fidelity Rydberg-blockade entangling gate using shaped, analytic pulses. Physical Review A 94, 032306 (2016). |
M. M. Müller, H. R. Haakh, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, C. Henkel, Prospects for fast Rydberg gates on an atom chip. Quant. Inf. Process. 10, 771792 (2011). |
International Search Report dated May 28, 2020 for Application No. PCT/US2020/015234. |
International Search Report dated May 28, 2020 for Application No. PCT/US2020/015235. |
Bravyi, S. B., Landau, L. D., Kitaev, A. Y. (2002). Fermionic quantum computation. Annals of Physics, 298(1), 210-226. https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2002.6254. |
Colless, J. I., Ramasesh, V. v., Dahlen, D., Blok, M. S., Kimchi-Schwartz, M. E., McClean, J. R., Carter, J., de Jong, W. A., Siddiqi, I. (2018). Computation of Molecular Spectra on a Quantum Processor with an Error-Resilient Algorithm. Physical Review X, 8(1), 011021. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011021. |
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., Clifford Stein. (2009). Introduction to algorithms. MIT press. (Cormen et al., 2009). |
Dobsi{hacek over (c)}ek, M., Johansson, G., Shumeiko, V., Wendin, G. (2007). Arbitrary accuracy iterative phase estimation algorithm as a two qubit benchmark. Physical Review A, 76(3), 030306. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.030306. |
Dumitrescu, E. F., McCaskey, A. J., Hagen, G., Jansen, G. R., Morris, T. D., Papenbrock, T., Pooser, R. C., Dean, D. J., Lougovski, P. (2018). Cloud Quantum Computing of an Atomic Nucleus. Physical Review Letters, 120(21), 210501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.210501. |
Evenbly, G., Vidal, G. (2007). Algorithms for entanglement renormalization. Physical Review B, 79(14), 144108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.144108. |
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. (2014). A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. ArXiv:1411.4028 [Quant-Ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028. |
Figgatt, C. M. (2018). Building and Programming a Universal Ion Trap Quantum Computer. http://iontrap.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FiggattThesis.pdf. |
Hadfield, S., Papageorgiou, A. (2018). Divide and conquer approach to quantum Hamiltonian simulation. New Journal of Physics, 20(4), 043003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aab1ef. |
Jones, N. C., Whitfield, J. D., McMahon, P. L., Yung, M. H., Meter, R. van, Aspuru-Guzik, A., Yamamoto, Y. (2012). Faster quantum chemistry simulation on fault-tolerant quantum computers. New Journal of Physics, 14, 115023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/11/115023. |
Kandala, A., Mezzacapo, A., Temme, K., Takita, M., Brink, M., Chow, J. M., Gambetta, J. M. (2017). Hardware-efficient Variational Quantum Eigensolver for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets. Nature, 549, 242-246. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23879. |
Maslov, D. (2017). Basic circuit compilation techniques for an ion-trap quantum machine. New Journal of Physics, 19(2), 023035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa5e47. |
McArdle, S., Yuan, X., Benjamin, S. (2019). Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation. Physical Review Letters, 122(18), 180501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.180501. |
McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Babbush, R., Neven, H. (2018). Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature Communications, 9, 4812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. |
McClean, J. R., Schwartz, M. E., Carter, J., de Jong, W. A. (2017). Hybrid Quantum-Classical Hierarchy for Mitigation of Decoherence and Determination of Excited States. Physical Review A, 95(4), 042308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.042308. |
Peruzzo, A., McClean, J., Shadbolt, P., Yung, M. H., Zhou, X. Q., Love, P. J., Aspuru-Guzik, A., O″Brien, J. L. (2014). A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications, 5, 4213. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213. |
Shantanu, D. (2016). A Programmable Five Qubit Quantum Computer Using Trapped Atomic Ions. |
Takeshita, T., Rubin, N. C., Jiang, Z., Lee, E., Babbush, R., McClean, J. R. (2020). Increasing the representation accuracy of quantum simulations of chemistry without extra quantum resources. Physical Review X, 10(1), 011004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011004. |
Wecker, D., Bauer, B., Clark, B. K., Hastings, M. B., Troyer, M. (2014). Gate count estimates for performing quantum chemistry on small quantum computers. Physical Review A, 90(2), 022305. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.022305. |
Welch, J., Greenbaum, D., Mostame, S., Aspuru-Guzik, A. (2014). Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas. New Journal of Physics, 16, 033040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/3/033040. |
G.-D. Lin et al., Large-scale quantum computation in an anharmonic linear ion trap. Europhysics Letters, 86, 60004 (2009). |
Yukai Wu, Noise Analysis for High-Fidelity Quantum Entangling Gates in an Anharmonic Linear Paul Trap. Physical Review A 97, 062325 (2018). |
T. Choi et al., Optimal Quantum Control of Multimode Couplings between Trapped Ion Qubits for Scalable Entanglement. Physical Review Letters 112, 190502 (2014). |
A. Sorensen, K. Molmer, Quantum computation with ions in thermal motion. Physical Review Letters 82, 1971-1974 (1999). |
K. Molmer, A. Sorensen, Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions. Physical Review Letters 82, 1835-1838 (1999). |
S.-L. Zhu, C. Monroe, L.-M. Duan, Arbitrary-speed quantum gates within large ion crystals through minimum control of laser beams. Europhysics Letters 73, 485-491 (2006). |
K. Wright et al., Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer. arXiv:1903.08181 [quant-ph] (2019). |
S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, C. Monroe, Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits. Nature 536, 63-66 (2016). |
N. M. Linke, D. Maslov, M. Roetteler, S. Debnath, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, C. Monroe, Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 3305-3310 (2017). |
Shi-Liang Zhu, C. Monroe, and L.-M. Duan, Trapped Ion Quantum Computation with Transverse Phonon Modes. Physical Review Letters 97, 050505 (2006). |
A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, S. Llyod, Quantum algorithm for solving linear systems of equations. Physical Review Letters 15, 150502 (2009). |
M. Benedetti, D. Garcia-Pintos, O. Perdomo, V. Leyton-Ortega, Y. Nam, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits. arXiv:1801.07686 [quant-ph] (2018). |
P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Rev. 41, 303-332 (1999). |
M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D.Wecker, M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 7555-7560 (2017). |
Y. Nam and D. Maslov, Low cost quantum circuits for classically intractable instances of the Hamiltonian dynamics simulation problem. arXiv:1805.04645 [quant-ph] (2018). |
S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni, P. Rebentrost, Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics 10, 631 (2014). |
R. Orus, S. Mugel, E. Lizaso, Quantum computing for finance: overview and prospects. arXiv:1807.03890 [quant-ph] (2019). |
E. Hewitt, R. E. Hewitt, The Gibbs-Wilbraham phenomenon: An episode in Fourier analysis, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 21, 129-160 (1979). |
M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2000). |
Y.Wu, S.-T.Wang, L.-M. Duan, Noise Analysis for High-Fidelity Quantum Entangling Gates in an Anharmonic Linear Paul Trap. Physical Review A 97, 062325 (2018). |
C. Marquet, F. Schmidt-Kaier, D. F. V. James, Phononphonon interactions due to non-linear effects in a linear ion trap. Applied Physics B 76, 199-208 (2003). |
D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, D. M. Meekhof, Experimental Issues in Coherent Quantum-State Manipulation of Trapped Atomic Ions. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259-328 (1998). |
J. P. Gaebler, T. R. Tan, Y. Lin, Y. Wan, R. Bowler, A. C. Keith, S. Glancy, K. Coakley, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, D. J. Wineland, High-Fidelity Universal Gate Set for 9Be+ ion qubits. Physical Review Letters 117, 060505 (2016). |
C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, D. M. Lucas, High-Fidelity Quantum Logic Gates Using Trapped-Ion Hyperfine Qubits. Physical Review Letters 117, 060504 (2016). |
T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, D. M. Lucas, High-delity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit. Physical Review Letters 113, 220501 (2014). |
P. H. Leung, K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, N. M. Linke, C. Monroe, K. R. Brown, Robust 2-qubit gates in a linear ion crystal using a frequency-modulated driving force. Physical Review Letters 120, 020501 (2018). |
T. J. Green, M. J. Biercuk, Phase-modulated decoupling and error suppression in qubit-oscillator systems. Physical Review Letters 114, 120502 (2015). |
Y. Nam et al., Ground-state energy estimation of the water molecule on a trapped ion quantum computer. arXiv:1902.10171 [quant-ph] (2019). |
G. E. Crooks, Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem. arXiv:1811.08419 [quant-ph] (2018). |
Y. Nam, Y. Su, D. Maslov, Approximate quantum Fourier transform with O(n log(n)) T gates. arXiv:1803.04933 [quant-oh] (2018). |
T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, E. M. Rains, K. M. Svore, A logarithmic-depth quantum carry-lookahead adder. Quant. Inf. Comp. 6, 351-369 (2006). |
R. Babbush et al., Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complexity. Physical Review X 8, 041015 (2018). |
L. K. Grover, Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical Review Letters 79, 325 (1997). |
S. Bravyi, J. Haah, Magic state distillation with low overhead. Physical Review A 86, 052329 (2012). |
J. O'Gorman, E. T. Campbell, Quantum computation with realistic magic state factories. Physical Review A 95, 032338 (2017). |
F. A. Aloul, A. Ramani, I. L. Markov, K. A. Sakallah, Solving difficult SAT instances in the presence of symmetry. Proc. Des. Automat. Conf. 731-736 (2002). |
C. Figgatt, A. Ostrander, N. M. Linke, K. A. Landsman, D. Zhu, D. Maslov, C. Monroe, Parallel entangling operations on a universal ion trap quantum computer. arXiv:1810.11948 [quant-ph] (2018). |
Y. Lu, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, W. Chen, Y. Shen, J. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, K. Kim, Scalable global entangling gates on arbitrary ion qubits. arXiv:1901.03508 [quant-ph] (2019). |
N. Grzesiak, R. Blümel, K. Beck, K. Wright, V. Chaplin, J. Amini, N. Pisenti, S. Debnath, J.-S. Chen, Y. Nam, Efficient arbitrary simultaneously entangling gates on a trapped-ion quantum computer. Nature Communications 11, 2963 (2020). |
J. T. Merrill, K. R. Brown, Progress in compensating pulse sequences for quantum computation. arXiv:1203.6392 [quant-ph] (2012). |
M. X. Goemans, D. P. Williamson, Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfability problems using Semidefinite Programming. J. ACM 42, 1115-1145 (1995). |
A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J Ross, Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 9456-9461 (2018). |
V. V. Shende, I. L. Markov, S. S. Bullock, Minimal universal two-qubit controlled-NOT-based circuits. Physical Review A 69, 062321 (2004). |
D. Maslov, Advantages of using relative-phase Toffoli gates with an application to multiple control Toffoli optimization. Physical Review A 93, 022311 (2016). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200372391 A1 | Nov 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62851394 | May 2019 | US | |
62851280 | May 2019 | US |