High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide A Bayesian phase difference estimation (BPDE) algorithm allows us to compute the energy gap of two electronic states of a given Hamiltonian directly by utilizing the quantum superposition of their wave functions. Here we report an extension of the BPDE algorithm to the direct calculation of the energy difference of two molecular geometries. We apply the BPDE algorithm for the calculation of numerical energy gradients based on the two-point finite-difference method, enabling us to execute geometry optimization of one-dimensional molecules at the full-CI level on a quantum computer. Results of numerical quantum circuit simulations of the geometry optimization of the H 2 molecule with the STO-3G and 6-31G basis sets, the LiH and BeH 2 molecules at the full-CI/STO-3G level, and the N 2 molecule at the CASCI(6e,6o)/6-311G* level are given.
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide A Bayesian phase difference estimation (BPDE) algorithm allows us to compute the energy gap of two electronic states of a given Hamiltonian directly by utilizing the quantum superposition of their wave functions. Here we report an extension of the BPDE algorithm to the direct calculation of the energy difference of two molecular geometries. We apply the BPDE algorithm for the calculation of numerical energy gradients based on the two-point finite-difference method, enabling us to execute geometry optimization of one-dimensional molecules at the full-CI level on a quantum computer. Results of numerical quantum circuit simulations of the geometry optimization of the H 2 molecule with the STO-3G and 6-31G basis sets, the LiH and BeH 2 molecules at the full-CI/STO-3G level, and the N 2 molecule at the CASCI(6e,6o)/6-311G* level are given.
Quantum computers can perform full configuration interaction (full-CI) calculations by utilising the quantum phase estimation (QPE) algorithms including Bayesian phase estimation (BPE) and iterative quantum phase estimation (IQPE). In these quantum algorithms, the time evolution of wave functions for atoms and molecules is simulated conditionally with an ancillary qubit as the control, which make implementation to real quantum devices difficult. Also, most of the problems in chemistry discuss energy differences between two electronic states rather than total energies themselves, and thus direct calculations of energy gaps are promising for future applications of quantum computers to real chemistry problems. In the race of finding efficient quantum algorithms to solve quantum chemistry problems, we test a Bayesian phase difference estimation (BPDE) algorithm, which is a general algorithm to calculate the difference of two eigenphases of unitary operators in the several cases of the direct calculations of energy gaps between two electronic states on quantum computers, including vertical ionisation energies, singlet-triplet energy gaps, and vertical excitation energies. In the BPDE algorithm, state preparation is carried out conditionally on the ancillary qubit, and the time evolution of the wave functions in superposition of two electronic states are executed unconditionally. Based on our test, we conclude that BPDE is capable of computing the energy gap with an accuracy similar to BPE without controlled-time evolution simulations and with the smaller number of iterations in Bayesian optimisations.
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Quantum computers are capable of calculating the energy difference of two electronic states using the quantum phase difference estimation (QPDE) algorithm. The Bayesian inference-based implementations for the QPDE have been reported so far, but in this approach, the quality of the calculated energy difference depends on the input wave functions being used. Here, we report the inverse quantum Fourier transformation-based QPDE with N a of ancillary qubits, which allows us to compute the difference of eigenenergies based on the single-shot projective measurement. As proof-of-concept demonstrations, we report numerical experiments for the singlet–triplet energy difference of the hydrogen molecule and the vertical excitation energies of halogen-substituted methylenes (CHF, CHCl, CF 2, CFCl, and CCl 2 ) and formaldehyde (HCHO).
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Recently, a quantum algorithm that is capable of directly calculating the energy gap between two electronic states having different spin quantum numbers without inspecting the total energy of the individual electronic states was proposed. This quantum algorithm guarantees an exponential speedup, like quantum phase estimation (QPE)-based full-CI, with much lower costs. In this work, we propose a modified quantum circuit for the direct calculations of spin state energy gaps to reduce the number of qubits and quantum gates, extending the quantum algorithm to the direct calculation of vertical ionization energies. Numerical quantum circuit simulations for the ionization of light atoms (He, Li, Be, B, C, and N) and small molecules (HF, BF, CF, CO, O 2, NO, CN, F 2, H 2 O, and NH 3 ) revealed that the proposed quantum algorithm affords the vertical ionization energies within 0.1 eV of precision.
Abstract Despite rapid progress in the development of quantum algorithms in quantum computing as well as numerical simulation methods in classical computing for atomic and molecular applications, no systematic and comprehensive electronic structure study of atomic systems that covers almost all of the elements in the periodic table using a single quantum algorithm has been reported. In this work, we address this gap by implementing the recently-proposed quantum algorithm, the Bayesian phase difference estimation (BPDE) approach, to determine fine structure splittings of a wide range of boron-like atomic systems. Since accurate estimate of fine structure splittings strongly depend on the relativistic as well as quantum many-body effects, our study can test the potential of the BPDE approach to produce results close to the experimental values. Our numerical simulations reveal that the BPDE algorithm, in the Dirac–Coulomb–Breit framework, can predict fine structure splittings of ground states of the considered systems quite precisely. We performed our simulations of relativistic and electron correlation effects on Graphics Processing Unit by utilizing NVIDIA’s cuQuantum, and observe a ×42.7 speedup as compared to the Central Processing Unit-only simulations in an 18-qubit active space.
A quantum phase estimation algorithm allows us to perform full configuration interaction (full-CI) calculations on quantum computers with polynomial costs against the system size under study, but it requires quantum simulation of the time evolution of the wave function conditional on an ancillary qubit, which makes the algorithm implementation on real quantum devices difficult. Here, we discuss an application of the Bayesian phase difference estimation algorithm that is free from controlled time evolution operations to the full-CI calculations.
Abstract Modeling chemical reactions and complicated molecular systems has been proposed as the “killer application” of a future quantum computer. Accurate calculations of derivatives of molecular eigenenergies are essential toward this end, allowing for geometry optimization, transition state searches, predictions of the response to an applied electric or magnetic field, and molecular dynamics simulations. In this work, we survey methods to calculate energy derivatives, and present two new methods: one based on quantum phase estimation, the other on a low-order response approximation. We calculate asymptotic error bounds and approximate computational scalings for the methods presented. Implementing these methods, we perform geometry optimization on an experimental quantum processor, estimating the equilibrium bond length of the dihydrogen molecule to within 0.014 0.014 Å of the full configuration interaction value. Within the same experiment, we estimate the polarizability of the H 2 2 molecule, finding agreement at the equilibrium bond length to within 0.06 0.06 a.u. ( 2% 2% relative error).