Skip to main content
Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences logoLink to Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences
. 2022 Dec 5;381(2241):20210412. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2021.0412

Threshold theorem in isolated quantum dynamics with stochastic control errors

Manaka Okuyama 1,, Kentaro Ohki 2, Masayuki Ohzeki 1,3,4
PMCID: PMC9719793  PMID: 36463918

Abstract

We investigate the effect of stochastic control errors in the time-dependent Hamiltonian on isolated quantum dynamics. The control errors are formulated as time-dependent stochastic noise in the Schrödinger equation. For a class of stochastic control errors, we establish a threshold theorem that provides a sufficient condition to obtain the target state, which should be determined in noiseless isolated quantum dynamics, as a relation between the number of measurements and noise strength. The theorem guarantees that if the sum of the noise strengths is less than the inverse of computational time, the target state can be obtained through a constant-order number of measurements. If the opposite is true, the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state increases exponentially with computational time. Our threshold theorem can be applied to any isolated quantum dynamics such as quantum annealing and adiabatic quantum computation.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum annealing and computation: challenges and perspectives’.

Keywords: stochastic control error, threshold theorem, quantum annealing, adiabatic quantum computation, stochastic differential equation

1. Introduction

Recent advances in experimental techniques have enabled the experimental realization of quantum dynamics, and it has become increasingly important to understand quantum dynamics. In particular, recent efforts to realize quantum computation are progressing rapidly [1,2]; hence, the precise control of quantum dynamics is required.

Although quantum dynamics is ideally described by the Schrödinger equation, the influence of the external environment cannot be ignored in experimental systems. The external environment has two main effects on quantum systems: the influence from a heat bath and control errors of the Hamiltonian. Here, we consider a case in which the influence of the heat bath can be eliminated. Therefore, the dynamics of the target quantum system can be realized if the Hamiltonian can be controlled in an ideal manner. However, it is difficult to control the Hamiltonian without errors in experimental systems. Then, a natural question arises: is isolated quantum dynamics robust to the effects of control errors? If the properties of isolated quantum dynamics dramatically change because of control errors, then it will be difficult to control the target quantum system in experimental systems, even if we can eliminate the effect of the heat bath. For example, quantum annealing [37] or adiabatic quantum computation [810] uses quantum dynamics for computation, but the theory of quantum error correction and suppression [1115] that has been established is not as complete as that of the circuit model [1618]. Therefore, it is vital to investigate the influence of control errors on isolated quantum dynamics from the perspective of analogue quantum computation.

There are two main types of control error that can occur in the time-dependent Hamiltonian. One is time-invariant noise [1921], which acts as a bias. This type of error modifies the Hamiltonian and will not be discussed in the present study. The other, which we will focus on, is stochastic control noise [2225]. We formulate stochastic noise in unitary dynamics as time-varying stochastic noise. The time evolution of the system is described by the stochastic differential equation [26]. The present study examines whether it is possible to obtain the target state, which should be determined in noiseless time evolution, in the presence of stochastic control errors. For this purpose, we establish a threshold theorem that provides a sufficient condition for obtaining the target state in the Schrödinger equation with stochastic control errors. Our threshold theorem clarifies that the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state strongly depends on the computational time and noise strength.

2. Threshold theorem in isolated quantum dynamics with stochastic control errors

We consider the following isolated quantum dynamics:

iddt|ψ(t)=H^(t)|ψ(t), 2.1

where 0tT and =1. By using the measurement basis |n, we expand the final state |ψ(T) as

|ψ(T)=nCn|n. 2.2

In the following, the entire derivation is based on projective measurements. We are interested in the mth eigenstate |m of the measurement basis, and its probability amplitude Cm at the final state |ψ(T) is given by

Cm=1ϵ, 2.3

where 0<ϵ<1 (without loss of generality, we have adjusted the global phase of |ψ(T) so that Cm is a positive real number). Then, if the number of measurements r satisfies

r1(1ϵ)2, 2.4

we succeed in obtaining the target state |m.

However, it is difficult to completely control the time-dependent Hamiltonian H^(t) without encountering control errors in experimental systems. We incorporate the control errors of H^(t) into the Schrödinger equation as noise that occurs stochastically at each moment. Because we consider isolated quantum dynamics, control errors should also be described as a unitary time evolution. It is well known that norm-preserving stochastic noise can be described by the Stratonovich process [22,23]. Thus, we express the Schrödinger equation with stochastic noise as follows:

id|ϕ(t)=(H^(t)dt+kH^error,k(t)dWk(t))|ϕ(t), 2.5

where k is an index of stochastic control errors, H^error,k(t) describes a stochastic control error, Wk(t) describes standard Brownian motion and the symbol ‘’ denotes the Stratonovich interpretation. The equivalent Ito process is given by

id|ϕ(t)=(H^(t)dt+kH^error,k(t)dWk(t))|ϕ(t)i2kH^error,k2(t)|ϕ(t)dt, 2.6

where the symbol ‘’ denotes the Ito interpretation. We emphasize that the norm of |ϕ(t) is always preserved in time evolution.

Furthermore, we assume that H^error,k(t) satisfies the following error condition

H^error,k2(t)=gk2(t)I^, 2.7

where I^ is the identity operator and gk(t) is an arbitrary time-dependent function. We note that a system composed of qubits naturally satisfies equation (2.7). For example, when H^error,k(t) is constructed from the product of the Pauli operators at several neighbouring, H^error,k(t)=g(t)σ1xσ2xσix, the error condition (2.7) is satisfied. On the other hand, this condition is not satisfied in a bosonic system.

Under these settings, we examine whether it is possible to obtain the target state. If stochastic control errors have a devastating effect on isolated quantum dynamics, the target state cannot be obtained in experimental systems. Additionally, if the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state depends on the problem size N, stochastic control errors have a serious influence on the difficulty of the problem. Our threshold theorem, which clearly addresses these issues, is described as follows.

Theorem 2.1. —

We are interested in the mth eigenstate |m of the measurement basis and its probability amplitude Cm at the final time T in the noiseless Schrödinger equation (2.1) is given by

Cm=1ϵ, 2.8

where 0<ϵ<1. If ϵ and the number of measurements r fulfil

ϵ+δ+αe(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt1, 2.9

for 0<δ<1ϵ and α>0, then the r measurement outcomes in the Schrödinger equation with stochastic control errors (2.6) satisfy

1ri=1r|Ci,m|2>α2, 2.10

with probability greater than 1exp(rδ2/2), where Ci,m is the probability amplitude of the mth eigenstate at the final time T in one realized time trajectory of equation (2.6).

Remark 2.2. —

For exp(rδ2/2)1, equation (2.10) holds with almost probability 1, then, if rα21 is satisfied, the target state |m is always one of the r measurement outcomes. Thus, the casual form of the conditions to guarantee obtaining the target state is given by

ϵ+δ+αe(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt1, 2.11
exp(rδ22)1, 2.12
andrα21. 2.13

Our threshold theorem states that the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state depends strongly on the strength of the noise. For simplicity, we consider a case in which the strength of the noise is time-independent: gk(t)=gk. Then, from equation (2.9), the following condition must be satisfied for the number of measurements to be bounded by a constant order:

T2kgk2=O(1). 2.14

Thus, for any stochastic control errors satisfying equation (2.7), if the sum of the noise strengths is less than the inverse of the computational time, the target state can be obtained through a constant-order number of measurements. Conversely, if the sum of the noise strengths is greater than the inverse of the computational time, the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state increases exponentially with respect to the computational time. In conclusion, stochastic control errors can have a serious impact on the difficulty of the problem, depending on the noise strength.

For example, we apply our threshold theorem to quantum annealing. We consider a case in which the computational time T is given by a polynomial of the problem size N:

T=O(Na), 2.15

which is efficiently solved by quantum annealing. Then, we must suppress the noise as the problem size increases:

12kgk2=O(Na). 2.16

Otherwise, from equation (2.9), the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state increases exponentially with respect to the problem size:

reNakgk2. 2.17

Therefore, when noise suppression fails, stochastic control errors may change an efficient quantum annealing-based solution to the problem into an inefficient solution.

Before providing the proof, we emphasize that our threshold theorem is only a sufficient condition for any isolated quantum dynamics. Incorporating the structure of the problem might improve our result.

3. Proof of threshold theorem

From equations (2.6) and (2.7), the time evolution of the expectation of the state is described as

iddtE[|ϕ(t)]=(H^(t)i2kgk2(t))E[|ϕ(t)], 3.1

where we used E[dWk(t)]=0 in the Ito process. Then, using the fact that |ψ(T) is the solution of equation (2.1), we find

e(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dtE[|ϕ(T)]=|ψ(T). 3.2

We describe the state in one realized time trajectory of equation (2.6) as |ϕi(t) and expand it at the final time T as

|ϕi(T)=nCi,n|n. 3.3

From equation (3.2), we immediately find

e(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dtE[Ci,m]=Cm=1ϵ. 3.4

Then, using the Chernoff–Hoeffding inequality [27,28], we have

Pr[e(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt1ri=1rCi,m(1ϵ)δ]exp(rδ22), 3.5

where Ci,m=Ci,m+iCi,m, δ>0, and we used 1Ci,m1. In the following, we set 0<δ<1ϵ and always consider the case in which

e(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt1ri=1rCi,m>1ϵδ. 3.6

We note that this inequality plays an important role as a constraint and holds with probability greater than 1exp(rδ2/2) from equation (3.5).

Next, we consider the case in which the probability amplitudes of the target state in the r realized time trajectories of equation (2.6) satisfy

1ri=1r|Ci,m|2>α2. 3.7

In the following, we prove that, under the conditions (2.9) and (3.6), equation (3.7) holds. In order to accomplish this, we consider

1ri=1r|Ci,m|2α2 3.8

and

αe(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt>1ϵδ, 3.9

then, it is sufficient to prove that, under the condition (3.6), equation (3.9) is necessary for equation (3.8) to hold. Under equation (3.8), i=1rCi,m takes the maximum value rα when Ci,m=α and Ci,m=0. Thus, for equation (3.8) to hold under the condition (3.6), the following inequality must be satisfied:

αe(1/2)0Tkgk2(t)dt>1ϵδ,

which is just equation (3.9).

In summary, equation (3.6) holds with probability greater than 1exp(rδ2/2) and equation (3.7) holds under the conditions (2.9) and (3.6), which is proof of the theorem.

4. Conclusion

We have established a threshold theorem that provides a sufficient condition for obtaining the target state in isolated quantum dynamics with any stochastic control errors satisfying equation (2.7). Our threshold theorem guarantees that if the sum of the noise strengths is less than the inverse of the computational time, the target state can be obtained through a constant-order number of measurements. However, if the sum of the noise strengths is larger than the inverse of the computational time, the number of measurements to guarantee obtaining the target state increases exponentially with respect to the computational time.

Furthermore, we imposed the error condition (2.7) on stochastic control errors. If this condition is broken, the simple relation (3.2) does not hold. Then, we cannot guarantee that the target state can be obtained by increasing the number of measurements. In other words, stochastic control errors that do not satisfy equation (2.7) have a serious influence on isolated quantum dynamics.

In the present study, we considered only time-varying noise as a control error. However, time-invariant noise can also be considered as a control error [1921], and our threshold theorem cannot be applied to such noise. Time-invariant noise modifies the Hamiltonian. In order to obtain the target state in experimental systems, such noise must be reduced to the limit, or a counterpart of our threshold theorem must be derived for such noise.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that we have considered only the sufficient condition to obtain the target state, and model-dependent properties may reduce the number of measurements required. For example, in adiabatic quantum computation, adiabatic time evolution suppresses the diabatic transition from the ground state to other excited states. In such cases, the effect of stochastic control errors may also be reduced.

Data accessibility

This article has no additional data.

Authors' contributions

M.Ok.: conceptualization, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft; K.O.: validation; M.Oh.: funding acquisition, validation, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

The present work was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant nos. 18H03303, 19H01095, 19K23418 20H02168 and 21K13848 and by JST-CREST (grant no. JPMJCR1402) from the Japan Science and Technology Agency.

References

  • 1.Johnson MW et al. 2011. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature 473, 194-198. ( 10.1038/nature10012) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Arute F et al. 2019. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574, 505-510. ( 10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kadowaki T, Nishimori H. 1998. Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355-5363. ( 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.5355) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ray P, Chakrabarti BK, Chakrabarti A. 1989. Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model in a transverse field: absence of replica symmetry breaking due to quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. B 39, 11828-11832. ( 10.1103/PhysRevB.39.11828) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brooke J, Bitko D, Rosenbaum TF, Aeppli G. 1999. Quantum annealing of a disordered magnet. Science 284, 779-781. ( 10.1126/science.284.5415.779) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brooke J, Rosenbaum TF, Aeppli G. 2001. Tunable quantum tunneling of magnetic domain walls. Nature 413, 610-613. ( 10.1038/35098037) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Santoro GE, Martoňák R, Tosatti E, Car R. 2002. Theory of quantum annealing of an ising spin glass. Science 295, 2427-2430. ( 10.1126/science.1068774) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Farhi E, Goldstone J, Gutmann S, Sipser M. 2000. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001106).
  • 9.Aharonov D, van Dam W, Kempe J, Landau Z, Lloyd S, Regev O. 2007. Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 166-194. ( 10.1137/S0097539705447323) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mizel A, Lidar DA, Mitchell M. 2007. Simple proof of equivalence between adiabatic quantum computation and the circuit model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070502. ( 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.070502) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jordan SP, Farhi E, Shor PW. 2006. Error-correcting codes for adiabatic quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 74, 052322. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052322) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lidar DA. 2008. Towards fault tolerant adiabatic quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160506. ( 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160506) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Quiroz G, Lidar DA. 2012. High-fidelity adiabatic quantum computation via dynamical decoupling. Phys. Rev. A 86, 042333. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042333) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pudenz KL, Albash T, Lidar DA. 2014. Error-corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits. Nat. Commun. 5, 3243. ( 10.1038/ncomms4243) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Venturelli D, Mandrá S, Knysh S, O’Gorman B, Biswas R, Smelyanskiy V. 2015. Quantum optimization of fully connected spin glasses. Phys. Rev. X 5, 031040. ( 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031040) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shor PW. 1995. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493-R2496. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. 2000. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Preskill J. 2013. Sufficient condition on noise correlations for scalable quantum computing. Quantum Inf. Comput. 13, 181. ( 10.26421/QIC13.3-4-1) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Roland J, Cerf NJ. 2005. Noise resistance of adiabatic quantum computation using random matrix theory. Phys. Rev. A 71, 032330. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032330) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mandrà S, Guerreschi GG, Aspuru-Guzik A. 2015. Adiabatic quantum optimization in the presence of discrete noise: reducing the problem dimensionality. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062320. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062320) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Muthukrishnan S, Albash T, Lidar DA. 2019. Sensitivity of quantum speedup by quantum annealing to a noisy oracle. Phys. Rev. A 99, 032324. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032324) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wong E, Zakai M. 1965. On the convergence of ordinary integrals to stochastic integrals. Ann. Math. Stat. 36, 1560-1564. ( 10.1214/aoms/1177699916) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gardiner CW, Zoller P. 1999. Quantum noise. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dutta A, Rahmani A, del Campo A. 2016. Anti-Kibble-Zurek behavior in crossing the quantum critical point of a thermally isolated system driven by a noisy control field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080402. ( 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.080402) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ai M-Z, Cui J-M, He R, Qian Z-H, Gao X-X, Huang Y-F, Li C-F, Guo G-C. 2021. Experimental verification of anti-Kibble-Zurek behavior in a quantum system under a noisy control field. Phys. Rev. A 103, 012608. ( 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.012608) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gardiner CW. 1983. Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry and the natural sciences. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chernoff H. 1952. A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. Ann. Math. Stat. 23, 493-507. ( 10.1214/aoms/1177729330) [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hoeffding W. 1963. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 13-30. ( 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500830) [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

This article has no additional data.


Articles from Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES