4.6 Article

Digital-analog quantum computation

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.022305

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Government [PGC2018-095113-B-I00]
  2. Basque Government [IT986-16]
  3. project QMiCS of the EU Flagship on Quantum Technologies [820505]
  4. project OpenSuperQ of the EU Flagship on Quantum Technologies [820363]
  5. EU FET Open Grant Quromorphic [828826]
  6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advance Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) [ERKJ333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital quantum computing paradigm offers highly desirable features such as universality, scalability, and quantum error correction. However, physical resource requirements to implement useful error-corrected quantum algorithms are prohibitive in the current era of NISQ devices. As an alternative path to performing universal quantum computation, within the NISQ era limitations, we propose to merge digital single-qubit operations with analog multiqubit entangling blocks in an approach we call digital-analog quantum computing (DAQC). Along these lines, although the techniques may be extended to any resource, we propose to use unitaries generated by the ubiquitous Ising Hamiltonian for the analog entangling block and we prove its universal character. We construct explicit DAQC protocols for efficient simulations of arbitrary inhomogeneous Ising, two-body, and M-body spin Hamiltonian dynamics by means of single-qubit gates and a fixed homogeneous Ising Hamiltonian. Additionally, we compare a sequential approach where the interactions are switched on and off (stepwise DAQC) with an always-on multiqubit interaction interspersed by fast single-qubit pulses (banged DAQC). Finally, we perform numerical tests comparing purely digital schemes with DAQC protocols, showing a remarkably better performance of the latter. The proposed DAQC approach combines the robustness of analog quantum computing with the flexibility of digital methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据