Connect with us

Quantum

What Makes Quantum Computing So Hard to Explain?

Published

on

Quantum computers, you might have heard, are magical uber-machines that will soon cure cancer and global warming by trying all possible answers in different parallel universes. For 15 years, on my blog and elsewhere, I’ve railed against this cartoonish vision, trying to explain what I see as the subtler but ironically even more fascinating truth. I approach this as a public service and almost my moral duty as a quantum computing researcher. Alas, the work feels Sisyphean: The cringeworthy hype about quantum computers has only increased over the years, as corporations and governments have invested billions, and as the technology has progressed to programmable 50-qubit devices that (on certain contrived benchmarks) really can give the world’s biggest supercomputers a run for their money. And just as in cryptocurrency, machine learning and other trendy fields, with money have come hucksters.

In reflective moments, though, I get it. The reality is that even if you removed all the bad incentives and the greed, quantum computing would still be hard to explain briefly and honestly without math. As the quantum computing pioneer Richard Feynman once said about the quantum electrodynamics work that won him the Nobel Prize, if it were possible to describe it in a few sentences, it wouldn’t have been worth a Nobel Prize.

Not that that’s stopped people from trying. Ever since Peter Shor discovered in 1994 that a quantum computer could break most of the encryption that protects transactions on the internet, excitement about the technology has been driven by more than just intellectual curiosity. Indeed, developments in the field typically get covered as business or technology stories rather than as science ones.

That would be fine if a business or technology reporter could truthfully tell readers, “Look, there’s all this deep quantum stuff under the hood, but all you need to understand is the bottom line: Physicists are on the verge of building faster computers that will revolutionize everything.”

The trouble is that quantum computers will not revolutionize everything.

Yes, they might someday solve a few specific problems in minutes that (we think) would take longer than the age of the universe on classical computers. But there are many other important problems for which most experts think quantum computers will help only modestly, if at all. Also, while Google and others recently made credible claims that they had achieved contrived quantum speedups, this was only for specific, esoteric benchmarks (ones that I helped develop). A quantum computer that’s big and reliable enough to outperform classical computers at practical applications like breaking cryptographic codes and simulating chemistry is likely still a long way off.

But how could a programmable computer be faster for only some problems? Do we know which ones? And what does a “big and reliable” quantum computer even mean in this context? To answer these questions we have to get into the deep stuff.

Let’s start with quantum mechanics. (What could be deeper?) The concept of superposition is infamously hard to render in everyday words. So, not surprisingly, many writers opt for an easy way out: They say that superposition means “both at once,” so that a quantum bit, or qubit, is just a bit that can be “both 0 and 1 at the same time,” while a classical bit can be only one or the other. They go on to say that a quantum computer would achieve its speed by using qubits to try all possible solutions in superposition — that is, at the same time, or in parallel.

This is what I’ve come to think of as the fundamental misstep of quantum computing popularization, the one that leads to all the rest. From here it’s just a short hop to quantum computers quickly solving something like the traveling salesperson problem by trying all possible answers at once — something almost all experts believe they won’t be able to do.

The thing is, for a computer to be useful, at some point you need to look at it and read an output. But if you look at an equal superposition of all possible answers, the rules of quantum mechanics say you’ll just see and read a random answer. And if that’s all you wanted, you could’ve picked one yourself.

What superposition really means is “complex linear combination.” Here, we mean “complex” not in the sense of “complicated” but in the sense of a real plus an imaginary number, while “linear combination” means we add together different multiples of states. So a qubit is a bit that has a complex number called an amplitude attached to the possibility that it’s 0, and a different amplitude attached to the possibility that it’s 1. These amplitudes are closely related to probabilities, in that the further some outcome’s amplitude is from zero, the larger the chance of seeing that outcome; more precisely, the probability equals the distance squared.

But amplitudes are not probabilities. They follow different rules. For example, if some contributions to an amplitude are positive and others are negative, then the contributions can interfere destructively and cancel each other out, so that the amplitude is zero and the corresponding outcome is never observed; likewise, they can interfere constructively and increase the likelihood of a given outcome. The goal in devising an algorithm for a quantum computer is to choreograph a pattern of constructive and destructive interference so that for each wrong answer the contributions to its amplitude cancel each other out, whereas for the right answer the contributions reinforce each other. If, and only if, you can arrange that, you’ll see the right answer with a large probability when you look. The tricky part is to do this without knowing the answer in advance, and faster than you could do it with a classical computer.

Twenty-seven years ago, Shor showed how to do all this for the problem of factoring integers, which breaks the widely used cryptographic codes underlying much of online commerce. We now know how to do it for some other problems, too, but only by exploiting the special mathematical structures in those problems. It’s not just a matter of trying all possible answers at once.

Compounding the difficulty is that, if you want to talk honestly about quantum computing, then you also need the conceptual vocabulary of theoretical computer science. I’m often asked how many times faster a quantum computer will be than today’s computers. A million times? A billion?

This question misses the point of quantum computers, which is to achieve better “scaling behavior,” or running time as a function of n, the number of bits of input data. This could mean taking a problem where the best classical algorithm needs a number of steps that grows exponentially with n, and solving it using a number of steps that grows only as n2. In such cases, for small n, solving the problem with a quantum computer will actually be slower and more expensive than solving it classically. It’s only as n grows that the quantum speedup first appears and then eventually comes to dominate.

But how can we know that there’s no classical shortcut — a conventional algorithm that would have similar scaling behavior to the quantum algorithm’s? Though typically ignored in popular accounts, this question is central to quantum algorithms research, where often the difficulty is not so much proving that a quantum computer can do something quickly, but convincingly arguing that a classical computer can’t. Alas, it turns out to be staggeringly hard to prove that problems are hard, as illustrated by the famous P versus NP problem (which asks, roughly, whether every problem with quickly checkable solutions can also be quickly solved). This is not just an academic issue, a matter of dotting i’s: Over the past few decades, conjectured quantum speedups have repeatedly gone away when classical algorithms were found with similar performance.

Note that, after explaining all this, I still haven’t said a word about the practical difficulty of building quantum computers. The problem, in a word, is decoherence, which means unwanted interaction between a quantum computer and its environment — nearby electric fields, warm objects, and other things that can record information about the qubits. This can result in premature “measurement” of the qubits, which collapses them down to classical bits that are either definitely 0 or definitely 1. The only known solution to this problem is quantum error correction: a scheme, proposed in the mid-1990s, that cleverly encodes each qubit of the quantum computation into the collective state of dozens or even thousands of physical qubits. But researchers are only now starting to make such error correction work in the real world, and actually putting it to use will take much longer. When you read about the latest experiment with 50 or 60 physical qubits, it’s important to understand that the qubits aren’t error-corrected. Until they are, we don’t expect to be able to scale beyond a few hundred qubits.

Once someone understands these concepts, I’d say they’re ready to start reading — or possibly even writing — an article on the latest claimed advance in quantum computing. They’ll know which questions to ask in the constant struggle to distinguish reality from hype. Understanding this stuff really is possible — after all, it isn’t rocket science; it’s just quantum computing!

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-quantum-computing-so-hard-to-explain-20210608/

Quantum

Secret Workings of Smell Receptors Revealed for First Time

Published

on

Smell, rather than sight, reigns as the supreme sense for most animals. It allows them to find food, avoid danger and attract mates; it dominates their perceptions and guides their behavior; it dictates how they interpret and respond to the deluge of sensory information all around them.

“How we as biological creatures interface with chemistry in the world is profoundly important for understanding who we are and how we navigate the universe,” said Bob Datta, a neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School.

Yet olfaction might also be the least well understood of our senses, in part because of the complexity of the inputs it must reckon with. What we might label as a single odor — the smell of coffee in the morning, of wet grass after a summer storm, of shampoo or perfume — is often a mixture of hundreds of types of chemicals. For an animal to detect and discriminate between the many scents that are key to its survival, the limited repertoire of receptors on its olfactory sensory neurons must somehow recognize a vast number of compounds. So an individual receptor has to be able to respond to many diverse, seemingly unrelated odor molecules.

That versatility is at odds with the traditional lock-and-key model governing how selective chemical interactions tend to work. “In high school biology, that’s what I learned about ligand-receptor interactions,” said Annika Barber, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University. “Something has to fit precisely in a site, and then it changes the [protein’s atomic arrangement], and then it works.”

Now, new work has taken a crucial and much anticipated step forward in elucidating the beginning stages of the olfactory process. In a preprint posted online earlier this year, a team of researchers at Rockefeller University in New York provided the first molecular view of an olfactory receptor as it bound to an odor molecule. “That’s been a dream in the field” ever since olfactory receptors were discovered 30 years ago, said Richard Benton, a biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who was not involved in the new study.

“It’s unequivocally a landmark paper,” Datta said. “Although we’ve had access to receptors as molecules for a long time, no one’s ever actually seen with their eyes what it looks like when an odor binds to a receptor.”

The result goes a long way toward confirming how animals identify and discriminate among astronomical numbers of smells. It also sheds light on key principles of receptor activity that might have far-reaching implications — for the evolution of chemical perception, for our understanding of how other neurological systems and processes work, and for practical applications like the development of targeted drugs and insect repellents.

Several hypotheses have competed to explain how olfactory receptors achieve the necessary flexibility. Some scientists proposed that receptors respond to a single feature of odor molecules, such as shape or size; the brain might then identify an odor from some combination of those inputs. Other researchers posited that each receptor has multiple binding sites, enabling different kinds of compounds to dock. But to figure out which of these ideas was correct, they needed to see the receptor’s actual structure.

The Rockefeller team turned to receptor interactions in the jumping bristletail, an ancestral ground-dwelling insect that has a particularly simple olfactory receptor system.

In insects, olfactory receptors are ion channels that activate when an odor molecule binds to them. They may be the largest and most divergent family of ion channels in nature, with millions of variants across the world’s insect species. And so they must carefully balance generality against specificity, staying flexible enough to detect an enormous number of potential odors while being selective enough to reliably recognize the important ones, which could differ considerably from one species or environment to another.

What was the mechanism that allowed them to navigate that fine line, and to evolve that way? “It’s a crazy system to think about,” said Vanessa Ruta, a neuroscientist at Rockefeller University who led the research reported in the recent preprint. “So we realized that the best way to gain insight into this problem would probably be through structural methods.”

Traditional methods for pinning down the three-dimensional molecular structure of proteins don’t work well on olfactory receptors, which tend to misfold, behave abnormally or become difficult to distinguish under the conditions that those analyses require. But recent technological advances, most notably an imaging technique called cryo-electron microscopy, made it possible for Ruta and her colleagues to try.

They looked at the structure of a jumping bristletail olfactory receptor in three different configurations: by itself, and bound to either a common odor molecule called eugenol (which smells like clove to humans) or the insect repellant DEET. They then compared those structures, down to their individual atoms, to understand how odor binding opened the ion channel, and how a single receptor could detect chemicals of very different shapes and sizes.

“It actually is very beautiful,” Ruta said.

The researchers found that although DEET and eugenol don’t have much in common as molecules, they both docked at the same site within the receptor. That turned out to be a deep, geometrically simple pocket, lined with many amino acids that facilitate loose, weak interactions; eugenol and DEET took advantage of different interactions to lodge within it. Further computational modeling showed that each molecule was able to bind in many different orientations — and that many other kinds of odor compounds, though not all, could bind to the receptor in a similar way. This was no lock-and-key mechanism, but a one-size-fits-many approach.

The receptor “is doing a more holistic recognition of the molecule, as opposed to just detecting any specific structural feature,” Ruta said. “It’s just a very different chemical logic.”

When Ruta and her team introduced changes to the receptor’s pocket, they found that mutations of even a single amino acid were enough to alter its binding properties. And that, in turn, was enough to affect the receptor’s interactions with many compounds, entirely reconfiguring what the receptor responded to.

Widening the pocket, for instance, increased its affinity for DEET, a larger molecule, while decreasing its affinity for eugenol, which may not have been able to fit as snugly due to its smaller size. Such changes would have many downstream effects on the receptor’s broader odor-detecting palette, too, which the researchers were not set up to identify.

The team’s observations may explain how insect olfactory receptors can generally evolve so rapidly and diverge so much among species. Every insect species may have evolved “its unique repertoire of receptors that are really well suited to its particular chemical niche,” Ruta said.

“It tells us that more is going on than just the idea that receptors loosely interact with a bunch of ligands,” Datta said. A receptor built around a single binding pocket, with a response profile that can be retuned by the smallest of tweaks, could speed up evolution by freeing it to explore a broad spectrum of chemical repertoires.

The architecture of the receptor also supported this view. Ruta and her colleagues found that it consisted of four protein subunits loosely bound at the channel’s central pore, like the petals of a flower. Only the central region needed to be conserved as the receptor diversified and evolved; the genetic sequences governing the rest of the receptor units were less constrained. This structural organization meant the receptor could accommodate a wide degree of diversification.

Such light evolutionary constraints at the receptor level probably impose substantial selective pressure downstream on the neural circuits for olfaction: Nervous systems need good mechanisms for decoding the messy patterns of receptor activity. “Effectively, olfactory systems have evolved to take arbitrary patterns of receptor activation and endow them with meaning through learning and experience,” Ruta said.

Intriguingly, though, nervous systems don’t seem to be making the problem easier for themselves. Scientists had widely supposed that all the receptors on an individual olfactory neuron were of the same class, and that neurons for different classes went to segregated processing regions of the brain. In a pair of preprints posted last November, however, researchers reported that in both flies and mosquitoes, individual olfactory neurons express multiple classes of receptors. “Which is really surprising, and would increase the diversity of sensory perception even more,” Barber said.

The findings from Ruta’s team are far from the last word on how olfactory receptors work. Insects use many other classes of ion channel olfactory receptors, including ones that are much more complex and much more specific than those of the jumping bristletail. In mammals, the olfactory receptor is not even an ion channel; it belongs to an entirely different family of proteins.

“This is the first structure of odorant recognition in any receptor from any species. But it’s probably not the only mechanism of odorant recognition,” Ruta said. “This is just one solution to the problem. It would be very unlikely that it’s the only solution.”

Even so, she and other researchers think there are many more general lessons to learn from the jumping bristletail’s olfactory receptor. It’s tempting, for instance, to imagine how this mechanism might apply to other receptors in the brains of animals — from those that detect neuromodulators like dopamine to those that are affected by various kinds of anesthetics — “and how imprecise they are ‘allowed’ to be,” Barber said. “It offers a fascinating model for continuing to explore nonspecific binding interactions.”

Perhaps this flexible-binding approach should be considered in other contexts as well, she added. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March, for example, suggested that even canonical lock-and-key ion channel receptors might not be as strictly selective as scientists thought.

If many different kinds of proteins bind to receptors through flexible, weak interactions within some type of pocket, that principle could guide rational drug design for various diseases, particularly neurological conditions. At the very least, Ruta’s work on the binding of DEET to an insect olfactory receptor could provide insights into how to develop targeted repellents. “The mosquito is still the deadliest animal on Earth” because of the diseases it carries, Ruta said.

Her findings actually clarify a debate more than a half-century old about how DEET works. DEET is one of the most effective insect repellents, but scientists haven’t understood why — whether it smells bad to insects, for instance, or whether it impairs their olfactory signaling. The work by Ruta and her colleagues elevates a different theory: that DEET confuses insects by activating lots of different receptors and flooding their olfactory system with meaningless signals.

“The mystery of chemical recognition is something that we now have a structural lens to think about,” Ruta said. “Structural biology, at its best, is beautiful and clarifying and has amazing explanatory power. My lab does a lot of work in more cellular and systems neuroscience, and very few experiments have as much explanatory power as a structure does.”

Datta agreed about the structural biology approach. “I think it’s really a harbinger of things to come,” he said. “It feels like the future.”

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/secret-workings-of-smell-receptors-revealed-for-first-time-20210621/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Mathematicians Prove 2D Version of Quantum Gravity Really Works

Published

on

Alexander Polyakov, a theoretical physicist now at Princeton University, caught a glimpse of the future of quantum theory in 1981. A range of mysteries, from the wiggling of strings to the binding of quarks into protons, demanded a new mathematical tool whose silhouette he could just make out.

“There are methods and formulae in science which serve as master keys to many apparently different problems,” he wrote in the introduction to a now famous four-page letter in Physics Letters B. “At the present time we have to develop an art of handling sums over random surfaces.”

Polyakov’s proposal proved powerful. In his paper he sketched out a formula that roughly described how to calculate averages of a wildly chaotic type of surface, the “Liouville field.” His work brought physicists into a new mathematical arena, one essential for unlocking the behavior of theoretical objects called strings and building a simplified model of quantum gravity.

Years of toil would lead Polyakov to breakthrough solutions for other theories in physics, but he never fully understood the mathematics behind the Liouville field.

Over the last seven years, however, a group of mathematicians has done what many researchers thought impossible. In a trilogy of landmark publications, they have recast Polyakov’s formula using fully rigorous mathematical language and proved that the Liouville field flawlessly models the phenomena Polyakov thought it would.

“It took us 40 years in math to make sense of four pages,” said Vincent Vargas, a mathematician at the French National Center for Scientific Research and co-author of the research with Rémi Rhodes of Aix-Marseille University, Antti Kupiainen of the University of Helsinki, François David of the French National Center for Scientific Research, and Colin Guillarmou of Paris-Saclay University.

The three papers forge a bridge between the pristine world of mathematics and the messy reality of physics — and they do so by breaking new ground in the mathematical field of probability theory. The work also touches on philosophical questions regarding the objects that take center stage in the leading theories of fundamental physics: quantum fields.

“This is a masterpiece in mathematical physics,” said Xin Sun, a mathematician at the University of Pennsylvania.

Infinite Fields

In physics today, the main actors in the most successful theories are fields — objects that fill space, taking on different values from place to place.

In classical physics, for example, a single field tells you everything about how a force pushes objects around. Take Earth’s magnetic field: The twitches of a compass needle reveal the field’s influence (its strength and direction) at every point on the planet.

Fields are central to quantum physics, too. However, the situation here is more complicated due to the deep randomness of quantum theory. From the quantum perspective, Earth doesn’t generate one magnetic field, but rather an infinite number of different ones. Some look almost like the field we observe in classical physics, but others are wildly different.

But physicists still want to make predictions — predictions that ideally match, in this case, what a mountaineer reads on a compass. Assimilating the infinite forms of a quantum field into a single prediction is the formidable task of a “quantum field theory,” or QFT. This is a model of how one or more quantum fields, each with their infinite variations, act and interact.

Driven by immense experimental support, QFTs have become the basic language of particle physics. The Standard Model is one such QFT, depicting fundamental particles like electrons as fuzzy bumps that emerge from an infinitude of electron fields. It has passed every experimental test to date (although various groups may be on the verge of finding the first holes).

Physicists play with many different QFTs. Some, like the Standard Model, aspire to model real particles moving through the four dimensions of our universe (three spatial dimensions plus one dimension of time). Others describe exotic particles in strange universes, from two-dimensional flatlands to six-dimensional uber-worlds. Their connection to reality is remote, but physicists study them in the hopes of gaining insights they can carry back into our own world.

Polyakov’s Liouville field theory is one such example.

Gravity’s Field

The Liouville field, which is based on an equation from complex analysis developed in the 1800s by the French mathematician Joseph Liouville, describes a completely random two-dimensional surface — that is, a surface, like Earth’s crust, but one in which the height of every point is chosen randomly. Such a planet would erupt with mountain ranges of infinitely tall peaks, each assigned by rolling a die with infinite faces.

Such an object might not seem like an informative model for physics, but randomness is not devoid of patterns. The bell curve, for example, tells you how likely you are to randomly pass a seven-foot basketball player on the street. Similarly, bulbous clouds and crinkly coastlines follow random patterns, but it’s nevertheless possible to discern consistent relationships between their large-scale and small-scale features.

Liouville theory can be used to identify patterns in the endless landscape of all possible random, jagged surfaces. Polyakov realized this chaotic topography was essential for modeling strings, which trace out surfaces as they move. The theory has also been applied to describe quantum gravity in a two-dimensional world. Einstein defined gravity as space-time’s curvature, but translating his description into the language of quantum field theory creates an infinite number of space-times — much as the Earth produces an infinite collection of magnetic fields. Liouville theory packages all those surfaces together into one object. It gives physicists the tools to measure the curvature —and hence, gravitation — at every location on a random 2D surface.

“Quantum gravity basically means random geometry, because quantum means random and gravity means geometry,” said Sun.

Polyakov’s first step in exploring the world of random surfaces was to write down an expression defining the odds of finding a particular spiky planet, much as the bell curve defines the odds of meeting someone of a particular height. But his formula did not lead to useful numerical predictions.

To solve a quantum field theory is to be able to use the field to predict observations. In practice, this means calculating a field’s “correlation functions,” which capture the field’s behavior by describing the extent to which a measurement of the field at one point relates, or correlates, to a measurement at another point. Calculating correlation functions in the photon field, for instance, can give you the textbook laws of quantum electromagnetism.

Polyakov was after something more abstract: the essence of random surfaces, similar to the statistical relationships that make a cloud a cloud or a coastline a coastline. He needed the correlations between the haphazard heights of the Liouville field. Over the decades he tried two different ways of calculating them. He started with a technique called the Feynman path integral and ended up developing a workaround known as the bootstrap. Both methods came up short in different ways, until the mathematicians behind the new work united them in a more precise formulation.

Add ’Em Up

You might imagine that accounting for the infinitely many forms a quantum field can take is next to impossible. And you would be right. In the 1940s Richard Feynman, a quantum physics pioneer, developed one prescription for dealing with this bewildering situation, but the method proved severely limited.

Take, again, Earth’s magnetic field. Your goal is to use quantum field theory to predict what you’ll observe when you take a compass reading at a particular location. To do this, Feynman proposed summing all the field’s forms together. He argued that your reading will represent some average of all the field’s possible forms. The procedure for adding up these infinite field configurations with the proper weighting is known as the Feynman path integral.

It’s an elegant idea that yields concrete answers only for select quantum fields. No known mathematical procedure can meaningfully average an infinite number of objects covering an infinite expanse of space in general. The path integral is more of a physics philosophy than an exact mathematical recipe. Mathematicians question its very existence as a valid operation and are bothered by the way physicists rely on it.

“I’m disturbed as a mathematician by something which is not defined,” said Eveliina Peltola, a mathematician at the University of Bonn in Germany.

Physicists can harness Feynman’s path integral to calculate exact correlation functions for only the most boring of fields — free fields, which do not interact with other fields or even with themselves. Otherwise, they have to fudge it, pretending the fields are free and adding in mild interactions, or “perturbations.” This procedure, known as perturbation theory, gets them correlation functions for most of the fields in the Standard Model, because nature’s forces happen to be quite feeble.

But it didn’t work for Polyakov. Although he initially speculated that the Liouville field might be amenable to the standard hack of adding mild perturbations, he found that it interacted with itself too strongly. Compared to a free field, the Liouville field seemed mathematically inscrutable, and its correlation functions appeared unattainable.

Up by the Bootstraps

Polyakov soon began looking for a workaround. In 1984, he teamed up with Alexander Belavin and Alexander Zamolodchikov to develop a technique called the bootstrap — a mathematical ladder that gradually leads to a field’s correlation functions.

To start climbing the ladder, you need a function which expresses the correlations between measurements at a mere three points in the field. This “three-point correlation function,” plus some additional information about the energies a particle of the field can take, forms the bottom rung of the bootstrap ladder.

From there you climb one point at a time: Use the three-point function to construct the four-point function, use the four-point function to construct the five-point function, and so on. But the procedure generates conflicting results if you start with the wrong three-point correlation function in the first rung.

Polyakov, Belavin and Zamolodchikov used the bootstrap to successfully solve a variety of simple QFT theories, but just as with the Feynman path integral, they couldn’t make it work for the Liouville field.

Then in the 1990s two pairs of physicists — Harald Dorn and Hans-Jörg Otto, and Zamolodchikov and his brother Alexei — managed to hit on the three-point correlation function that made it possible to scale the ladder, completely solving the Liouville field (and its simple description of quantum gravity). Their result, known by their initials as the DOZZ formula, let physicists make any prediction involving the Liouville field. But even the authors knew they had arrived at it partially by chance, not through sound mathematics.

“They were these kind of geniuses who guessed formulas,” said Vargas.

Educated guesses are useful in physics, but they don’t satisfy mathematicians, who afterward wanted to know where the DOZZ formula came from. The equation that solved the Liouville field should have come from some description of the field itself, even if no one had the faintest idea how to get it.

“It looked to me like science fiction,” said Kupiainen. “This is never going to be proven by anybody.”

Taming Wild Surfaces

In the early 2010s, Vargas and Kupiainen joined forces with the probability theorist Rémi Rhodes and the physicist François David. Their goal was to tie up the mathematical loose ends of the Liouville field — to formalize the Feynman path integral that Polyakov had abandoned and, just maybe, demystify the DOZZ formula.

As they began, they realized that a French mathematician named Jean-Pierre Kahane had discovered, decades earlier, what would turn out to be the key to Polyakov’s master theory.

“In some sense it’s completely crazy that Liouville was not defined before us,” Vargas said. “All the ingredients were there.”

The insight led to three milestone papers in mathematical physics completed between 2014 and 2020.

They first polished off the path integral, which had failed Polyakov because the Liouville field interacts strongly with itself, making it incompatible with Feynman’s perturbative tools. So instead, the mathematicians used Kahane’s ideas to recast the wild Liouville field as a somewhat milder random object known as the Gaussian free field. The peaks in the Gaussian free field don’t fluctuate to the same random extremes as the peaks in the Liouville field, making it possible for the mathematicians to calculate averages and other statistical measures in sensible ways.

“Somehow it’s all just using the Gaussian free field,” Peltola said. “From that they can construct everything in the theory.”

In 2014, they unveiled their result: a new and improved version of the path integral Polyakov had written down in 1981, but fully defined in terms of the trusted Gaussian free field. It’s a rare instance in which Feynman’s path integral philosophy has found a solid mathematical execution.

“Path integrals can exist, do exist,” said Jörg Teschner, a physicist at the German Electron Synchrotron.

With a rigorously defined path integral in hand, the researchers then tried to see if they could use it to get answers from the Liouville field and to derive its correlation functions. The target was the mythical DOZZ formula — but the gulf between it and the path integral seemed vast.

“We’d write in our papers, just for propaganda reasons, that we want to understand the DOZZ formula,” said Kupiainen.

The team spent years prodding their probabilistic path integral, confirming that it truly had all the features needed to make the bootstrap work. As they did so, they built on earlier work by Teschner. Eventually, Vargas, Kupiainen and Rhodes succeeded with a paper posted in 2017 and another in October 2020, with Colin Guillarmou. They derived DOZZ and other correlation functions from the path integral and showed that these formulas perfectly matched the equations physicists had reached using the bootstrap.

“Now we’re done,” Vargas said. “Both objects are the same.”

The work explains the origins of the DOZZ formula and connects the bootstrap procedure —which mathematicians had considered sketchy — with verified mathematical objects. Altogether, it resolves the final mysteries of the Liouville field.

“It’s somehow the end of an era,” said Peltola. “But I hope it’s also the beginning of some new, interesting things.”

New Hope for QFTs

Vargas and his collaborators now have a unicorn on their hands, a strongly interacting QFT perfectly described in a nonperturbative way by a brief mathematical formula that also makes numerical predictions.

Now the literal million-dollar question is: How far can these probabilistic methods go? Can they generate tidy formulas for all QFTs? Vargas is quick to dash such hopes, insisting that their tools are specific to the two-dimensional environment of Liouville theory. In higher dimensions, even free fields are too irregular, so he doubts the group’s methods will ever be able to handle the quantum behavior of gravitational fields in our universe.

But the fresh minting of Polyakov’s “master key” will open other doors. Its effects are already being felt in probability theory, where mathematicians can now wield previously dodgy physics formulas with impunity. Emboldened by the Liouville work, Sun and his collaborators have already imported equations from physics to solve two problems regarding random curves.

Physicists await tangible benefits too, further down the road. The rigorous construction of the Liouville field could inspire mathematicians to try their hand at proving features of other seemingly intractable QFTs — not just toy theories of gravity but descriptions of real particles and forces that bear directly on the deepest physical secrets of reality.

“[Mathematicians] will do things that we can’t even imagine,” said Davide Gaiotto, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-prove-2d-version-of-quantum-gravity-really-works-20210617/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Warm-starting quantum optimization

Published

on

Daniel J. Egger1, Jakub Mareček2, and Stefan Woerner1

1IBM Quantum, IBM Research – Zurich, Säumerstrasse 4, 8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland
2Czech Technical University, Karlovo nam. 13, Prague 2, the Czech Republic

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in quantum algorithms for problems of integer programming and combinatorial optimization. Classical solvers for such problems employ relaxations, which replace binary variables with continuous ones, for instance in the form of higher-dimensional matrix-valued problems (semidefinite programming). Under the Unique Games Conjecture, these relaxations often provide the best performance ratios available classically in polynomial time. Here, we discuss how to warm-start quantum optimization with an initial state corresponding to the solution of a relaxation of a combinatorial optimization problem and how to analyze properties of the associated quantum algorithms. In particular, this allows the quantum algorithm to inherit the performance guarantees of the classical algorithm. We illustrate this in the context of portfolio optimization, where our results indicate that warm-starting the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is particularly beneficial at low depth. Likewise, Recursive QAOA for MAXCUT problems shows a systematic increase in the size of the obtained cut for fully connected graphs with random weights, when Goemans-Williamson randomized rounding is utilized in a warm start. It is straightforward to apply the same ideas to other randomized-rounding schemes and optimization problems.

Many optimization problems in binary decision variables are hard to solve. In this work, we demonstrate how to leverage decades of research in classical optimization algorithms to warm-start quantum optimization algorithms. This allows the quantum algorithm to inherit the performance guarantees from the classical algorithm used in the warm-start.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] Nikolaj Moll, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Lev S. Bishop, Jerry M. Chow, Andrew Cross, Daniel J. Egger, Stefan Filipp, Andreas Fuhrer, Jay M. Gambetta, Marc Ganzhorn, and et al. Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Sci. Technol., 3 (3): 030503, 2018. 10.1088/​2058-9565/​aab822.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​aab822

[2] Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. Corcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature, 567: 491–495, 2018. 10.1038/​s41586-019-1040-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41586-019-1040-7

[3] Marc Ganzhorn, Daniel J. Egger, Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Pauline Ollitrault, Gian Salis, Nikolaj Moll, Andreas Fuhrer, Peter Mueller, Stefan Woerner, Ivano Tavernelli, and Stefan Filipp. Gate-efficient simulation of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Applied, 11: 044092, Apr 2019. 10.1103/​PhysRevApplied.11.044092.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevApplied.11.044092

[4] Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549 (7671): 195–202, 2017. 10.1038/​nature23474.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature23474

[5] Vojtech Havlicek, Antonio D. Corcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces. Nature, 567: 209 – 212, 2019. 10.1038/​s41586-019-0980-2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41586-019-0980-2

[6] Daniel J. Egger, Claudio Gambella, Jakub Mareček, Scott McFaddin, Martin Mevissen, Rudy Raymond, Aandrea Simonetto, Sefan Woerner, and Elena Yndurain. Quantum computing for finance: State-of-the-art and future prospects. IEEE Trans. on Quantum Eng., 1: 1–24, 2020. 10.1109/​TQE.2020.3030314.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TQE.2020.3030314

[7] Stefan Woerner and Daniel J. Egger. Quantum risk analysis. npj Quantum Inf., 5: 15, 2019. 10.1038/​s41534-019-0130-6.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-019-0130-6

[8] Patrick Rebentrost, Brajesh Gupt, and Thomas R. Bromley. Quantum computational finance: Monte Carlo pricing of financial derivatives. Phys. Rev. A, 98: 022321, Aug 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.022321.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.022321

[9] Nikitas Stamatopoulos, Daniel J. Egger, Yue Sun, Christa Zoufal, Raban Iten, Ning Shen, and Stefan Woerner. Option pricing using quantum computers. Quantum, 4: 291, 2020. 10.22331/​q-2020-07-06-291.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-07-06-291

[10] Ana Martin, Bruno Candelas, Ángel Rodríguez-Rozas, José D. Martín-Guerrero, Xi Chen, Lucas Lamata, Román Orús, Enrique Solano, and Mikel Sanz. Toward pricing financial derivatives with an ibm quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Research, 3: 013167, Feb 2021. 10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.3.013167.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.3.013167

[11] Roman Orus, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Rev. Phys., 4: 100028, 2019. 10.1016/​j.revip.2019.100028.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.revip.2019.100028

[12] Daniel J. Egger, Ricardo G. Gutierrez, Jordi Cahue Mestre, and Stefan Woerner. Credit risk analysis using quantum computers. IEEE Trans. Comput., 1: 1–1, Nov 2020. 10.1109/​TC.2020.3038063.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TC.2020.3038063

[13] Almudena Carrera Vazquez and Stefan Woerner. Efficient state preparation for quantum amplitude estimation. Phys. Rev. Applied, 15: 034027, Mar 2021. 10.1103/​PhysRevApplied.15.034027.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevApplied.15.034027

[14] Lee Braine, Daniel J. Egger, Jennifer Glick, and Stefan Woerner. Quantum algorithms for mixed binary optimization applied to transaction settlement. IEEE Trans. on Quantum Eng., 2: 1–8, 2021. 10.1109/​TQE.2021.3063635.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​TQE.2021.3063635

[15] Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Giacomo Nannicini, Anton Robert, Ivano Tavernelli, and Stefan Woerner. Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar. Quantum, 4: 256, Apr 2020. 10.22331/​q-2020-04-20-256.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-04-20-256

[16] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014a. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1411.4028.
arXiv:1411.4028

[17] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem, 2014b. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1412.6062.
arXiv:1412.6062

[18] Zhi-Cheng Yang, Armin Rahmani, Alireza Shabani, Hartmut Neven, and Claudio Chamon. Optimizing variational quantum algorithms using pontryagin’s minimum principle. Phys. Rev. X, 7: 021027, May 2017. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.7.021027.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.7.021027

[19] Mark W. Johnson, Mohammad HS Amin, Suzanne Gildert, Trevor Lanting, Firas Hamze, Neil Dickson, Richard Harris, Andrew J. Berkley, Jan Johansson, Paul Bunyk, and et al. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature, 473 (7346): 194–198, May 2011. 10.1038/​nature10012.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature10012

[20] Glen Bigan Mbeng, Rosario Fazio, and Giuseppe Santoro. Quantum annealing: a journey through digitalization, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1906.08948.
arXiv:1906.08948

[21] Michael Juenger, Elisabeth Lobe, Petra Mutzel, Gerhard Reinelt, Franz Rendl, Giovanni Rinaldi, and Tobias Stollenwerk. Performance of a quantum annealer for Ising ground state computations on chimera graphs, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1904.11965.
arXiv:1904.11965

[22] Rami Barends, Alireza Shabani, Lucas Lamata, Julian Kelly, Antonio Mezzacapo, Urtzi Las Heras, Ryan Babbush, Austin G. Fowler, Brooks Campbell, Yu Chen, and et al. Digitized adiabatic quantum computing with a superconducting circuit. Nature, 534 (7606): 222–226, Jun 2016. 10.1038/​nature17658.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature17658

[23] Madita Willsch, Dennis Willsch, Fengping Jin, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen. Benchmarking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Quantum Inf. Process., 19 (7): 197, Jun 2020. 10.1007/​s11128-020-02692-8.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11128-020-02692-8

[24] Sergey Bravyi, Alexander Kliesch, Robert Koenig, and Eugene Tang. Obstacles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125: 260505, Dec 2020a. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.125.260505.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.125.260505

[25] Gavin E. Crooks. Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1811.08419.
arXiv:1811.08419

[26] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. Quantum algorithms for fixed qubit architectures, 2017. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1703.06199.
arXiv:1703.06199

[27] Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz. Algorithms, 12 (2): 34, Feb 2019. 10.3390/​a12020034.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3390/​a12020034

[28] Linghua Zhu, Ho Lun Tang, George S. Barron, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. An adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2005.10258.
arXiv:2005.10258

[29] Zhihui Wang, Nicholas C. Rubin, Jason M. Dominy, and Eleanor G. Rieffel. XY mixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum alternating operator ansatz. Phys. Rev. A, 101: 012320, Jan 2020. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.101.012320.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.101.012320

[30] Sami Khairy, Ruslan Shaydulin, Lukasz Cincio, Yuri Alexeev, and Prasanna Balaprakash. Learning to optimize variational quantum circuits to solve combinatorial problems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34 (03): 2367–2375, Apr 2020. 10.1609/​aaai.v34i03.5616.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1609/​aaai.v34i03.5616

[31] Matteo M. Wauters, Emanuele Panizon, Glen B. Mbeng, and Giuseppe E. Santoro. Reinforcement-learning-assisted quantum optimization. Phys. Rev. Research, 2: 033446, Sep 2020. 10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.033446.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.033446

[32] Ruslan Shaydulin, Ilya Safro, and Jeffrey Larson. Multistart methods for quantum approximate optimization. 2019 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), pages 1–8, Sep 2019. 10.1109/​HPEC.2019.8916288.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​HPEC.2019.8916288

[33] Ruslan Shaydulin and Yuri Alexeev. Evaluating quantum approximate optimization algorithm: A case study. In 2019 Tenth International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC), pages 1–6, 2019. 10.1109/​IGSC48788.2019.8957201.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​IGSC48788.2019.8957201

[34] Roeland Wiersema, Cunlu Zhou, Yvette de Sereville, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Yong Baek Kim, and Henry Yuen. Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz. PRX Quantum, 1: 020319, Dec 2020. 10.1103/​PRXQuantum.1.020319.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.1.020319

[35] Fernando G. S. L. Brandao, Michael Broughton, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1812.04170.
arXiv:1812.04170

[36] Matthew B. Hastings. Classical and quantum bounded depth approximation algorithms, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1905.07047.
arXiv:1905.07047

[37] Sergey Bravyi, Alexander Kliesch, Robert Koenig, and Eugene Tang. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for approximate graph coloring, 2020b. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2011.13420.
arXiv:2011.13420

[38] Mahabubul Alam, Abdullah Ash-Saki, and Swaroop Ghosh. Analysis of quantum approximate optimization algorithm under realistic noise in superconducting qubits, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1907.09631.
arXiv:1907.09631

[39] Vishwanathan Akshay, Hariphan Philathong, Mauro E. S. Morales, and Jacob D. Biamonte. Reachability deficits in quantum approximate optimization. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124: 090504, Mar 2020a. 10.1103/​PhysRevLett.124.090504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.124.090504

[40] Matthew P. Harrigan, Kevin J. Sung, Matthew Neeley, Kevin J. Satzinger, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Juan Atalaya, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, and et al. Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor. Nat. Phys., 17 (3): 332–336, Mar 2021. 10.1038/​s41567-020-01105-y.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41567-020-01105-y

[41] Yulong Dong, Xiang Meng, Lin Lin, Robert Kosut, and K. Birgitta Whaley. Robust control optimization for quantum approximate optimization algorithms. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53 (2): 242–249, 2020. 10.1016/​j.ifacol.2020.12.130. 21th IFAC World Congress.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ifacol.2020.12.130

[42] Nathan Lacroix, Christoph Hellings, Christian Kraglund Andersen, Agustin Di Paolo, Ants Remm, Stefania Lazar, Sebastian Krinner, Graham J. Norris, Mihai Gabureac, Johannes Heinsoo, and et al. Improving the performance of deep quantum optimization algorithms with continuous gate sets. PRX Quantum, 1: 110304, Oct 2020. 10.1103/​PRXQuantum.1.020304.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.1.020304

[43] Nathan Earnest, Caroline Tornow, and Daniel J. Egger. Pulse-efficient circuit transpilation for quantum applications on cross-resonance-based hardware, 2021. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2105.01063.
arXiv:2105.01063

[44] Pranav Gokhale, Ali Javadi-Abhari, Nathan Earnest, Yunong Shi, and Frederic T. Chong. Optimized quantum compilation for near-term algorithms with openpulse, 2020. URL https:/​/​www.microarch.org/​micro53/​papers/​738300a186.pdf. 10.1109/​MICRO50266.2020.00027.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​MICRO50266.2020.00027
https:/​/​www.microarch.org/​micro53/​papers/​738300a186.pdf

[45] David C. McKay, Thomas Alexander, Luciano Bello, Michael J. Biercuk, Lev Bishop, Jiayin Chen, Jerry M. Chow, Antonio D. Córcoles, Daniel J. Egger, Stefan Filipp, and et al. Qiskit backend specifications for OpenQASM and OpenPulse experiments, 2018. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1809.03452.
arXiv:1809.03452

[46] Thomas Alexander, Naoki Kanazawa, Daniel J. Egger, Lauren Capelluto, Christopher J. Wood, Ali Javadi-Abhari, and David C. McKay. Qiskit pulse: programming quantum computers through the cloud with pulses. Quantum Sci. Technol., 5 (4): 044006, Aug 2020. 10.1088/​2058-9565/​aba404.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​2058-9565/​aba404

[47] Anirudha Majumdar, Georgina Hall, and Amir Ali Ahmadi. Recent scalability improvements for semidefinite programming with applications in machine learning, control, and robotics. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst., 3: 331–360, 2020. 10.1146/​annurev-control-091819-074326.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1146/​annurev-control-091819-074326

[48] Miguel F. Anjos and Jean B. Lasserre. Handbook on semidefinite, conic and polynomial optimization, volume 166. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011. 10.1007/​978-1-4614-0769-0.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4614-0769-0

[49] Lenore Blum, Felipe Cucker, Michael Shub, and Steve Smale. Complexity and real computation. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 10.1007/​978-1-4612-0701-6.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4612-0701-6

[50] Lorant Porkolab and Leonid Khachiyan. On the complexity of semidefinite programs. J. Glob. Optim., 10 (4): 351–365, 1997. 10.1023/​A:1008203903341.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1023/​A:1008203903341

[51] Alp Yurtsever, Joel A. Tropp, Olivier Fercoq, Madeleine Udell, and Volkan Cevher. Scalable semidefinite programming. SIAM J. Math. Data Sci., 3 (1): 171–200, 2021. 10.1137/​19M1305045.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​19M1305045

[52] Prabhakar Raghavan and Clark D. Tompson. Randomized rounding: A technique for provably good algorithms and algorithmic proofs. Combinatorica, 7 (4): 365–374, Dec 1987. 10.1007/​BF02579324.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF02579324

[53] Michel X. Goemans and David P. Williamson. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. J. ACM, 42 (6): 1115–1145, nov 1995. 10.1145/​227683.227684.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​227683.227684

[54] Howard Karloff. How good is the Goemans–Williamson MAX CUT algorithm? SIAM J. Comput., 29 (1): 336–350, 1999. 10.1137/​S0097539797321481.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0097539797321481

[55] Subhash Khot, Guy Kindler, Elchanan Mossel, and Ryan O’Donnell. Optimal inapproximability results for MAX-CUT and other 2-variable CSPs? SIAM J. Comput., 37 (1): 319–357, 2007. 10.1137/​S0097539705447372.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0097539705447372

[56] Subhas Khot. On the unique games conjecture (invited survey). In 2012 IEEE 27th Conference on Computational Complexity, pages 99–121, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, jun 2010. IEEE Computer Society. 10.1109/​CCC.2010.19.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​CCC.2010.19

[57] Subhash A. Khot and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. The unique games conjecture, integrality gap for cut problems and embeddability of negative-type metrics into l1. J. ACM, 62 (1): 1–39, 2015. 10.1145/​2629614.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​2629614

[58] Kunal Marwaha. Local classical MAX-CUT algorithm outperforms $p=2$ QAOA on high-girth regular graphs. Quantum, 5: 437, April 2021. 10.22331/​q-2021-04-20-437.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2021-04-20-437

[59] Peter L. Hammer and Sergiu Rudeanu. Boolean methods in operations research and related areas. Springer Science & Business Media, 1968. 10.1007/​978-3-642-85823-9.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-642-85823-9

[60] Jean B. Lasserre. A MAX-CUT formulation of 0/​1 programs. Oper. Res. Lett., 44 (2): 158 – 164, 2016. 10.1016/​j.orl.2015.12.014.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.orl.2015.12.014

[61] Panos M. Pardalos and Georg Schnitger. Checking local optimality in constrained quadratic programming is np-hard. Oper. Res. Lett., 7 (1): 33–35, 1988. 10.1016/​0167-6377(88)90049-1.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0167-6377(88)90049-1

[62] Kim Allemand, Komei Fukuda, Thomas M Liebling, and Erich Steiner. A polynomial case of unconstrained zero-one quadratic optimization. Math. Program., 91 (1): 49–52, 2001. 10.1007/​s101070100233.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s101070100233

[63] Milan Hladík, Michal Černý, and Miroslav Rada. A new polynomially solvable class of quadratic optimization problems with box constraints. arXiv:1911.10877, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1911.10877.
arXiv:1911.10877

[64] Jacek Gondzio and Andreas Grothey. Solving nonlinear financial planning problems with $10^9$ decision variables on massively parallel architectures. WIT Trans Modelling Simul., 43: 11, 2006. 10.2495/​CF060101.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2495/​CF060101

[65] Svatopluk Poljak, Franz Rendl, and Henry Wolkowicz. A recipe for semidefinite relaxation for (0, 1)-quadratic programming. J. Glob. Optim., 7 (1): 51–73, 1995. 10.1007/​BF01100205.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF01100205

[66] Joran Van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum SDP-solvers: Better upper and lower bounds. Quantum, 4: 230, 2020. 10.22331/​q-2020-02-14-230.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2020-02-14-230

[67] Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Amir Kalev, Tongyang Li, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, Krysta M. Svore, and Xiaodi Wu. Quantum SDP Solvers: Large Speed-Ups, Optimality, and Applications to Quantum Learning. In 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019), volume 132 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 27:1–27:14, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2019. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ISBN 978-3-95977-109-2. 10.4230/​LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.27.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4230/​LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.27

[68] Nai-Hui Chia, Tongyang Li, Han-Hsuan Lin, and Chunhao Wang. Quantum-Inspired Sublinear Algorithm for Solving Low-Rank Semidefinite Programming. In 45th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2020), volume 170 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 23:1–23:15, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2020. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ISBN 978-3-95977-159-7. 10.4230/​LIPIcs.MFCS.2020.23.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.4230/​LIPIcs.MFCS.2020.23

[69] Jacek Gondzio. Warm start of the primal-dual method applied in the cutting-plane scheme. Math. Program., 83 (1-3): 125–143, 1998. 10.1007/​BF02680554.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF02680554

[70] Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Front. Phys., 2: 5, 2014. 10.3389/​fphy.2014.00005.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3389/​fphy.2014.00005

[71] Bas Lodewijks. Mapping np-hard and NP-complete optimisation problems to quadratic unconstrained binary optimisation problems. arXiv:1911.08043, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1911.08043.
arXiv:1911.08043

[72] Jean B. Lasserre. Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments. SIAM J. Optim., 11 (3): 796–817, 2001. 10.1137/​S1052623400366802.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S1052623400366802

[73] Jean B. Lasserre. Convergent SDP-relaxations in polynomial optimization with sparsity. SIAM J. Optim., 17 (3): 822–843, 2006. 10.1137/​05064504X.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​05064504X

[74] Bissan Ghaddar, Juan C. Vera, and Miguel F. Anjos. Second-order cone relaxations for binary quadratic polynomial programs. SIAM J. Optim., 21 (1): 391–414, 2011. 10.1137/​100802190.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​100802190

[75] Moses Charikar and Anthony Wirth. Maximizing quadratic programs: Extending Grothendieck’s inequality. In 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 54–60. IEEE, 2004. 10.1109/​FOCS.2004.39.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS.2004.39

[76] Mikhail Krechetov, Jakub Mareček, Yury Maximov, and Martin Takáč. Entropy-penalized semidefinite programming. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019. 10.24963/​ijcai.2019/​157.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.24963/​ijcai.2019/​157

[77] Sartaj Sahni and Teofilo Gonzalez. P-complete approximation problems. J. ACM, 23 (3): 555–565, 1976. 10.1145/​321958.321975. See Lemma A2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​321958.321975

[78] Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. Probability and computing: Randomization and probabilistic techniques in algorithms and data analysis. Cambridge university press, 2017.

[79] Sepehr Abbasi-Zadeh, Nikhil Bansal, Guru Guruganesh, Aleksandar Nikolov, Roy Schwartz, and Mohit Singh. Sticky brownian rounding and its applications to constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 854–873. SIAM, 2020. 10.1137/​1.9781611975994.52.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​1.9781611975994.52

[80] Ronen Eldan and Assaf Naor. Krivine diffusions attain the goemans–williamson approximation ratio. arXiv:1906.10615, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1906.10615.
arXiv:1906.10615

[81] Jamie Morgenstern, Samira Samadi, Mohit Singh, Uthaipon Tantipongpipat, and Santosh Vempala. Fair dimensionality reduction and iterative rounding for SDPs. arXiv:1902.11281, 2019. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​1902.11281v1.
arXiv:1902.11281

[82] Samuel Karlin and Howard E. Taylor. A second course in stochastic processes. Elsevier, 1981. p. 257 and the following.

[83] Julia Kempe, Oded Regev, and Ben Toner. The unique games conjecture with entangled provers is false. In Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity, 2007.

[84] Julia Kempe, Oded Regev, and Ben Toner. Unique games with entangled provers are easy. SIAM J. Comput., 39 (7): 3207–3229, 2010. 10.1137/​090772885.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​090772885

[85] Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani. Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing. SIAM J. Comput., 26 (5): 1510–1523, 1997. 10.1137/​S0097539796300933.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0097539796300933

[86] Harry Markowitz. Portfolio selection. J. Finance, 7 (1): 77–91, 1952. 10.2307/​2975974.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​2975974

[87] H. Abraham et al. Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, 2019. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.5281/​zenodo.2562111.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.5281/​zenodo.2562111

[88] Johan Håstad. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. ACM, 48 (4): 798–859, 2001. 10.1145/​502090.502098.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​502090.502098

[89] Vishwanathan Akshay, Hariphan Philathong, Igor Zacharov, and Jacob D. Biamonte. Reachability deficits implicit in google’s quantum approximate optimization of graph problems, 2020b. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2007.09148.
arXiv:2007.09148

[90] Rebekah Herrman, James Ostrowski, Travis S. Humble, and George Siopsis. Lower bounds on circuit depth of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Quantum Inf. Process., 20 (2): 59, Feb 2021. 10.1007/​s11128-021-03001-7.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11128-021-03001-7

[91] Zhihui Wang, Stuart Hadfield, Zhang Jiang, and Eleanor G. Rieffel. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for maxcut: A fermionic view. Phys. Rev. A, 97: 022304, Feb 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.97.022304

[92] Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Phys. Rev. X, 10: 021067, Jun 2020. 10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevX.10.021067

[93] Jason Larkin, Matías Jonsson, Daniel Justice, and Gian Giacomo Guerreschi. Evaluation of quantum approximate optimization algorithm based on the approximation ratio of single samples, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2006.04831.
arXiv:2006.04831

[94] qiskit-optimization. https:/​/​github.com/​Qiskit/​qiskit-optimization. Accessed: 25. 04. 2021.
https:/​/​github.com/​Qiskit/​qiskit-optimization

[95] Andreas Bärtschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 72–82, 2020. 10.1109/​QCE49297.2020.00020.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​QCE49297.2020.00020

[96] Reuben Tate, Majid Farhadi, Creston Herold, Greg Mohler, and Swati Gupta. Bridging classical and quantum with SDP initialized warm-starts for QAOA, 2020. URL https:/​/​arxiv.org/​abs/​2010.14021.
arXiv:2010.14021

[97] Iain Dunning, Swati Gupta, and John Silberholz. What works best when? a systematic evaluation of heuristics for Max-Cut and QUBO. INFORMS J. Comput., 30 (3): 608–624, 2018. 10.1287/​ijoc.2017.0798.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1287/​ijoc.2017.0798

[98] Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Jerome F. Gonthier, Igor Sokolov, Nikolaj Moll, Gian Salis, Andreas Fuhrer, Marc Ganzhorn, Daniel J. Egger, Matthias Troyer, Antonio Mezzacapo, and et al. Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle-hole hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expansions. Phys. Rev. A, 98: 022322, Aug 2018. 10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.022322.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.022322

[99] Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra. Probabilistic checking of proofs: A new characterization of np. J. ACM, 45 (1): 70–122, 1998. 10.1145/​273865.273901.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​273865.273901

[100] Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy. Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. J. ACM, 45 (3): 501–555, 1998. 10.1145/​278298.278306.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​278298.278306

[101] Irit Dinur. The PCP theorem by gap amplification. J. ACM, 54 (3): 12–es, jun 2007. 10.1145/​1236457.1236459.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​1236457.1236459

[102] Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. Computational complexity: a modern approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

[103] Subhash Khot. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. In Proceedings of the Thiry-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’02, pages 767–775, New York, NY, USA, 2002. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/​509907.510017.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​509907.510017

[104] Prasad Raghavendra. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every CSP? In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 245–254, 2008. 10.1145/​1374376.1374414.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​1374376.1374414

[105] Prasad Raghavendra and David Steurer. How to round any CSP. In 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 586–594, 2009. 10.1109/​FOCS.2009.74.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS.2009.74

[106] Subhash Khot, Dor Minzer, and Muli Safra. Pseudorandom sets in grassmann graph have near-perfect expansion. In Proceedings of the fifty-ninth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 592–601, 2018. 10.1109/​FOCS.2018.00062.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS.2018.00062

[107] Boaz Barak, Prasad Raghavendra, and David Steurer. Rounding semidefinite programming hierarchies via global correlation. In Proceedings of the fiftysecond annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pages 472–481. IEEE, 2011. 10.1109/​FOCS.2011.95.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS.2011.95

[108] Samuel B. Hopkins, Tselil Schramm, and Luca Trevisan. Subexponential LPs approximate max-cut. In Proceedings of the sixtyfirst Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 943–953. IEEE, 2020. 10.1109/​FOCS46700.2020.00092.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS46700.2020.00092

[109] Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev., 47 (10): 777, 1935. 10.1103/​PhysRev.47.777.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.47.777

[110] Boris S. Cirel’son. Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality. Lett. Math. Phys., 4 (2): 93–100, 1980. 10.1007/​BF00417500.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF00417500

[111] A. Natarajan and T. Vidick. Low-degree testing for quantum states, and a quantum entangled games PCP for QMA. In Proceedings of the fiftyninth Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 731–742, 2018. 10.1109/​FOCS.2018.00075.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​FOCS.2018.00075

[112] Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, and Umesh Vazirani. The detectability lemma and quantum gap amplification. In Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’09, pages 417–426, New York, NY, USA, 2009. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781605585062. 10.1145/​1536414.1536472.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​1536414.1536472

[113] Moses Charikar, Konstantin Makarychev, and Yury Makarychev. Near-optimal algorithms for unique games. In Proceedings of the thirty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 205–214, 2006. 10.1145/​1132516.1132547.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​1132516.1132547

[114] Dimitris Achlioptas, Assaf Naor, and Yuval Peres. Rigorous location of phase transitions in hard optimization problems. Nature, 435 (7043): 759–764, 2005. 10.1038/​nature03602.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​nature03602

[115] Don Coppersmith, David Gamarnik, Mohammad T. Hajiaghayi, and Gregory B. Sorkin. Random MAX SAT, random MAX CUT, and their phase transitions. Random Struct. Algorithms, 24 (4): 502–545, 2004. 10.1002/​rsa.20015.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​rsa.20015

Cited by

[1] Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S. Kottmann, Tim Menke, Wai-Keong Mok, Sukin Sim, Leong-Chuan Kwek, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) algorithms”, arXiv:2101.08448.

[2] Austin Gilliam, Stefan Woerner, and Constantin Gonciulea, “Grover Adaptive Search for Constrained Polynomial Binary Optimization”, arXiv:1912.04088.

[3] Sergey Bravyi, Alexander Kliesch, Robert Koenig, and Eugene Tang, “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for approximate graph coloring”, arXiv:2011.13420.

[4] Amir M Aghaei, Bela Bauer, Kirill Shtengel, and Ryan V. Mishmash, “Efficient matrix-product-state preparation of highly entangled trial states: Weak Mott insulators on the triangular lattice revisited”, arXiv:2009.12435.

[5] Stefan H. Sack and Maksym Serbyn, “Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm”, arXiv:2101.05742.

[6] M. Werninghaus, D. J. Egger, and S. Filipp, “High-Speed Calibration and Characterization of Superconducting Quantum Processors without Qubit Reset”, PRX Quantum 2 2, 020324 (2021).

[7] Constantin Dalyac, Loïc Henriet, Emmanuel Jeandel, Wolfgang Lechner, Simon Perdrix, Marc Porcheron, and Margarita Veshchezerova, “Qualifying quantum approaches for hard industrial optimization problems. A case study in the field of smart-charging of electric vehicles”, arXiv:2012.14859.

[8] Sami Boulebnane, “Improving the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm with postselection”, arXiv:2011.05425.

[9] Stuart M. Harwood, Dimitar Trenev, Spencer T. Stober, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Tanvi P. Gujarati, and Sarah Mostame, “Improving the variational quantum eigensolver using variational adiabatic quantum computing”, arXiv:2102.02875.

[10] Johanna Barzen, “From Digital Humanities to Quantum Humanities: Potentials and Applications”, arXiv:2103.11825.

[11] Jonathan Wurtz and Peter Love, “Classically optimal variational quantum algorithms”, arXiv:2103.17065.

[12] Ioannis Kolotouros and Petros Wallden, “An evolving objective function for improved variational quantum optimisation”, arXiv:2105.11766.

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-06-17 13:56:21). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-06-17 13:56:19: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-06-17-479 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-06-17-479/

Continue Reading

Quantum

Experimental localisation of quantum entanglement through monitored classical mediator

Published

on

Soham Pal1, Priya Batra1, Tanjung Krisnanda2, Tomasz Paterek2,3,4, and T. S. Mahesh1

1Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune 411008, India
2School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637371, Singapore
3MajuLab, International Joint Research Unit UMI 3654, CNRS, Université Côte d’Azur, Sorbonne Université, National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
4Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, University of Gdańsk, 80-308 Gdańsk, Poland

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

Quantum entanglement is a form of correlation between quantum particles that cannot be increased via local operations and classical communication. It has therefore been proposed that an increment of quantum entanglement between probes that are interacting solely via a mediator implies non-classicality of the mediator. Indeed, under certain assumptions regarding the initial state, entanglement gain between the probes indicates quantum coherence in the mediator. Going beyond such assumptions, there exist other initial states which produce entanglement between the probes via only local interactions with a classical mediator. In this process the initial entanglement between any probe and the rest of the system “flows through” the classical mediator and gets localised between the probes. Here we theoretically characterise maximal entanglement gain via classical mediator and experimentally demonstrate, using liquid-state NMR spectroscopy, the optimal growth of quantum correlations between two nuclear spin qubits interacting through a mediator qubit in a classical state. We additionally monitor, i.e., dephase, the mediator in order to emphasise its classical character. Our results indicate the necessity of verifying features of the initial state if entanglement gain between the probes is used as a figure of merit for witnessing non-classical mediator. Such methods were proposed to have exemplary applications in quantum optomechanics, quantum biology and quantum gravity.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] A. Al Balushi, W. Cong, and R. B. Mann. Optomechanical quantum Cavendish experiment. Phys. Rev. A, 98: 043811, 2018. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.043811.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.98.043811

[2] P. Batra, V. R. Krithika, and T. S. Mahesh. Push-pull optimization of quantum controls. Phys. Rev. Res., 2 (1): 013314, 2020. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.013314.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.013314

[3] C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A, 54: 3824, 1996. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.54.3824.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.54.3824

[4] S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toros, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 240401, 2017. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.240401.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.240401

[5] S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, R. Jozsa, N. Linden, S. Popescu, and R. Schack. Separability of very noisy mixed states and implications for NMR quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83: 1054, 1999. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.83.1054.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.83.1054

[6] J. Cavanagh, W. J. Fairbrother, A. G. Palmer, and N. J. Skelton. Protein NMR spectroscopy: Principles and practice. Elsevier, 1995.

[7] E. Chitambar and G. Gour. Quantum resource theories. Rev. Mod. Phys., 91: 025001, 2019. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.91.025001.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.91.025001

[8] T. K. Chuan, L. Maillard, K. Modi, T. Paterek, M. Paternostro, and M. Piani. Quantum discord bounds the amount of distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109 (7): 070501, 2012. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.070501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.109.070501

[9] T. S. Cubitt, F. Verstraete, W. Dür, and J. I. Cirac. Separable states can be used to distribute entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91 (3): 037902, 2003. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.91.037902.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.91.037902

[10] A. Fedrizzi, M. Zuppardo, G. G. Gillett, M. A. Broome, M. Almeida, M. Paternostro, A. White, and T. Paterek. Experimental distribution of entanglement with separable carriers. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (23): 230504, 2013. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230504.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230504

[11] L. Henderson and V. Vedral. Classical, quantum and total correlations. J. Phys. A, 34 (35): 6899, 2001. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​34/​35/​315.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0305-4470/​34/​35/​315

[12] M. Horodecki. Simplifying monotonicity conditions for entanglement measures. Open Sys. Inf. Dyn., 12: 231, 2005. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11080-005-0920-5.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11080-005-0920-5

[13] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81 (2): 865, 2009. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.81.865.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.81.865

[14] H. Katiyar, A. Shukla, R. K. Rao, and T. S. Mahesh. Violation of entropic Leggett-Garg inequality in nuclear spins. Phys. Rev. A, 87: 052102, 2013. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.052102.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.052102

[15] W. Y. Kon, T. Krisnanda, P. Sengupta, and T. Paterek. Nonclassicality of spin structures in condensed matter: An analysis of Sr$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$. Phys. Rev. B, 100 (23): 235103, 2019. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.100.235103.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevB.100.235103

[16] T. Krisnanda. Distribution of quantum entanglement: Principles and applications. arXiv:2003.08657., 2020.
arXiv:2003.08657

[17] T. Krisnanda, M. Zuppardo, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek. Revealing nonclassicality of inaccessible objects. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 120402, 2017. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.120402.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.120402

[18] T. Krisnanda, C. Marletto, V. Vedral, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek. Probing quantum features of photosynthetic organisms. npj Quant. Inf., 4: 60, 2018. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-018-0110-2.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-018-0110-2

[19] T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek. Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity. npj Quant. Inf., 6: 12, 2020. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-020-0243-y.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41534-020-0243-y

[20] V. F. Krotov. Quantum system control optimization. In Doklady Mathematics, volume 78, pages 949–952. Springer, 2008. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1134/​S1064562408060380.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1134/​S1064562408060380

[21] M. H. Levitt. Spin dynamics: Basics of nuclear magnetic resonance. John Wiley and Sons, 2001.

[22] C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 240402, 2017. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.240402.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.119.240402

[23] A. Mitra, K. Sivapriya, and A. Kumar. Experimental implementation of a three qubit quantum game with corrupt source using nuclear magnetic resonance quantum information processor. J. Magn. Res., 187.2 (2): 306–313, 2007. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jmr.2007.05.013.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jmr.2007.05.013

[24] K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral. The classical-quantum boundary for correlations: discord and related measures. Rev. Mod. Phys., 84: 1655, 2012. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.84.1655.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.84.1655

[25] Tomoyuki Morimae, Keisuke Fujii, and Harumichi Nishimura. Power of one nonclean qubit. Physical Review A, 95 (4): 042336, 2017. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.042336.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.95.042336

[26] M. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[27] H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek. Quantum discord: A measure of the quantumness of correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88 (1): 017901, 2001. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.88.017901.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.88.017901

[28] C. Peuntinger, V. Chille, L. Mista, N. Korolkova, M. Förtsch, J. Korger, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs. Distributing entanglement with separable states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (23): 230506, 2013. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230506.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230506

[29] S. Qvarfort, S. Bose, and A. Serafini. Mesoscopic entanglement through central–potential interactions. J. Phys. B, 53: 235501, 2020. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1361-6455/​abbe8d.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1361-6455/​abbe8d

[30] A. Shukla, K. R. K. Rao, and T. S. Mahesh. Ancilla-assisted quantum state tomogarphy in multiqubit registers. Phys. Rev. A, 87: 062317, 2013. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.062317.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.87.062317

[31] A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß. Quantum cost for sending entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (25): 250501, 2012. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.108.250501.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.108.250501

[32] A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß. Limits for entanglement distribution with separable states. Phys. Rev. A, 90: 032323, 2014. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.90.032323.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.90.032323

[33] A. Streltsov, R. Augusiak, M. Demianowicz, and M. Lewenstein. Progress towards a unified approach to entanglement distribution. Phys. Rev. A, 92: 012335, 2015. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.012335.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.92.012335

[34] A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß. Lectures on general quantum correlations and their applications, chapter Entanglement distribution and quantum discord. Springer International Publishing, 2017. URL https:/​/​link.springer.com/​book/​10.1007.
https:/​/​link.springer.com/​book/​10.1007

[35] J. Teles, E. R. DeAzevero, J. C. C. Freitas, R. S. Sarthour, I. S. Oliveira, and T. J. Bonagamba. Quantum information processing by nuclear magnetic resonance on quadrupolar nuclei. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 370: 4770, 2012. URL https:/​/​royalsocietypublishing.org/​doi/​10.1098/​rsta.2011.0365. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1098/​rsta.2011.0365.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1098/​rsta.2011.0365

[36] V. Vedral and M. B. Plenio. Entanglement measures and purification procedures. Phys. Rev. A, 57: 1619, 1998. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.57.1619.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.57.1619

[37] V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight. Quantifying entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78: 2275, 1997. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.78.2275.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.78.2275

[38] G. Vidal and R. F. Werner. Computable measure of entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 65: 032314, 2002. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.65.032314.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.65.032314

[39] C. E. Vollmer, D. Schulze, T. Eberle, V. Händchen, J. Fiurášek, and R. Schnabel. Experimental entanglement distribution by separable states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (23): 230505, 2013. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230505.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.111.230505

[40] X.-D. Yang, A.-M. Wang, X.-S. Ma, F. Xu, H. You, and W.-Q. Niu. Experimental creation of entanglement using separable states. Chin. Phys. Lett., 22 (2): 279, 2005. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0256-307x/​22/​2/​004.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​0256-307x/​22/​2/​004

[41] M. Zuppardo, T. Krisnanda, T. Paterek, S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Banerjee, P. Deb, S. Halder, K. Modi, and M. Paternostro. Excessive distribution of quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 93: 012305, 2016. URL https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.93.012305.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.93.012305

Cited by

[1] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Theory of Noise-Scaled Stability Bounds and Entanglement Rate Maximization in the Quantum Internet”, Scientific Reports 10, 2745 (2020).

[2] Laszlo Gyongyosi, “Quantum State Optimization and Computational Pathway Evaluation for Gate-Model Quantum Computers”, Scientific Reports 10, 4543 (2020).

[3] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Entanglement accessibility measures for the quantum Internet”, Quantum Information Processing 19 4, 115 (2020).

[4] Laszlo Gyongyosi, “Unsupervised Quantum Gate Control for Gate-Model Quantum Computers”, Scientific Reports 10, 10701 (2020).

[5] Richard Howl, Vlatko Vedral, Devang Naik, Marios Christodoulou, Carlo Rovelli, and Aditya Iyer, “Non-Gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity”, arXiv:2004.01189.

[6] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Routing space exploration for scalable routing in the quantum Internet”, Scientific Reports 10, 11874 (2020).

[7] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Circuit Depth Reduction for Gate-Model Quantum Computers”, Scientific Reports 10, 11229 (2020).

[8] Tanjung Krisnanda, “Distribution of quantum entanglement: Principles and applications”, arXiv:2003.08657.

[9] Laszlo Gyongyosi, “Objective function estimation for solving optimization problems in gate-model quantum computers”, Scientific Reports 10, 14220 (2020).

[10] Laszlo Gyongyosi, “Dynamics of entangled networks of the quantum Internet”, Scientific Reports 10, 12909 (2020).

[11] Laszlo Gyongyosi, “Decoherence dynamics estimation for superconducting gate-model quantum computers”, Quantum Information Processing 19 10, 369 (2020).

[12] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Entanglement concentration service for the quantum Internet”, Quantum Information Processing 19 8, 221 (2020).

[13] B. Sharmila, “Signatures of nonclassical effects in tomograms”, arXiv:2009.09798.

[14] B. Sharmila, V. R. Krithika, Soham Pal, T. S. Mahesh, S. Lakshmibala, and V. Balakrishnan, “Tomographic entanglement indicators from NMR experiments”, arXiv:2105.08555.

[15] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Scalable distributed gate-model quantum computers”, Scientific Reports 11, 5172 (2021).

[16] Laszlo Gyongyosi and Sandor Imre, “Resource prioritization and balancing for the quantum internet”, Scientific Reports 10, 22390 (2020).

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-06-17 13:33:33). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-06-17 13:33:31: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-06-17-478 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-06-17-478/

Continue Reading
Esports3 days ago

Select Smart Genshin Impact: How to Make the Personality Quiz Work

Blockchain3 days ago

Bitmain Released New Mining Machines For DOGE And LTC

Esports5 days ago

How to complete Path to Glory Update SBC in FIFA 21 Ultimate Team

Energy5 days ago

IT-OT Convergence Steers the Global Industry 4.0 Market for Mechanical Test Applications towards Prosperity

Blockchain5 days ago

Will Jeff Bezos & Kim Kardashian Take “SAFEMOON to the Moon”?

Esports5 days ago

How to Get the Valorant ‘Give Back’ Skin Bundle

Blockchain4 days ago

Digital Renminbi and Cash Exchange Service ATMs Launch in Beijing

Blockchain5 days ago

Why is 25th June critical for Ethereum?

Aviation4 days ago

Southwest celebrates 50 Years with a new “Freedom One” logo jet on N500WR

Start Ups4 days ago

Zenefits Payroll Glitch Results In Delayed Paychecks For Small-Business Employees

Blockchain4 days ago

Bitcoin isn’t as Anonymous as People Think it is: Cornell Economist

Aviation3 days ago

Delta Air Lines Drops Cape Town With Nonstop Johannesburg A350 Flights

AR/VR5 days ago

Larcenauts Review-In-Progress: A Rich VR Shooter With Room To Improve

Blockchain4 days ago

Index Publisher MSCI Considers Launching Crypto Indexes

Esports3 days ago

All Characters, Skills, and Abilities in Naraka: Bladepoint

Blockchain3 days ago

Paraguayan Official Confirms: In July We Legislate Bitcoin

Energy1 day ago

Inna Braverman, Founder and CEO of Eco Wave Power Will be Speaking at the 2021 Qatar Economic Forum, Powered by Bloomberg

Blockchain4 days ago

Paraguay Follows El Salvador In Tabling Bitcoin Bill, The Crypto Revolution Is Happening

Blockchain4 days ago

U.K’s crypto-users are growing in number, but do they even understand the asset class?

Blockchain4 days ago

Blockchain Intelligence Firm TRM Labs Secures $14 Million in Funding

Trending