Two-local qubit Hamiltonians: when are they stoquastic?

Joel Klassen; Barbara M. Terhal

doi:10.22331/q-2019-05-06-139

Two-local qubit Hamiltonians: when are they stoquastic?

Joel Klassen¹ and Barbara M. Terhal^1,2

¹QuTech, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5046, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
²Institute for Theoretical Nanoelectronics, Forschungszentrum Juelich, D-52425 Juelich, Germany

Published:	2019-05-06, volume 3, page 139
Eprint:	arXiv:1806.05405v3
Scirate:	https://scirate.com/arxiv/1806.05405v3
Doi:	https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-05-06-139
Citation:	Quantum 3, 139 (2019).

We examine the problem of determining if a 2-local Hamiltonian is stoquastic by local basis changes. We analyze this problem for two-qubit Hamiltonians, presenting some basic tools and giving a concrete example where using unitaries beyond Clifford rotations is required in order to decide stoquasticity. We report on simple results for $n$-qubit Hamiltonians with identical 2-local terms on bipartite graphs. Our most significant result is that we give an efficient algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary $n$-qubit XYZ Heisenberg Hamiltonian is stoquastic by local basis changes.

► BibTeX data

@article{Klassen2019twolocalqubit,
  doi = {10.22331/q-2019-05-06-139},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-05-06-139},
  title = {Two-local qubit {H}amiltonians: when are they stoquastic?},
  author = {Klassen, Joel and Terhal, Barbara M.},
  journal = {{Quantum}},
  issn = {2521-327X},
  publisher = {{Verein zur F{\"{o}}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften}},
  volume = {3},
  pages = {139},
  month = may,
  year = {2019}
}

► References

[1] S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, R. I. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, ``The Complexity of Stoquastic Local Hamiltonian Problems,'' Quantum Information and Computation 8 no. 5, (2008) 0361-0385 , arXiv:0606140 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC8.5
arXiv:0606140

[2] N. J. Cerf and O. C. Martin, ``Projection Monte Carlo methods : an algorithmic analysis,'' International Journal of Modern Physics C 6 no. 5, (1995) 693-723.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129183195000587

[3] S. Sorella and L. Capriotti, ``Green function Monte Carlo with stochastic reconfiguration: An effective remedy for the sign problem,'' Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 61 no. 4, (2000) 2599-2612, arXiv:9902211 [cond-mat].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.2599
arXiv:9902211

[4] S. Bravyi, ``Monte Carlo Simulation of Stoquastic Hamiltonians,'' Quantum Information and Computation 15 no. 13/14, (2015) 1122-1140, arXiv:1402.2295.
https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC15.13-14
arXiv:1402.2295

[5] S. Wessel, ``Monte Carlo Simulations of Quantum Spin Models Institute for Theoretical Solid State Physics,'' in Autumn School on Correlated Electrons. 2013. https://www.cond-mat.de/events/correl13/manuscripts/.
https://www.cond-mat.de/events/correl13/manuscripts/

[6] E. Crosson, Classical and Quantum Computation in Ground States and Beyond. PhD thesis, University of Washington, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/1773/34128.
http://hdl.handle.net/1773/34128

[7] S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, ``Polynomial-Time Classical Simulation of Quantum Ferromagnets,'' Physical Review Letters 119 no. 10, (2017) , arXiv:1612.05602.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.100503
arXiv:1612.05602

[8] T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, ``Adiabatic quantum computation,'' Reviews of Modern Physics 90 no. 1, (2018) 015002, arXiv:1611.04471 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002
arXiv:1611.04471

[9] S. Bravyi and B. Terhal, ``Complexity of stoquastic frustration-free Hamiltonians,'' SIAM J. Comput. 39 no. 4, (2009) 1642, arXiv:0806.1746.
https://doi.org/10.1137/08072689X
arXiv:0806.1746

[10] M. B. Hastings and M. H. Freedman, ``Obstructions To Classically Simulating The Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm,'' Quantum Information and Computation 13 no.11/12, (2013) 1038-1076 arXiv:1302.5733.
https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC13.11-12
arXiv:1302.5733

[11] J. Bringewatt, W. Dorland, S. P. Jordan, and A. Mink, ``Diffusion Monte Carlo approach versus adiabatic computation for local Hamiltonians,'' Phys. Rev. A 97 no. 2, (Feb., 2018) 022323, arXiv:1709.03971 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022323
arXiv:1709.03971

[12] D. Kafri, C. Quintana, Y. Chen, A. Shabani, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, ``Tunable inductive coupling of superconducting qubits in the strongly nonlinear regime,'' Physical Review A 95 no. 5, (May, 2017) 052333, arXiv:1606.08382.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.052333
arXiv:1606.08382

[13] L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, ``Nonstoquastic Hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass,'' Phys. Rev. B 95 no. 18, (May, 2017) 184416, arXiv:1609.06558 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.184416
arXiv:1609.06558

[14] G. Samach, ``Tunable XX-Coupling Between High Coherence Flux Qubits,'' in APS March Meeting 2018. 2018. https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR18/Session/L33.13.
https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR18/Session/L33.13

[15] V. I. Iglovikov, E. Khatami, and R. T. Scalettar, ``Geometry dependence of the sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations,'' Phys. Rev. B 92 (Jul, 2015) 045110. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.045110.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.045110

[16] C. Wu and S.-C. Zhang, ``Sufficient condition for absence of the sign problem in the fermionic quantum monte carlo algorithm,'' Phys. Rev. B 71 (Apr, 2005) 155115.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.155115

[17] Z.-X. Li and H. Yao, ``Sign-Problem-Free Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo: Developments and Applications,'' arXiv e-prints (May, 2018) arXiv:1805.08219, arXiv:1805.08219 [cond-mat.str-el].
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-033117-054307
arXiv:1805.08219

[18] R. F. Bishop and D. J. J. Farnell, ``Marshall-Peierls sign rules, the quantum monte carlo method, and frustration,'' International Journal of Modern Physics B 15 no. 10n11, (2001) 1736-1739.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812792754_0052

[19] M. Marvian, D. A. Lidar, and I. Hen, ``On the Computational Complexity of Curing non-stoquastic Hamiltonians,'' Nature Communications 10 no. 1, (2019) 1571 , arXiv:1802.03408.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09501-6
arXiv:1802.03408

[20] B. M. Terhal, ``The Power and Use of Stoquastic Hamiltonians,'' in Adiabatic Quantum Computing Conference. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dK30QExF4M.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dK30QExF4M

[21] T. Cubitt, A. Montanaro, and S. Piddock, ``Universal Quantum Hamiltonians,'' National Academy of Sciences 115 no. 38 (2018) 9497-9502 , arXiv:1701.05182.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804949115
arXiv:1701.05182

[22] S. Bravyi and M. Hastings, ``On complexity of the quantum Ising model,'' Communications in Mathematical Physics 349 no. 1 (2017) 1-45 , arXiv:1410.0703 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-016-2787-4
arXiv:1410.0703

[23] D. Grier and L. Schaeffer, ``The Classification of Stabilizer Operations over Qubits,'' ArXiv e-prints (Mar., 2016) , arXiv:1603.03999 [quant-ph].
arXiv:1603.03999

[24] Y. Makhlin, ``Nonlocal properties of two-qubit gates and mixed states and optimization of quantum computations,'' Quantum Information Processing 1 no. 4, (2002) 243-252, arXiv:0002045 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022144002391
arXiv:0002045

[25] N. Linden, S. Popescu, and A. Sudbery, ``Nonlocal Parameters for Multiparticle Density Matrices,'' Physical Review Letters 83 no. 2, (1999) 243-247, arXiv:9801076 [quant-ph].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.243
arXiv:9801076

[26] M. Grassl, M. Rötteler, and T. Beth, ``Computing local invariants of quantum-bit systems,'' Phys. Rev. A 58 (Sept., 1998) 1833-1839, quant-ph/9712040.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1833
arXiv:quant-ph/9712040

[27] R. A. Bertlmann and P. Krammer, ``Bloch vectors for qudits,'' Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41 no. 23, (2008) , arXiv:0806.1174.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/41/23/235303
arXiv:0806.1174

[28] T. F. Gonzalez, ``Clustering to minimize the maximum intercluster distance,'' Theoretical Computer Science 38 (1985) 293-306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(85)90224-5

Cited by

[1] Dorit Aharonov and Alex B. Grilo, "Stoquastic PCP vs. Randomness", arXiv:1901.05270 (2019).

[2] Andrew J. Kerman, "Superconducting qubit circuit emulation of a vector spin-1/2", arXiv:1810.01352 (2018).

[3] Philipp Hauke, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Wolfgang Lechner, Hidetoshi Nishimori, and William D. Oliver, "Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations", arXiv:1903.06559 (2019).

[4] I. Ozfidan, C. Deng, A. Y. Smirnov, T. Lanting, R. Harris, L. Swenson, J. Whittaker, F. Altomare, M. Babcock, C. Baron, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, H. Christiani, P. Bunyk, C. Enderud, B. Evert, M. Hager, A. Hajda, J. Hilton, S. Huang, E. Hoskinson, M. W. Johnson, K. Jooya, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, R. Li, A. MacDonald, D. Marsden, G. Marsden, T. Medina, R. Molavi, R. Neufeld, M. Nissen, M. Norouzpour, T. Oh, I. Pavlov, I. Perminov, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, T. Prescott, C. Rich, Y. Sato, G. Sterling, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann, W. Wilkinson, J. Yao, and M. H. Amin, "Demonstration of nonstoquastic Hamiltonian in coupled superconducting flux qubits", arXiv:1903.06139 (2019).

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated 2019-05-23 06:09:53). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

On Crossref's cited-by service no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2019-05-23 06:09:52).

This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions.