Boris Altshuler Columbia University Anderson Localization against Adiabatic Quantum Computation Hari Krovi, Jérémie Roland NEC Laboratories America.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Henry Haselgrove School of Physical Sciences University of Queensland
Advertisements

Local Hamiltonians in Quantum Computation Funding: Slovak Research and Development Agency, contract No. APVV , European Project QAP 2004-IST- FETPI-15848,
Sergey Bravyi, IBM Watson Center Robert Raussendorf, Perimeter Institute Perugia July 16, 2007 Exactly solvable models of statistical physics: applications.
Time Complexity P vs NP.
Midwestern State University Department of Computer Science Dr. Ranette Halverson CMPS 2433 – CHAPTER 4 GRAPHS 1.
Max Cut Problem Daniel Natapov.
Does instruction lead to learning?. A mini-quiz – 5 minutes 1.Write down the ground state wavefunction of the hydrogen atom? 2.What is the radius of the.
1 NP-completeness Lecture 2: Jan P The class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time. e.g. gcd, shortest path, prime, etc. There are many.
Doing Very Big Calculations on Modest Size Computers Reducing the Cost of Exact Diagonalization Using Singular Value Decomposistion Marvin Weinstein, Assa.
1 MERLIN A polynomial solution for the Traveling Salesman Problem Dr. Joachim Mertz, 2005.
Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Chukman So ( ) Steven Lee ( ) December 3, 2009 for CS C191 In this presentation we will talk about the quantum.
Introduction to Molecular Orbitals
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Chapter 8 The Theory of NP-Completeness.
Disorder and chaos in quantum system: Anderson localization and its generalization (6 lectures) Boris Altshuler (Columbia) Igor Aleiner (Columbia)
Structure learning with deep neuronal networks 6 th Network Modeling Workshop, 6/6/2013 Patrick Michl.
Adiabatic Quantum Computation with Noisy Qubits Mohammad Amin D-Wave Systems Inc., Vancouver, Canada.
Computability and Complexity 14-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Cook’s Theorem.
Computability and Complexity 13-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov The Class NP.
An Algorithm for Polytope Decomposition and Exact Computation of Multiple Integrals.
Analysis of Algorithms CS 477/677
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture NP-Completeness Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Schrödinger’s Elephants & Quantum Slide Rules A.M. Zagoskin (FRS RIKEN & UBC) S. Savel’ev (FRS RIKEN & Loughborough U.) F. Nori (FRS RIKEN & U. of Michigan)
Universal adiabatic dynamics across a quantum critical point Anatoli Polkovnikov, Boston University.
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power Copyright © 2007 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
1.1 Chapter 1: Introduction What is the course all about? Problems, instances and algorithms Running time v.s. computational complexity General description.
MCS312: NP-completeness and Approximation Algorithms
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power. Lower Bounds Lower bound: an estimate on a minimum amount of work needed to solve a given problem Examples:
Computational Complexity Polynomial time O(n k ) input size n, k constant Tractable problems solvable in polynomial time(Opposite Intractable) Ex: sorting,
The Limits of Adiabatic Quantum Algorithms
F.F. Assaad. MPI-Stuttgart. Universität-Stuttgart Numerical approaches to the correlated electron problem: Quantum Monte Carlo.  The Monte.
Theory of Computing Lecture 17 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Merlin-Arthur Games and Stoquastic Hamiltonians B.M. Terhal, IBM Research based on work with Bravyi, Bessen, DiVincenzo & Oliveira. quant-ph/ &
NP Complexity By Mussie Araya. What is NP Complexity? Formal Definition: NP is the set of decision problems solvable in polynomial time by a non- deterministic.
1 Lower Bounds Lower bound: an estimate on a minimum amount of work needed to solve a given problem Examples: b number of comparisons needed to find the.
Support Vector Machines Reading: Ben-Hur and Weston, “A User’s Guide to Support Vector Machines” (linked from class web page)
EMIS 8373: Integer Programming NP-Complete Problems updated 21 April 2009.
Quantum Two 1. 2 Evolution of Many Particle Systems 3.
1 Dorit Aharonov Hebrew Univ. & UC Berkeley Adiabatic Quantum Computation.
A Study of Error-Correcting Codes for Quantum Adiabatic Computing Omid Etesami Daniel Preda CS252 – Spring 2007.
NP-Complete Problems. Running Time v.s. Input Size Concern with problems whose complexity may be described by exponential functions. Tractable problems.
Lecture 6 NP Class. P = ? NP = ? PSPACE They are central problems in computational complexity.
Clase 3: Basic Concepts of Search. Problems: SAT, TSP. Tarea 1 Computación Evolutiva Gabriela Ochoa
Vector Quantization CAP5015 Fall 2005.
Lecture 25 NP Class. P = ? NP = ? PSPACE They are central problems in computational complexity.
1 CPSC 320: Intermediate Algorithm Design and Analysis July 30, 2014.
Solving the Logic Satisfiability problem Solving the Logic Satisfiability problem Jesus De Loera.
Fidelity of a Quantum ARQ Protocol Alexei Ashikhmin Bell Labs  Classical Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) Protocol  Quantum Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ)
Determining the Complexity of the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm using Monte Carlo Simulations A.P. Young, University of California Santa Cruz
Adiabatic Quantum Computing Josh Ball with advisor Professor Harsh Mathur Problems which are classically difficult to solve may be solved much more quickly.
NP-complete Languages
Given this 3-SAT problem: (x1 or x2 or x3) AND (¬x1 or ¬x2 or ¬x2) AND (¬x3 or ¬x1 or x2) 1. Draw the graph that you would use if you want to solve this.
Ground State Entanglement in 1-Dimensional Translationally-Invariant Quantum Systems Sandy Irani Computer Science Department University of California,
5. The Harmonic Oscillator Consider a general problem in 1D Particles tend to be near their minimum Taylor expand V(x) near its minimum Recall V’(x 0 )
COSC 3101A - Design and Analysis of Algorithms 14 NP-Completeness.
Lecture from Quantum Mechanics. Marek Zrałek Field Theory and Particle Physics Department. Silesian University Lecture 6.
On the spectrum of Hamiltonians in finite dimensions Roberto Oliveira Paraty, August 14 th Joint with David DiVincenzo and Barbara IBM Watson.
Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis Lecture 24
Divide and Conquer.
Richard Anderson Lecture 26 NP-Completeness
Lecture 2-2 NP Class.
Computability and Complexity
Structure learning with deep autoencoders
Quantum One.
The Harmonic Oscillator
Complexity 6-1 The Class P Complexity Andrei Bulatov.
Hidden Markov Models Part 2: Algorithms
The Curve Merger (Dvir & Widgerson, 2008)
Adaptive Perturbation Theory: QM and Field Theory
On The Quantitative Hardness of the Closest Vector Problem
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Presentation transcript:

Boris Altshuler Columbia University Anderson Localization against Adiabatic Quantum Computation Hari Krovi, Jérémie Roland NEC Laboratories America

Nondeterministic polynomial time NP Solution can be checked in a polynomial time, e.g. factorization Computational Complexity Complexity Classes Polynomial time is the size of the problem Solution can be found in a polynomial time, e.g. multiplication Every NP problem can be reduced to this problem in a polynomial time NPcomplete P

NPcomplete Cook – Levin theorem (1971): SAT problem is NP complete Now: ~ 3000 known NP complete problems

P = NP ?

1 in 3 SAT 1 in 3 SAT problem bits laterals Ising spins clauses N M Clause c is satisfied if one of the three spins is down and other two are up or Otherwise the clause is not satisfied Task: Task: to satisfy all M clauses Definition

1 in 3 SAT 1 in 3 SAT problem bits laterals Ising spins clauses N M Clause c is satisfied if one of the three spins is down and other two are up. Otherwise the clause is not satisfied Task: to satisfy all M clauses Size of the problem: No solutions Few solutions Many solutions

bits laterals Ising spins clauses N M No solutions Few solutions Many solutions clustering threshold satisfiability threshold

Otherwise Solutions and only solutions are zero energy ground states of the Hamiltonian B i – number of clauses, which involve spin i J ij – number of clauses, where both i and j participate

Recipe: 1. Construct the Hamiltonian 2.Slowly change adiabatic parameter s from 0 to 1 Adiabatic Quantum Computation Assume that 1.Solution can be coded by some assignment of bits (Ising spins) 2. It is a ground state of a Hamiltonian 3. We have a system of qubits and can initialize it in the ground state of another Hamiltonian E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, Science 292, 472(2001)

Recipe: 1. Construct the Hamiltonian 2.Slowly change adiabatic parameter s from 0 to 1 Adiabatic Quantum Computation E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, Science 292, 472(2001) Adiabatic theorem: Quantum system initialized in a ground state remains in the ground state at any moment of time if the time evolution of its Hamiltonian is slow enough

Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm for 1 in 3 SAT Recipe: 1. Construct the Hamiltonian 2.Slowly change adiabatic parameter s from 0 to 1

determines a site of N -dimensional cube Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm for 1 in 3 SAT Ising model (determined on a graph ) in a perpendicular field Another way of thinking: onsite energy hoping between nearest neighbors

Anderson Model Lattice - tight binding model Onsite energies  i - random Hopping matrix elements I ij j i I ij I ij = { I i and j are nearest neighbors 0 otherwise -W <  i <W uniformly distributed I < I c I > I c Insulator All eigenstates are localized Localization length  loc Metal There appear states extended all over the whole system Anderson Transition

determines a site of N -dimensional cube Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm for 1 in 3 SAT Another way of thinking: onsite energy hoping between nearest neighbors Anderson Model on N -dimensional cube

Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm for 1 in 3 SAT Anderson Model on N -dimensional cube Usually: # of dimensions system linear size Here: # of dimensions system linear size

Adiabatic theorem: slow enough Quantum system initialized in a ground state remains in the ground state at any moment of time if the time evolution of its Hamiltonian is slow enough Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm for 1 in 3 SAT g.s. Calculation time is anticrossing

Calculation time is barrier System needs time to tunnel ! Localized states Exponentially long tunneling times Exponentially small anticrossing gaps Minimal gap Tunneling matrix element

Calculation time is barrier System needs time to tunnel ! Localized states Exponentially long tunneling times Exponentially small anticrossing gaps Minimal gap Tunneling matrix element

1.Hamiltonian is integrable: it commutes with all. Its states thus can be degenerated. These degeneracies should split at finite since is non-integrable For   is close to  s  there typically are several solutions separated by distances. Consider two. When the gaps decrease even quicker than exponentially

Let us add one more clause, which is satisfied by but not by When the gaps decrease even quicker than exponentially 2. For   is close to  s  there typically are several solutions separated by distances. Consider two. 1.Hamiltonian is integrable: it commutes with all. Its states thus can be degenerated. These degeneracies should split at finite since is non-integrable

When the gaps decrease even quicker than exponentially 3. Let us add one more clause, which is satisfied by but not by 1.Hamiltonian is integrable: it commutes with all. Its states thus can be degenerated. These degeneracies should be split by finite in non-integrable 2. For   is close to  s  there typically are several solutions separated by distances. Consider two. 2 1

Q1: Is the splitting big enough for to remain the ground state at large ? Q2: How big would be the anticrossing gap ?

Q1: Is the splitting big enough for to remain the ground state at large ? Perturbation theory in  } Cluster expansion: ~ N terms of order 1 1. is exactly the same for all states, i.e. for all solutions. In the leading order 2. In each order of the perturbation theory a sum of terms with random signs. In the leading order in

Q1: Is the splitting big enough for to remain the ground state at large ? Q1.1: How big is the interval in, where perturbation theory is valid ? A1.1: It works as long as -Anderson localization ! Important: (?) when

In the leading order in Q1: Is the splitting big enough for to remain the ground state at finite ? Q1.1: How big is the interval in, where perturbation theory is valid ? A1.1: It works as long as -Anderson localization ! Important: (?) when

Clause, which involves spins different in the two solutions 1.Spins that distinguish the two solutions form a graph 2.This graph is connected 3.Both solutions correspond to minimal energy on the graph. : energy is 1 if one of the spins if flipped and 0 otherwise Ising model in field on the graph. 4. The field forms symmetric and antisymmetric linear combinations of the two ground states. 5. The anticrossing gap is the difference between the ground state energies of the two “vacuums”. Q2: How big is the anticrossing gap ? common - 1 common 1 different Two solutions. Spins:

Q2: How big is the anticrossing gap ? Ising model in perp.field on the graph. The anticrossing gap is the difference between the ground state energies of the two “vacuums”. Conventional case –number of different spins Tree

Q2: How big is the anticrossing gap ? Adiabatic quantum computer badly fails at large enough N Existing classical algorithms for solving 1 in 3 SAT problem work for

Conclusion Original idea of adiabatic quantum computation will not work Hope Maybe the delocalized ground state at finite contains information that can speed up the classical algorithm ?