4.6 Article

Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions

期刊

QUANTUM
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

VEREIN FORDERUNG OPEN ACCESS PUBLIZIERENS QUANTENWISSENSCHAF
DOI: 10.22331/q-2019-09-02-181

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/L015242/1]
  2. NQIT project partnership fund [EP/M013243/1]
  3. EPSRC IIKE award
  4. IBM Research Frontiers Institute
  5. EPSRC [EP/M024261/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent work has explored using the stabilizer formalism to classically simulate quantum circuits containing a few non-Clifford gates. The computational cost of such methods is directly related to the notion of stabilizer rank, which for a pure state phi is defined to be the smallest integer chi such that phi is a superposition of stabilizer states. Here we develop a comprehensive mathematical theory of the chi stabilizer rank and the related approximate stabilizer rank. We also present a suite of classical simulation algorithms with broader applicability and significantly improved performance over the previous state-of-the-art. A new feature is the capability to simulate circuits composed of Clifford gates and arbitrary diagonal gates, extending the reach of a previous algorithm specialized to the Clifford+T gate set. We implemented the new simulation methods and used them to simulate quantum algorithms with 40-50 qubits and over 60 non-Clifford gates, without resorting to high-performance computers. We report a simulation of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm in which we process superpositions of chi similar to 10(6) stabilizer states and sample from the full n-bit output dis- tribution, improving on previous simulations which used similar to 10(3) stabilizer states and sampled only from single-qubit marginals. We also simulated instances of the Hidden Shift algorithm with circuits including up to 64 T gates or 16 CCZ gates; these simulations showcase the performance gains available by optimizing the decomposition of a circuit's non-Clifford components.

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