1 / 48

Improving Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits

DARPA. DARPA. Improving Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits. George F. Viamontes, Igor L. Markov, and John P. Hayes {gviamont,imarkov,jhayes}@umich.edu Advanced Computer Architecture Laboratory University of Michigan, EECS. Problem.

kenyon-bray
Download Presentation

Improving Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DARPA DARPA Improving Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits George F. Viamontes, Igor L. Markov, and John P. Hayes {gviamont,imarkov,jhayes}@umich.edu Advanced Computer Architecture Laboratory University of Michigan, EECS

  2. Problem • Simulation of quantum computing on a classical computer • Requires exponentially growing time and memory resources • Goal: Improve classical simulation • Our Solution: Quantum Information Decision Diagrams (QuIDDs)

  3. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Ongoing Work

  4. Quantum Data • Classical bit • Two possible states: 0 or 1 • Measurement is straightforward • Qubit (properties follow from Q. M.) • Quantum state • Can be in states 0 or 1, but also in a superposition of 0 and 1 • nqubits represents different values simultaneously • Measurement is probabilistic and destructive

  5. Implementations • Liquid and solid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) – nuclear spins • Ion traps – electron energy levels • Electrons floating on liquid helium – electron spins • Optical technologies – photon polarizations • Focus of this work: common mathematical description

  6. Qubit Notation • Qubits expressed in Dirac notation • Vector representation: • and are complex numbers called probability amplitudes s.t.

  7. U Data Manipulation • Qubits are manipulated by operators • Analogous to logic gates • Operators are unitary matrices • Matrix-vector multiplication describes operator functionality

  8. H H Operations on Multiple Qubits • Tensor product of operators/qubits

  9. Previous Work • Traditional array-based representations are insensitive to the values stored • Qubit-wise multiplication • 1-qubit operator and n-qubit state vector • State vector requires exponential memory • BDD techniques • Multi-valued logic for q. circuit synthesis [1] • Shor’s algorithm simulator (SHORNUF) [8]

  10. Redundancy in Quantum Computing • Matrix/vector representation of quantum gates/state vectors contains block patterns • The tensor product propagates block patterns in vectors and matrices

  11. Example of Propagated Block Patterns

  12. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Ongoing Work

  13. Data Structure that Exploits Redundancy • Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) exploit repeated sub-structure • BDDs have been used to simulate classical logic circuits efficiently [6,2] • Example: f = a AND b f a Assign value of 1 to variable x b Assign value of 0 to variable x 1 0

  14. BDDs in Linear Algebra • Algebraic Decision Diagrams (ADDs) treat variable nodes as matrix indices [2], also MTBDDs • ADDs encode all matrix elements aij • Input variables capture bits of iand j • Terminals represent the value of aij • CUDD implements linear algebra for ADDs (without decompression)

  15. Quantum Information Decision Diagrams (QuIDDs) • QuIDDs: an application of ADDsto quantum computing • QuIDD matrices : row (i), column (j) vars • QuIDD vectors: column vars only • Matrix-vector multiplication performed in terms of QuIDDs

  16. QuIDD Vectors f 00 01 10 11 0 + 0i 0 1 + 0i 1 Terminal value array

  17. f QuIDD Matrices 00 01 10 11 00 01 10 11 0 1

  18. QuIDDs and ADDs • All dimensions are 2n • Row and column variables are interleaved • Terminals are integers which map into an array of complex numbers

  19. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Conclusions

  20. QuIDD Operations • Based on the Apply algorithm [4,5] • Construct new QuIDDs by traversing two QuIDD operands based on variable ordering • Perform “op” when terminals reached (op is *, +, etc.) • General Form: f op g where f and g are QuIDDs, and x and y are variables in f and g, respectively:

  21. Tensor Product • Given A B • Every element of a matrix Ais multiplied by the entire matrix B • QuIDD Implementation: Use Apply • Operands are AandB • Variables of operandB are shifted • “op” is defined to be multiplication

  22. Other Operations • Matrix multiplication • Modified ADD matrix multiply algorithm [2] • Support for terminal array • Support for row/column variable ordering • Matrix addition • Call to Applywith “op” set to addition • Qubit measurement • DFS traversal or measurement operators

  23. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Ongoing Work

  24. Grover’s Algorithm H H H Oracle Conditional Phase Shift |0> H H H |0> . . . . . . . . . H H |1> - Search for items in an unstructured database of N items - Contains n = log N qubits and has runtime

  25. Number of Iterations • Use formulation from Boyer et al. [3] • Exponential runtime(even on an actual quantum computer) • Actual Quantum Computer Performance: ~O(1.41n) time and O(n)memory

  26. Simulation Results forGrover’s Algorithm • Linear memory growth(numbers of nodes shown)

  27. Results: Oracle 1 Linear Growth using QuIDDPro

  28. Oracle 1: Runtime (s)

  29. Oracle 1: Peak Memory Usage (MB) Linear Growth using QuIDDPro

  30. Validation of Results • SANITY CHECK: Make sure that QuIDDPro achieves highest probability of measuring the item(s) to be searched using the number of iterations predicted by Boyer et al. [3]

  31. Consistency with Theory

  32. Grover Results Summary • Asymptotic performance • QuIDDPro: ~ O(1.44n) time and O(n) memory • Actual Quantum Computer • ~O(1.41n) time and O(n)memory • Outperforms other simulation techniques • MATLAB: (2n) time and (2n)memory • Blitz++: (4n) time and (2n)memory

  33. What about errors? • Do the errors and mixed states that are encountered in practical quantum circuits cause QuIDDs to explode and lose significant performance?

  34. NIST Benchmarks • NIST offers a multitude of quantum circuit descriptions containing errors/decoherence and mixed states • NIST also offers a density matrix C++ simulator called QCSim • How does QuIDDPro compare to QCSim on these circuits?

  35. QCSim vs. QuIDDPro • dsteaneZ: 13-qubit circuit with initial mixed state that implements the Steane code to correct phase flip errors • QCSim: 287.1 seconds, 512.1MB • QuIDDPro: 0.639 seconds, 0.516 MB

  36. QCSim vs. QuIDDPro (2) • dsteaneX: 12-qubit circuit with initial mixed state that implements the Steane code to correct bit flip errors • QCSim: 53.2 seconds, 128.1MB • QuIDDPro: 0.33 seconds, 0.539 MB

  37. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Ongoing Work

  38. Recall the Tensor Product

  39. Key Formula • Given QuIDDs , the tensor product QuIDD contains nodes

  40. Persistent Sets • A set is persistent if and only if the set of n pair-wise products of its elements is constant (i.e. the pair-wise product n times) • Consider the tensor product of two matrices whose elements form a persistent set • The number of unique elements in the resulting matrix will be a constant with respect to the number of unique elements in the operands

  41. Relevance to QuIDDs • Tensor products with n QuIDDs whose terminals form a persistent set produce QuIDDs whose sets of terminals do not increase with n

  42. Main Results • Given a persistent set and a constant C, consider n QuIDDs with at most C nodes each and terminal values from . The tensor product of those QuIDDs has O(n) nodes and can be computed in O(n) time. • Matrix multiplication with QuIDDs A and B as operands requires time and produces a result with nodes [2]

  43. Applied to Grover’s Algorithm • Since O(1.41n) Grover iterations are required, and thus O(1.41n) matrix multiplications, does Grover’s algorithm induce exponential memory complexity when using QuIDDs? • Answer: NO! • The internal nodes of the state vector/density matrix QuIDD is the same at the end of each Grover iteration • Runtime and memory requirements are therefore polynomial in the size of the oracle QuIDD

  44. Outline • Background • QuIDD Structure • QuIDD Operations • Simulation Results • Complexity Analysis Results • Ongoing Work

  45. Ongoing Work • Explore error/decoherence models • Simulate Shor’s algorithm • QFT and its inverse are exponential in size as QuIDDs • Other operators are linear in size as QuIDDs • QFT and its inverse are an asymptotic bottleneck • Limitations of quantum computing

  46. Relevant Work G. Viamontes, I. Markov, J. Hayes, “Improving Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum circuits,” Los Alamos Quantum Physics Archive, Sept. 2003 (quant-ph/0309060) G. Viamontes, M. Rajagopalan, I. Markov, J. Hayes, “Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits,” Asia South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pp. 295-301, January 2003 G. Viamontes, M. Rajagopalan, I. Markov, J. Hayes, ‘Gate-Level Simulation of Quantum Circuits,” 6th Intl. Conf. on Quantum Communication, Measurement, and Computing, pp. 311-314, July 2002

  47. References [1] A. N. Al-Rabadi et al., “Multiple-Valued Quantum Logic,” 11th Intl. Workshop on Post Binary ULSI, Boston, MA, May 2002. [2] R. I. Bahar et al., “Algebraic Decision Diagrams and their Applications”, In Proc. IEEE/ACM ICCAD, pp. 188-191, 1993. [3] M. Boyer et al., “Tight Bounds on Quantum Searching”, Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation, Boston, Nov 1996. [4] R. Bryant, “Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation”, IEEE Trans. On Computers, vol. C-35, pp. 677-691, Aug 1986. [5] E. Clarke et al., “Multi-Terminal Binary Decision Diagrams and Hybrid Decision Diagrams”, In T. Sasao and M. Fujita, eds, Representations of Discrete Functions, pp. 93-108, Kluwer, 1996.

  48. References [6] C.Y. Lee, “Representation of Switching Circuits by Binary Decision Diagrams,” Bell System Technical Jour., 38:985-999, 1959. [7] D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers,” Plenary Speech at the 1998 Intl. Conf. on Group Theoretic Methods in Physics, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9807006 [8] D. Greve, “QDD: A Quantum Computer Emulation Library,” http://home.plutonium.net/~dagreve/qdd.html

More Related