QGSS'20 Lectures

20.07.
2020
geoeffneten
Introduction to Quantum
-5--2--2 Computing -0 -
Overview :
-
I) From bit to Dirac notation measurement Bloch

qubits :
, ,
sphere
E.) Quantum circuits :
single qabit & two gabit gates multipartite quantum
basic - -
,
states
Bell states Teleportation Q

sphere
II )
Entanglement : -
.
,
I. From b its to qubits

-T-mmmmmmmnm ab
classical states for amputation eitler

" " " "
.
are O or 1
quantum mechanics state be simultane ouslg and "
superposition
" " "
•
in ,
a can in i. e. in 0 1
, ,
→
super positions
all ow to
perform calcalations on states at the some time
many
quantum algorithmus with exponentiell speed -
up
state collapses to of its states

superposition
But once we measure the ,
it one
to all states
only get superposition)
"
and not all

"
(
→ we can one answer answer in the
it is not THAT
easy to design quantum algorithms ,
but we can use interferenc effects
( other out while the
" "
cand each right

" "
→
wrong answer , answer remai
Diracnotation
used to describe quantum states Led b E? ( 2- dimensionat vector with enties)
. :
a.
E
complex
-
Ket :
las -
I :) irre;"!!!!!
-
bra : < bl =
Ibst :
( Y) ! (bi bi)
-
bra.net : < BIÄÖÄD ten bit azbz "
"
=L albi c- E ↳
complex number)
" "
n
) an X
)
Gbi anbei
-
Ket bra - :
Iaxb , =
( azbi aab;
↳ 2×2 matrix) -
•
we define the states los : =
( I) and 11 ) : =
(9) ,
which are orthogonal : < 0113=1.0+01 :O
• all quantum states are normalized ,

i. e .
.
14143=1 ,
e.
g .
14 > :
¥ .
(to > TM ) =
Ii)
Measurement
FR.
choose we orthogonal bases to describe & measure quantum states ( →
projects measurement)
state will collapse state

•
during a meas .
on to the basis { los ,
In } ,
the into other
to > or Its →
as those are the eigenstates of Tz ,
we all this a Z -
measurement
e.
there are
infinity many different bases ,
but other commons ones are
{ Its : :
¥ ( los ths)
,
Is :-.
fz (los -
Hs)
} and { Iti ) Jan : :
Host ih ) , 1- is :<
f. (los -
it ) } ,
corresponding to the
eigen
states of a and sry .
respectirely .
Bonn rule that state 14> collapses during to the

the
probability a
project
-
: a in meas . on
basis { 1×7 Ixt > } to the state ↳

give by
is a
,
'
KXIYY
Plx ) =
.
? Plxi) 1 :
example s: 14>
ffn Host VI 11 ) is meas in the basis { 10 ? 11 > }
•
-
: .
:
'
Hoss rüttelt ? III ELI

→ Plo) :
Kol Fi
°
=
} →
pa) :
}
= =
-
14 > =
¥ ( to > HD -
is measured in the basis { Its ,

I s}
-
:
?
?
→ Ptt) = 1414>1 1¥ KOHN ) -
¥ -
Ho > -
Hs) /
=
¥ IEEE hofft Etf YI ?

,
-
-
O →
expected , as AM > = o
↳ PH =
# Y? -
orthogonal
Bloch sphere :
-
e -
We can write normal ized (

pure) state 14 > =
¥ to> teils in ¥11 )
any as ios
,
where y E [ 0,2T] desaibes the relative phase and OE [9T] determines the
probability to
measure los 1115 :

pltoD-cosez.pl/eD:sin2Ez .
all normal ized states be illustrated the surface of here with radius
sp
a
can
pure on
löst -1 which all the Bloch

,
we
sphere
the coordinates of such a state are
give by the Block vector : E
:(!!!!;)
examples.im -
los : 0=0 , 9 arbitrarg
→ F :
(%) *
, o>
: : : :: : f)
"
-
-
÷
.
.
-0
Ez :(§ )
t
↳ : :
T ö
'
y
:
→
-
X
- It is :
O :
Ez ,
y
:
Ez →
F (Y ) : n>
I i)
- :
O :
Ez .
y
:
Ez → E-
(%)
Beck On the Bloch sphere angles twice big in Hilbert
space
: are as as
. .
e.
g.
los & les are orthogonal ,
but on the Bloch sphere their angle
is 180° .
For a
general state 14 ) : Co Ost . .
.
→ -0 is the
angle on the Bloch sphere ,

while Ez is the actaal
angle in Hilbert
space !
to the
Z measurement
-
corresponds to a
projectin on Z axis
-
and analogons ly for X& Y
!
I. Quantum Circuits
FELLNER
of bnilding blocks that out elementary compilations called gates

" "
•
circuit model :
sequence carry ,
ifeng.rithn.FR -
Singlegebügeltes
•
Classical example : NOT I -
Do -
J
•
quantum example s : as
quantum theory is unitary ,
quantum gates are
represen ed ! by
unitary matrices : UTU = 11 recall
:( I;)
"
Dirac notation : U
u ; = UOOIOXOI tun 10×11
( )
O 1 +4^011×01 11×11
JX 10×11 11×01 um
*
= +
-
=
1 0 Dirac notation
↳ 5×10 > =
( ! f) (G) 113 5×117 10×11 t HXOI)

114--10×1,9 thx los
'
. : = =
,
bit flip I NOT -
gate ,
e.
g.
N) -
⑦ -
Iss rotation around x
-
axis
T
by
-
Tz =
(G !) =
10×01-11×11
↳ rz.lt > =
(J ! ) # / ! ) # (1) =/ .
: -
7 ,
TH -
s: (10×01-11×11) # .
(los IN )
-
phase flip rotation around

=
¥ Kath ) =
It>
z -
axisbyu
-
sry
:
| ! Ö) : i -
Ox Oz -
bit & phase flip
% , sry & Tz are the so -
called Pauli matrices and a?
-11=1 ! !) (does
nothing)
together with
identity 11 they forma basis of 2×2 matrices
(→ any 1-
qabit rotation can be written as a linear combination of them)
-
Hadamard gate :
one of the most
important gates for quantum circuits
H
:# ( ! ! ) Ii =
( IOXOI +10×111-11×01 -
11×11)
↳ HIO> =
In / ! ! ) / ! ) -
:
# (I) : It >
,
HI 1) =
# ( loxott 10×111-11×01 -
11×111.117 :# 1107 1) =/ - -
)
creates super position ! also HITS los HH Hs :

,
: used to
charge between X dt basis
similarly as 5=1^0 ! ) adds 98 to the phase q S

,
: . Hilti ) St > =/ i) ,
-
S H -
is
applied to charge from Z to Y basis
Multipamrtitenqaantamstatesm
•
we use tensor products to describe
state
multiple states : las ① Ibs =
(G) (!!) ⑦ :
| !! !)
•
example :
system A is in 11 ? and
system B is in state 1%
the total lbipartite) state is 110>„ ß : =

11h .
⑦ 1%
=
(9) (b)⑦ =
| !)
↳ remark : states of this form are called uncorrdated ,
but there are also bipartite states that cannot
be written as 14h .
⑦ Iy >ß .
Those states are correlated and sometimes even
entangled ( very strong

→ correlation) ,
e.
g
. 14 D= # kann.at In ) =
II | !)
a so
-
called Bell state ,
used for teleportation cryptographg
.
,
Bell tests etc ,
.
IEEE gates
classical
example XOR
J III × ⑦ irreversible
Agieren the output we cannot
• -
→
y
:
re the
cover
input )
BUT :
as
quantum theory is
unitary ,
we
only unsicher
unitary and therefore reversible
gates
quantum example
(0 0)=100×001
• : 1 O O O
( µ,
^
* 101×01 It I 10×1^1 tl ^^ ° !
0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
f) | ! )
↳
CNOT 100 > : CNOT .
= : too > + CNOT
1103×4 =
111 >xy
xy y ,
infantil
circuit
Y) Iaa
:
0 1 01
10 1 1 ± reversible XOR
11 1 0
we can show that

very function f can be described by a reversible circuit
quantum circuits can

perform .
an functions that can be cakulated classic
ally
Entanglement-n-m-g-lfaparestateIYS.rs
III.
on
systems A. B cannot be written as 14h
.
to } ,
it is
entangled
Bell states
e-
There are
for so -
called Bell states that are

maximallg entaagled and build
an orthonormal basis :
14 In (1005+1115) 14017 :(101 > t )

"
> =
,
:
Ko )
IT
"
-
¥ (1003-111) ,
14
"
>
:'-( 101 > -
Ho )
write 14J > Morini ) 14
"
>
in
general we can =
gefiel
Bellstatesmpiy.FI#JlyijsIj7s- AB
initial state
ltaoxdrdlijh.rs 14J >
Iij >
n.rs
1007 (1007+1107)/52 '

(1007+1117)/2=14 "
>
HA (NOT"
→
1015 ( 101 > t 111>3/5 →
( 101 ) +1103)4147
1103 400 ) -
110DM ( too > -1×1%2=14^0 >
1113 (1017-1113)/1 ( 1013 HOHNE -

: 14%
→
opposite direction : Bell measurement
n
-2mm
ijinon.ba !!!! )::

" "
Hi .
¥:*
⑤ -
Tele portationm
.
wants to send her lunhnown ) state

•
µ : Alice 10ns : =
dass TßH ? to Bob .
She can only send him two classical bit

though They .
both share the
maximales entangled state 14007 =
¥ ( 100>aßt 111>AB ) .
initieoftheysteni.IO/7s
# ⑦ 14 >AB
"
=
(al 000>SAß t a 1011 > saß tß 1100> SAß ß 1111 > SAB )
+
=
ITIL ( 1007, t 111)
"
) ( a 10 >ßt ßH >B) ( > satt10 >
101 t
sa ) ⑦( al 1) ßIO ) )
+
( 100 } , -
IM a) ⑦ ( NOK ßH >B) + (1017A - -
Hossa ) ④ ( HSB
a -
ßIO )
=
f- [ 14^7*0×10 > B t
140^4*4107,3 )
14 Isa (Tz 107,3 ) ④ Tz ]
"
+ Ox t 14^3 SA
⑤ to > B )
•
Protocol :
①
②
-
FIETE)
""
1 . Alice performsameas .
on sort in the Bell basis

Ae"
.
.
2 She sends her Classical
- . . . .
. . .
14003 _
.
. _ . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .
.
.
Bob C- ② outputs i. j to Bob
(f) T.FI I ¢ >B

.
5×0 - -
3. Bob
apples riss to his
'
gab it and gets to > !

Alice 's measurement Bob 's state 2 Alice sends 3. Bob final state
1. → .
apples → Bob 's

ij
1400 ) 10 >ß 00 11 11043
1401 ) 5×10 >ß 01 & "
⑦
14^07 Gz Icf>ß 10 Tz u
14 " S 5×410/3,3 11 Tz ?
"
Note that Alice 's ,

state collapsed during the measurement ,
so she does not
have the initial state expected

Ips anymore
This is due to the no
cloniag
-
theorem state to Bob

,
as she cannot
copy her state ,
but just send her
when desto ging her own .

Espen
Bloch illastrate the state of qubit for multiple
sphere can
only 1 ab its Q
sphere
•
: -
formonenqunbi the north pole presents state state le >

"
the south
"
to >
pole
"
• "
: -
re
,
- the size of the blob is

proportional to the prob of
. mea
swing the respectin
state
-
the color indicates the relative phase compared to state to>
¥ to > NEIN
ÖÖÖ: ④
000
states
"
•
for n
qubits ,
there are 2 basis ,
e.
g. for n =3 we have 001 .
010
.
100
011 , 101, 110
those basis
we
plot states as
eqaally distributed point on a
sphere ,
^ ^^
"
Ü
"
"
the
"
north the south and all other states

"
with "
pole aligned
on
pole ,
1 on
parallel st the each latitade anstand and increasing from North South
"
of 1 's to
'
on s
,
. number on is
Eagle for y :3 :
→
size & color 0
f the blobs as before
000>
vii. no )
es '
Fill ""
:
""> +
*.
i.
gßE-_NT]
Eigentum!gerithmslf
21.07.2020
Oranien
I) Deutsch Jozsa -
algorithmen : Oracles , DJ theory implementation ,

with Qiskit
II. ) Grover 's algorithmen : Grover

theory amplitude amplification implementation with Qiskit
, ,
I. Deutsch Jozsa
algorithmentheorie -
nennen =n .
Orontes .
have oracle device that cannot lookinside ,

•
assume we access to an
,
e.
g. a
physica we
to which and which returns

we can
pass queries answers
goal determine
:
some property of the oracle
asing the minimal number of que
ries
"
•
on a classical computer ,
such an Oracle is
give by a fct f :{0,13
.
→
{0,15
the oracle meist be reversible

5%9 Etting
•
°" a
quantum computer ,
:
bit Oracle
IIII!! }
be
unitary which performs
0g : can seea as a
J
,
I the
µ map Oglxsly > =
Ixslytoflx) >
→
for f : { 0,13
"
→ { 0,13 we can contract Ug :
,
Fängt "
"
ancilla-
qubit
In
{ Jz
WHO ) Hs) Ixsly > if fix) :O
# ( Ix )
-
=
Of ↳ Ig > 10 ④flx ) > Ix> 11 ⑦ µ >

,
=
> - :
IM UN los)
Ixslg ) ifflx) 1
-
= =
-
,
f)
"
=
1×31 )
y
indep of Ig > Ug phase oracle which performs the map Uglxs

'#
.
:
, =L 1) f
-
Ix >
Hadamard
Tur m
on in
qubits
_
.
-
recall that It to> =
Its =
# Hatte>) ,
HH ) : ts
¥40 > -
)
k
f- Ä To > + HI
"
#
"
113)
for x E { 0,1} : Ixs -
THI -
Igs
=
( to > t
f- e) 4) =
¥ -
""
=
¥ Ego "
EN l k>
.
inner product
"
for '
HÄM
HD
{
{ 0,13 Ixo>
!!)
µ
x c- : -
"
↳
"
"→
:
's - " " =
# E.„
lxn.is -
TH -
↳ ever
ylyis is eitler It > or ↳
Igs must be a
superposition of all possible
1×3=101 > bit
"
e.
g .
: 2
strings
J lys
'
% :
It> ⑤ I -
> =
Elias -
101 > tho> -
Hes)
Fur
Deutsch Jozsa algorithmen
-
g- -
function f :{0,1J
"
We
give a { 0,1J realized by oracle of which
→
are →
,
an ,
we know that it iseither con stand Hall inputs map to

the some
output) or
balanced ( inputs that map to and 1 equal)

' ' '
# O '
is
Goal : Determine whether f is anstand or balanced
'
Classical :
we need to ask the oracle at least twice but if we
get twice the ,
some
Output ,
we need to ask again .
. .
.
at most It 1=2^71
"
→
queries ,
n : # input bits ,
N 2
> : # realizable bit strings
"
demonstrative different to Throw the fair
example : 2 ways a coin → is coin ?
quantumsolution.im needs
only one
query !
"
÷:
"
"
° 1
2
14 )
Clair If the : out come

yequals the bitstring 00in ,
then fis con stand ,
otherwise it is balanced
Pre! Lotus check the state after every step :
"
•
14 > = 100 07 = 10 ) oo
;
- o
Mi
. .
.
X. Yo
IY > =3 ¥!
"
H '"
>
? ""
e =
.
",
n
"
.
!! „¥ ! "" 4. Ix> # ?"" HIN In

"
' " " "s " =
'
.
Elf ! ! }! ÄK
"
¥
""
# E.
" "
•
Mir H -
-
Mas =
H -
H Ixs = >
"„
"
"" "
=
! [ II.go.y.nl 1) -
Jlk > ; !" c. In =
""
-
= :
Ck
probability to measure the zero -
string too -07

.
.
:
OIÄ .EE/klf=koo....l2
"
Plug oo . . . oo . .
-014371 ! !! nen
1 h:
{
= ,
00
. . .
0
'
.gg !!!
orthogonal)
=/ In EN) ! {
1
O
.
-
.
if f balanced
{
"
=
+2
"
, if f) EO
2
if flxl Et
-
°
,
if flxl balanced PTT
II-rbafgorith.mn
g- U n - Umm
rother : find
elements
" " ×
.
algorithmöearching an unsorted database with N:2 in OCVÜ) time s .
t.gl#=1
→
classical
alg . needs on
average Nz = OCN) time
folx) :{1Qifdse
"
find w ff) :{ fg ife ;

""
oracle
•
goal :
,
gieren an
Ug with
f :
{ 0,13 → {0,13 , ,
F , ,
oracle Uflxs 1) MEIN

phase
:
Ug
105%105*1×3
Ich → Iws
Ug
: -
:
.
Vxtw 1×7 1×3 K¥00

→
1 ×> → -
.
GETEILT :
:
↳ Ug : 1- 2 IWXWI ↳
Ugo 210×010 =
"
-
11
DH : It
:*
107 -
=
."
:
:
:-.
Ist
repeat r times
Clair y
= w ( with high prob ) .
:# ¥,
"
Proof; Led usdefine uniform superposition state

"
the Is ) : > H 107
! xs
"
⑦"
Hot 210×05 !
" "
and V :=
H
"
-
Ugo .
H = .
H -
Hot! H "
= 21 SXSI - 11
"
Grover 's algorithm carrie s out the

operation ( V.
Ug ) on the state Is) .
Get I be the plane spanned by Iss and Iws and Kt lat ) be the state
orthogonal to ↳ in E :
Int) : =
¥77,1 ×>
VII Iwt
ftp./ws--:cosEIwtstsinEzIwsdefineO-s.t.sinzE:Izn-
Is > = > t
protocol :
0=2
arcsinfznn
- -
1.) Prepare Is >
Ä
tun [ " s>
2.) Apply Ug -11 -
21WXwl →
reflection at lat>
±:):::c: : :.ie?::::::.
" "
after r
applications of 2.) & 3.) the state , is
oH:→ Ups>
rotatedbyr.O-nea.ge
E EVT ( ru)
↳
chooser.si .
rot ! E r
-
-
¥ E -
ü
=
I -
after r calls to the oracle ,

the final meas .
will result in state Iw> with min .
probability
plus ) > 1- sin ! =
1- ¥ µ
:
'Ä µ. ) n
Amplitude amplification
nun zum -
c-
The general idea behind Grover 's algorithmen is

amplitude amplification .
Let as have
a Cook at the amplitude at each

step in Grover 's
algorithmen :
1.) Is > : = H
⑦ "
10)
"
2.) Ug Is > = (1- 21wxwl) Is ) →
flip amplitude of ↳
amplitude amplitude
÷ -
I-E.in
EF I :p i
-
: :
-
-
.
¥: *
I-E.it
:
;] ¥ ;
-
:
-
-
÷ ü:{i :
t.vn
± -
3.) V. Ug Is > =L Ists I 1) Ug Iss

.
- - -
→
reflect amplitude about the
average amplitude
amplitude f- for VI 4>
14 > ÷
? Iis
yidds :
|
as
Ip (
di
3- E) •
|
KIND a) 145.2 E ! lj ) 7. <ht ? a- Ii)
? li>
¥:-, ¥
-
a:
- - . -
""
"
- - - -
g.
-
III. ¥ =
z.EE g. los ? .in .

-
,
.
=3.se is
by reporting step 2.) & 3.) ,

the
amplitude of
reflection of dj
average <
Gad tüten !! % .
=
ca>
SHIN
-
↳ will increase furth er

amplitude amplification !
Multiple marhed elements

-
-
-
When we have M marhed elements wi ,

we
define the mining state as
Iws Er ?! Iwie →
tut > IFF ¥ '
.. .. . . "
' "
Iss =
VIII. tut > t

FIT .
Iw > = :
cos E tut > + sin ! Iw >
↳
sin ¥ VII =
angle becomes
lager !
r =
4.at#rmjy-E--O(VN-T)
→ we can see this
speed up also when
looking at the amplitude :
1.) 2.)
⇐
TÄTE Ä "
" " ":
§ §
lo ) h ) Iwie Iwz) IN-19
"
IÄÄ
¥
in
µ
-
;
goes faster
"
←
:÷i
ShorbAlgorithmiandQPEd
Lecture3
Roadway G Qubits Quantum states

b ft H Y
H
Elif x
lo
147 alo tbh
Lol 47 a
j 4147 b j
Bob measo Halt Rob me as 1 Hbk
all't Hbk I 2 implications
l Operations quantum stales need to preserve

on norm to 1
t
Norm preserving matrices unitary U U
Utu au EI
det u I I
unitary
2 For a single qubit can think of gates as rotations on the
surface of the Bloch sphere
3 Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of unitary matrices are special
Ca U la Has
Salut Laila
Sulu I Latitude Cal XIX.la 1 12 calx 1 12
1 12 1 XE e for some 0
eigenvalues of U are of the form e
b U Ix tsetse tatty then
if
U
ly Ay ly saly calutuly XyLady
txt Xy Lady l titty 0
agrees of diff edguals multiplybyXx exly
are orthonormal and use 1 121 Lady Xx Xy O
Also covered Deutsch Josza algorithm
constant 1balanced function in one shot
Grover's algorithm
unstructured search in N items with 0 rn
Today Preliminaries for Shor's algorithm

famous algorithm
Problem
given a function that is periodic find its period period
for la k kf
strict definition f fly sety iff
se
y
np
21T
easy example
hard example 5
µwh g
classically 0 exp 43
c n 13µg a
P has n bits
quantum Shor's algorithm 0 n'Clog n loglog n
little faster than 0hr3
Reason why this works 1 quantum Fouriertransform
2 modular exponentiation
Implication difficulty of factoring on a classical computer is basis
for security more tomorrow
f m
Today Quantum Fourier Transform

Quantum Phase Estimatoon
shores algorithm is really QPE in disguise
QFT is effectively a change of basis from the computational

basis to a Fourier basis
1 qubit states in computational basis are 10 and 117
eg
States in Fourier basis are H7 and I 7
lot ID
ta
lo 107
105 IT
117 117
multiple qubits go to Qishit demo

notice that bases on thetwo poles of the
going from
we are
Block sphere to a basis on the equatorial plane

Building the quantum circuit that applies QFT
1 Show QFT rigorously
2 show circuit to implement QFT expression
l m qubits 2 basis states Define N 2 Then
IT QFT be
p t
Fourierbasis computational basis
N I
zitisey
analogous to inverse discrete
Z ENT y Fourier transform
y o
eg 1 qubit case N 2
To
ta My ta IZ Y
lo HD
it in El n
lo C D 117
107 117
A note on notation formultiple qubits eg n 3
eatin8 231y y
IIe 11 of
gy o eg ly I't
4 22 l t 2 lo t 20 o
4
23 2417
12403 12
0323
N I Y Cycyrys Yun
Tse 210ft 2n y
tip foe
12 Yu
1
y
oe.TT
imi hiyn
shy
e4 IYu
Yuya ynk
fro e
i i
in
eating
go g
TIE
k 4 term to my
62 term to t Iti F ly
notice i D foe Nz Az An
ye 0 MHz kn l
2
OOH Uz Rn 2
Hq
Final
form't lost e EH lo e h
lost eat Eun y

Fatah se to
Example
n 3 qubits N 23 8
be 157
QFT la lost e EH lo e Em
eatiEhs
do
Notice 2mi E 2Ti
E tf
21T 21
z
since e2TiZ
1 forany integer Z
Tilt
e2Ti I 2
2
eati eti I
in eminently
Ez eatin'Enly
0
9 n k
Let's write y Yk2 y Yi Yn
zn y 2 yw
u
then y Yh 2k and we have
gn
n
ta 1µg
eat Emily ya yn
Yeo
n 21T t 12h
If II ly.y
e yn
remember
o j
to
127 1 to I Tn lost b
if
lo EI In
Notice that we went from

Isen to
be se I see
1st lo te 2H lo te 22HD lo te T1
TheQuantamCiraitthatimplementsQFTI
Notice that we went from
Ise I see Ise Ian to
1st lo te 2H lo te 24iD lo te T1
42k
each qubit went from Izzy to Io IT
aIions lyy.TW2Tifz Zzt tEJ
G lot contains terms like 2 e 11111 11117
Is e E E e
e too to Hints
phase is qubit dependent
e2TiH2t l lo oo needto add up more components with
1more 1
Two ingredients needed

107 117 he
D H1 seu E
4 k
lo 117 rz
Oort
toy e'time 117 r2
2lTiIk
E 2
G UROTulsej e lap
WROTE to 2k
211424
f
applies phase e
THI DURAI ITURot URoTn
i
tii
step 0 Ise uz seu

n
step 1 lo e 117 bez an
to e'Time seipp I
steps
i
step 3 lo t e e me Mµy
n
im
c
step n lost e e ly
1
exp
Ii
Fat KINI
t
My
recall se 2 se 2 2kt t I nu
t
age Zen
term above is 21T
exp if
after step ni lost e 711 being sen
reverted
order fromderivedform but ok otherwise
Part II Quantum Phase Estimation
Here we will use QFT to do a

very
useful thing
Problem Recall that a unitary matrix has eigenvalues of the

form ei0 and that it has eigenvectors thatform an
orthonormal basis
U ly ei04147
Can we extract 04 given the ability to prepare 147
Solution Yes Use QPE

Why do we care Hamiltonian evolution operator is unitary
implications for q simulation
QPE trick i controlled U

I g f l
107 i Dt t.TT
F
c
c q l
I
THX Duet 1
c
o I
2 3
step o to 147
step 1 107147 117147
t
step 2 lo 147 t 117 e04147
04 Go ID 143
step 3 f 107 1 117 47 t e
I to Hei 04 t H l e
4
147
measure qubit O
prob µte Y measure

almost 12 each but
I 1 with small shift
prob ez 12 measure
if 04 0 prob o cos z4
prob I sin Et
To measure precisely using this bit of
information need to do
lots of measurements
155
04 10 Pablo Prob D 09999,7 615
eg
04 100 n 0.9924 O 007596
not a good idea to to with

such low precision
try measure
Beller solution use multiple qubits to measure the phase
TF
i
he I ITEEFI 7u
2
step 0 1050 147
0
step I lo t 1177 147
GET
Before proceeding note 212 147 UE U 147
wite 04147
42
e 147
I E
step z lo tei I co Eat Ip
2g
D t e y
Us app
n
127 lo I In lost b
iz
lo e In
the form is the same but 04 at

02 so do inverse QFT
he
iF
T
TTT
ITEEFI Fug Tue
24
Measurement should yield
10
Lecture 4 shores Algorithm II Factoring to period finding
Abe Asfaw
Quickreviey
Yesterday covered QFT and QPE
G QFT basis change from computational basisto Fourier basis
one qubit QFT is

simply A gate
computational Fourier basis

basis O
107 It
I
It
go from two poles of Block sphere to equatorial plane
quick demo
circuit implementation
1
wrote
Expezia
o
target
fine control
CROI 11 x e l1xj7
Eder ofqubits Hln 7
lo7tg
Form of QFT n qubits NE 2 Ise 124 sen
QFT Ise L
in
lo te Tp
x oxz sen
lo t e 117 se ooses and
o Iii sea Coo osei
212thse
lo t e 117 toe
from H gate
fromoUR0Tn fromUROTz
Circuit implements o o
Ise lost exp

xn
13
xn it
2tztixr.tn xJlD
Recall se Ge uz seu
2 x 2 Zzz1 Inn
Ise lost exp 22in a 117
frompUROTny four H gate
9
lazy lost expf sent
fifteen it 12 sea ID
to
define se 0K22g Rn
2n o 12 2221 Isen
then above is se and we have
j
d
Iaa lost exp 2I 117
i
z In
se
Isen to exp
000 Own
2 Quantum Phase Estimation
Objective given a unotary U and its eigenstateEigenvector 14,7

U 147 e 04147
can we find 0 4 Assume prepare147
can
Phase estimation allows us to convert phase information into

amplitudes that we can measure
QPE protocol
E'T 0147 2h0 where
given UI QPE gives
n is the number of qubits used to estimate O
n
youI lo'T
T.i
1 THE 1
EEEnys.no
U lol
4
Etiology to this point
up
have QFT in input
subtleties i notice the zito register
in the QPE protocol
2 notice that we are doing QFTt not QFT

need to carefully build Recall
ABC d BtAt
3 yesterday's lab solution i used U X gale in
Qiskit and did QPE to find X
cath
Qishit textbook shorts algo
see
chapter for QFT 1 implementation
4 referenceQuantum counting
ShorisAlgorithull
Problem already discussed that factorong a number
N pq
where
poq are prime and large is classically difficult
OCexpfc.nl3 lognJ43 using
best known methods
2 Quick primer on modular arithmetic
b 3 quotient 1 355
3
remainder 2 2
5 2 mod 3
x I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2e I 2 0 I 2 0 I 2 0 mod 3
notice see 0 mod 3 x is a multiple 3

of
see 1 mod 3 se is 1 1 some multipleof 3
generally
y mod _3kt
y for some KEZ
2e 3 se
also notice the periodicity of modular arithmetic

se modN means
yE o l 2 N
y
eg mod 3 1,2
se
y means
YE 0
2 Solution
gcdCa N L
begin algorithm
CD pick a coprime with N pq
if unsure checkquickly if coprime
2 find the r of the function a mod N
order
smallest r such that are 1 mod N
3 if r is even
a Ark mod N
if sett 0 mod N then
p g gcd att N gcd a t N
else find another a
3 Concrete example factoring 15

15 1111 4 bits
coprime pick a 13
see 0 I 2 3 4 5 7
6
13 mod 15 1 13 4 7 1 13 4 7
Smallest r o s t 1311cmod 15 is n 4
or 4
given
se E 134k mod 15 4 mod 15
sett 5 0 mod 15
4 I att 3 5
p g
4 Quantum circuit for factoring 15 subtleties later for now
I I I follow aloyg
g
1M l
I t
t
DH QTT l I
i
1 I e I i
1 c l i l
w p
1
10504 T f T i
To l iz f3 4 s 5
be Iw be lwtofa.CH
04107
04
fan Cx a Cmod N
step 0 107
iz z
04
step 1 H 410504 103
102,1 1174 1274 1 t 115,2 1074
step 2 1074 00130 mod15 t 112100131 mod15

I
t
O 2 Z we have
Ya 11741137g t 1274142 t 1374177g
I 102411 t
1441174 t 15741137g t 1674142 t 1774177g
1841174 t 19741137g t 110741474 t 11174177g
1124112 t 113741137g t 114741474 t 115741774

step 3 after measuring register let's say we measured 7
a
1374 t tha t 11174 11574701774

note the normalization
step 4 apply QFT on the.se register
Recall N I 2
ay
1
QFT Ise 127
if 2 e ly
g op 2
QFT Ee In
M
ly
foe
2
QFT 132 Eno e 34
y
38
IT y0
e ly
H
QFT'T 7 a
I IIE ly
Y
QFT 111 a Ezo e ly
5
t
QFT 115 a ta of ly
QFT Ise f Ezo expti y exp fi g texpfi Igy

exp f i's y ly
show computer demo
4 i 1474 4184 4 i 1127g

f a
4104 t
step 5 measure the foe register get 107 on 147 or 187 or 1127
with equalprobability of 14
Analyze measured result i meas results peak near
j Nyforsomejez
10 is trivial If we measure 103 restart X
147 j kn 4 r 4 if j L r 4 is even good
42 2
mod 15 4
see a mod N 13
5
set I j g od C sett N 5
se I 3 j g od se l N 3
18 8 r 2 and j I 4 and
j 16g or r
j 2
d
works like above
131 mod 15 2
set 1 3 3
ged Catt
N
se i I
J
1 partial
god se l N
4 and 3 works like above

1127 j 16g 12 f j
Looks like 3 4 results work and we are able to extract thefactors

successfully
demo of Vandersypen Steffen et al paper

showing how to factor 15 on a quantumcomputer
caveats need 2in qubits at the input register for Ise

instead of just n
with probability will be and
Iz r even
ark 11 to modN
How to implement
Ufa n
Recall famCse at mod N
se ER Jez Rn 2 be 2 Zzz t 20seu
fa n se A mod N
be 12 best 25hm
q2 mod N
22 a2
af Ma2 mod N
se ooo
Jez
Nu
n 2
m
91 at a'and
o o
depth is polynomial
in n
9
can see Shor's algo is QPE in disguise
Also see Qiskit textbook chapter for an exampleof modular
exponentiation implemented in Qiskit

Introduction to Quantum Error Correction
James R. Wootton
Qubit Wrangler
IBM Quantum / © 2020 IBM Corporation

Why do we need QEC?
– Superconducting qubits don’t work exactly the way
they should
• Each gate is slightly wrong
• Qubits get poked by (small) external forces
• Measurements sometimes lie
– The same is true for spin qubits, topological qubits,

photonic qubits, …
– Any qubit made out of a real-life physical system will be

at least a little bit rubbish
IBM Quantum / © 2020 IBM Corporation 2

Why do we need QEC?
– But algorithms like Shor, Grover, etc assume that qubits
are perfect
– Run them with imperfect physical qubits, and you’ll get

nonsense out
– Instead we need qubits that are flawless incarnations of

the idea of quantum information
– Such ideal qubits are called logical qubits
– We need to somehow make perfect logical qubits out of noisy physical qubits

Why do we need QEC?
– QEC is how we do this!
– Typically, many physical qubits are needed per logical qubit
– Using QEC in algorithms is therefore a long-term goal
– As are the algorithms that require it
– In the near term, we’ll try to make do and mitigate

In this lecture
– We’ll look at the ideas behind error correction (classical and quantum)
– We’ll go through specific examples
• Repetition code
• Surface code
– We’ll see the most important techniques
• Syndrome measurements
• Decoding
• Logical operations

What is Error Correction?
– Before we explain quantum error correction, we

should think about the general idea
– A simple example: you are talking on the phone, and

need to answer a question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
– Two important things to consider:
• How likely is it that you will be misheard?
p = probability that ‘no’ sounds like ‘yes’, etc
• How much do you care about being misunderstood?
Pa = maximum acceptable error probability

What is Error Correction?
– Usually 𝑝 ≪ 𝑃𝑎 , so we don’t need to worry.
– But what if we are being asked life-or-death

questions over a noisy line?
– How can we make sure we are understood?

The Repetition Code
– We could repeat ourselves.
– With a lot of ‘no’s, it’s obvious we mean ‘no’.
– Same for mostly ‘no’s with a few random ‘yes’s

thrown in.
– With this encoding of our message, it has become

tolerant to small faults

The Repetition Code
– The receiver will need to decode the message.
– A sensible option is majority voting.
– A misunderstanding only happens when the majority of

copies are flipped
– For d repetitions
𝑑/2 𝑑/2
𝑑 𝑛 𝑝
𝑃= ෍ 𝑝 (1 − 𝑝)𝑑−𝑛 ~
𝑛 (1 − 𝑝)
𝑛=0
– P decays exponentially with d
– With enough repetitions, we can make P as small as we like

Encoding and Decoding
– This example contained all the basic features of

any protocol for quantum error correction.
• Input: Some information to protect.
• Encoding: Transform the information to make it

easier to protect.
• Errors: Random perturbations of the encoded

message.
• Decoding: Trying to deduce the input from the

perturbed message

Computation
– The example we just considered was one of communication, with errors occurring during transmission.
– For computation, errors are introduced whenever we perform an operation.
– We need to keep corrected errors as they are introduced.
– Can be done by constantly decoding and re-encoding

Computation
– For example, here’s a single bit using the Repetition code
– The ‘noisy operation’ here is just doing nothing (with some errors)
– Here we don’t completely decode and re-encode, but just do it enough to find and fix the errors.

Quantum Computation
– This method works great for bits, but not for qubits
– Suppose we wanted to encode some superposition state

𝑎 0ۧ + 𝑏 1ۧ → 𝑎 000ۧ + 𝑏 111ۧ
– Decoding requires measurement, and that destroys the superposition.
– To protect against one bad thing, we caused another!

Quantum Computation
– To solve this, we need to be more careful with our measurements.
– We do need to measure, to get information about errors. But we must avoid learning
about the encoded information
– For this, note that we don’t actually need the bit values. We only need to know which
ones have a different value to the rest.

Quantum Repetition Code
– Can be done with some extra qubits: one for each pair of code qubits.
– They are are initialized in state |0ۧ, and are used as the target for two CX gates
– The net effect is to measure the observable 𝑍𝑗 𝑍𝑗+1 : the Z basis parity of the two qubits
– In short: whether they are the same or different
cx 00ۧ = 00ۧ
cx 01ۧ = 00ۧ
cx 10ۧ = 11ۧ
cx 11ۧ = 10ۧ

– The parity measurements are repeated over the course of the computation
– The results are used to identify where errors likely occurred and how to remove their effects
– This is done by means of a classical algorithm: a decoding algorithm
– With this we can protect against bit flip errors

for an arbitrarily long time

Syndrome Measurement
– This measurement is a syndrome measurement
– The result is known as the syndrome
– All codes have them
– They are ways to check that all the qubits

are doing what they should be
– Their form changes from code to code,

but their job is always the same
– They provide the clues that allow us

to detect and correct errors

Decoding
– Start with an unrealistically simple case: errors between parity measurements only (not during)
– Focus on identifying errors for now (not correcting)
– Look for changes between rounds
– Errors create pairs of ‘defects’. Majority voting can be used to find a minimal pairing.

Decoding
– Next, a simple model of noise in the measurements: they randomly lie
– Again, look for changes between rounds
– Bit flips create defects with space-like separation, measurement errors with time-like
– Pairing is now a 2D problem, majority voting won’t work

Decoding
– There are many ways to do this, all with pros and cons
– One of the best is to think of the problem as a graph
• Defects are nodes
• The number of errors required to link them are weighted edges
– A likely set of errors corresponds to the ‘minimum weight perfect matching’ of the graph
– Efficiently computable using the ‘Blossom’ algorithm

Decoding
– Here it is in action for a portion of the example from earlier

Logical Operations
– If we wanted to manipulate the logical qubit, how could we do it?
– This requires a logical operation, made up of many

physical operations
– The logical X gate is easy for the repetition code
• do physical X gates on code qubits
• Code corrects imperfections
– An Rx gate essentially needs you to take the

code apart and put it back together again
• Not protected while unencoded

𝑅𝑥 2𝜃 0ۧ = cos 𝜃 0ۧ + sin 𝜃|1ۧ
→ cos 𝜃 |000ۧ + sin 𝜃|111ۧ

– The limited set of fault-tolerant logical gates is a major
problem with the repetition code
– But it is not the only one!
– The code only allows us to detect and correct bit fips, and
only bit flips
– Though we made sure that it doesn’t cause superpositions

to collapse, it doesn’t protect them either
– The repetition code is a good first example of quantum error correction,

but it cannot give us fault-tolerant quantum computation

Towards a good quantum code
– The problem with the repetition code is that it treats z basis states very different to x and y basis states
– Example 1: z basis states are product states, the others are entangled
|0ۧ → |000ۧ
1 1
|+ۧ = (|0ۧ + 1ۧ → (|000ۧ + |111ۧ)
2 2
– Example 2: Distinguishing encoded z basis requires a single qubit measurement, distinguishing x basis
states requires d
– Example 3: Flipping between z basis states requires d gates, but the x basis only takes one
|0ۧ → |1ۧ ∶ 𝑋0 𝑋1 𝑋2 |000ۧ = |111ۧ

1 1
|+ۧ → |−ۧ ∶ 𝑍𝑗 (|000ۧ + 111ۧ = (|000ۧ − |111ۧ)
2 2
– It is not good when things are too easy, because they are easy for errors too!

The Surface Code
– Quantum error correcting codes are defined by the measurements we make
– Let’s move beyond the simple 𝑍𝑗 𝑍𝑗+1 of the repetition code
– In the surface code we use a 2D lattice of code qubits, and define observables for plaquettes and vertices

Plaquette Syndrome
– First let’s focus on the plaquette syndrome
– These are similar to the two qubit measurements in the repetition code
– Instead we measure the parity around plaquettes in the lattice
– Can again be done with CX gates and an extra qubit

Plaquette Syndrome
– We can define a classical code (storing only a bit) based on the plaquette syndrome alone
– Valid states are those with trivial outcome for all plaquette syndrome measurements:
Even parity on all plaquettes
– How to store a 0 in this?
– How about the state where every code qubit is |0ۧ?

Plaquette Syndrome

Plaquette Syndrome

Plaquette Syndrome
– There are ‘nearby’ states that also have even parity on all plaquettes
– These can’t be a different encoded state: they are only a few bit flips away from our encoded 0 state
– We’ll treat them as alternative ways to store a 0

Plaquette Syndrome
– Given any state for an encoded 0
• Pick a vertex
• Apply bit flips around that vertex
– Now you have another valid state for 0
– This generates an exponentially large family

Plaquette Syndrome
– The states in this family can be very different
– But they all share a common feature
• Any line from top to bottom (passing along edges) has even parity
– This is how we can identify an encoded 0
– And it gives us a clue about how to encode a 1

Plaquette Syndrome
– For our basic encoded 1, we use a bunch of 0s with a line from left to right (passing through plaquettes)
– This also spawns an exponentially large family
– All have odd parity for a line from top to bottom
– Unlike the repetition code, distinguishing encoded 0 and 1 requires some effort (which is good!)

Logical X and Z
– Distinguishing 0 and 1 corresponds to measuring Z on the physical qubit
– The following observables detect what we need
– Or the same on any line from top to bottom
– Uses the edges has a nice advantage: we can think of them as large (unenforced) plaquettes

Logical X and Z
– To flip between 0 and 1, we can flip a line of qubits
– Such lines of flips act as an X on the logical qubit

Effects of Errors
– Applying an X to any code qubit changes
the parity of its two plaquettes
– An isolated X creates a pair of defects
– Further Xs can be move a defect, or

annihilate pairs of them
– A logical X requires many errors to stretch

across the lattice
– With the plaquette operators, we can

encode and protect a bit
Vertex Syndrome
– Now forget the plaquettes and focus on vertices
– These observables can also be measured using CX gates an an ancilla
– In this case they look at the |+ۧ and |−ۧ states, and count the parity of the
number of |−ۧs

Vertex Syndrome
– These operators also allow is to encode and protect a bit value
– In this case, let’s use + and - to label the two states
– They are encoded using suitable patterns of |+ۧ and |−ۧ states
for the code qubits
– As with the plaquettes, these also correspond to exponentially

large families of states

Logical X and Z
– What is the X operator (distinguish between |+ۧ and |−ۧ )?
– What is the Z operator (flip between |+ۧ and |−ۧ )?
– Turns out they are exactly the same as before!

Effects of Errors
– Applying a Z to any code qubit changes the X
parity of its two vertices
– An isolated Z creates a pair of defects
– Further Zs can be move a defect, or annihilate

pairs of them
– A logical Z requires many errors to stretch across

the lattice
– With the vertex operators, we can encode and

protect a bit
Putting it all Together
– The plaquette and vertex operators commute
– This allows us to detect both X and Z errors
– Since Y~XZ, we can detect Y errors too

– Encoded states now unique: superposition of all previous solutions
– For example, the encoded 0
– Satisfies 𝐴𝑣 |𝜓ۧ= |𝜓ۧ and 𝐵𝑣 |𝜓ۧ= |𝜓ۧ, so will give the 0 outcome for all stabilizer measurements

– The Z and X operators on the encoded qubit are exactly the same as before
– These, and the Hadamard, can be performed fault-tolerantly

– The states we need are highly entangled quantum states
– They are examples of topologically ordered states
– Though such things can be hard to make, we create and protect them with the syndrome measurements

– We are not just protected against X and Z, but all local errors
– As mentioned earlier, Y~XZ
– Everything else can be expressed
𝐸 =𝑎𝐼+𝑏𝑋+𝑐𝑌+𝑑𝑍
– This creates a superposition of different types of error on the surface code
– Measuring the stabilizers collapses this to a simple X, Y or Z

Final Readout
– The logical operators are many-body observables
– So how do we read them out fault-tolerantly
– When you decide on a basis for final measurement,

you stop caring about some errors
– You can then measurement in a product basis
– Final readout and final stabilizer measurement can

be constructed from the result
– Measurement errors are effectively the same as

errors before measurement

Decoding
– Given the measurement results, we need to work out what errors happened
– More specifically, the ‘equivalence class’ of errors
– This is the job of the decoding algorithm

Decoding with MWPM
– A good option is MWPM
– Just as we considered for the repetition code
– Again we start with the simple and unrealistic case: errors only
between measurement
– Each round can be decoded separately, corresponding to MWPM on

a 2D graph
– Decoding for X and Z errors can also be done independently

Decoding
– We need to be careful to account for the effects of the edges
– This is done by introducing extra ‘virtual nodes’

(also required for the repetition code, but we ignored it earlier)

Imperfect Measurements
– Again, we have the problem of imperfect measurements
• The measurements might lie
• Errors on the additional qubit
• Errors in the CX gates
– We base the decoding using syndrome changes
– This leads to a 3D MWPM problem (2D space + time)

Threshold
– Correcting according to the right class removes the effects of errors
– Correcting according to the wrong class causes an operation on the encoded qubit (without our knowing)
– What is the probability of such an error, P, given the probability on the qubits of the code, p?
– We find a phase transition as L is increased (for an LxL grid)

More Logical Gates
– We’ve seen how to do logical X and Z
– A logical CX can be done without much trouble
– A logical H requires the lattice to be rotated, but that

can be done
– Other logical Clifford gates can be done with some

crazy tricks
– But that’s all! No other logical operations can be done

fault-tolerantly.
– A solution is magic state distillation, using the logical

gates we have to clean up the one we don’t
– But that’s beyond today’s lecture…

Anyons in the Surface Code
– There are many variants on how qubits can be encoded

and manipulated in the surface code
– They all depend on the unique topological nature
– The ‘defects’ created by errors in the surface code

behave like particles
– All particles in our universe are either bosons or

fermions
– This due to topological restrictions in a 3D universe

– The surface code is only a 2D ‘universe’, so doesn’t have these restrictions
– How do these particles behave?

– Braiding a particle corresponds to applying a stabilizer
– Their eigenstates defines the braiding phase
– Neither bosons nor fermions, but anyons!

Minimal Implementation
– The first surface code will probably be a small one
– The smallest that allows correction is d=3
– This requires ~17 qubits
– Who will be among the first to run and study this code?
– Maybe you!

Superconducting Qubits I:
Making Your First Qubit
From an Oscillator
Introduction to Circuit
Quantum Electrodynamics (cQED)
Zlatko K. Minev
IBM Quantum
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY
Image copyright:
@zlatko_minev zlatko-minev.com ZKM unless otherwise noted
What is a real qubit?
How can you design, control,

and measure a real qubit?
Why?
Illustration: IBM Qiskit Textbook Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (2)
On the road ahead
Qubit in the cloud cQED: Transmon qubit Unveiling the
quantum oscillator
Qubit from atom / oscillator Classical circuits & the LC Transmon qubit
* Road image: based on Freepik IBM Quantum

This Lecture
Introductory and skill reaffirming
Don't need to know much going in, but we will go far Advanced
material
Examples: simplest, most practical examples
Step by step
Ask questions!
Tightly integrated lab work by Dr. Nick Bronn and Co.!
Icons here by FreePik. Dangerous bend symbol based on Donald Knuth. Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (4)
Avoid firehose of information
Thanks to Fred Moxley for gif reference. IBM Quantum

Qubit
From Idea to Reality
THE BIG PICTURE

before calculations
Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (6)

Qubit: idea
Energy levels Hilbert space Quantum cloud?
|1⟩
|0⟩
* Images: Minev, arXiv:1902.10355; Illustration on right: IBM Qiskit Textbook; Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (7)
Qubit: idea and reality
Energy levels Hilbert space

Lab Fridge
|1⟩
|0⟩
* Images: Minev, arXiv:1902.10355; Illustration on right: IBM, Qiskit Textbook Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (8)
Qubit: idea and reality
Energy levels Hilbert space The Mona Lisa Case
|1⟩
|0⟩
* Images: Minev, arXiv:1902.10355; Illustration on right: IBM, Qiskit Textbook Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (9)
Operation at
15 mK (-273.13 °C)
qubit
qubit
readout
qubit
readout
qubit
readout qubit
readout
…
readout
…

cQED qubit in the cloud: Summary of flow
* Laptop image: rawpixel.com; Photos: IBM Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (13)
Qubit
From Idea to Reality
Concepts

From qubit representation to reality
Realization Energy levels Hilbert space*
|1⟩
|0⟩
* Bloch sphere is a mere geometrical representation of SO(3), but the density matrix ρ is in SU(2), a double cover of SO(3).
* A density matrix operator lives not in the Hilbert space H but in the Liouville space H ⊗ H.
Images: Minev, arXiv:1902.10355; atom art: Indoleces. Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (15)
Origins of quantum
e.g., atom cloud
individual
atom
(experiments until c. 1980)

Atomic emission of light
Image: Averill and Eldredge, Principles of General Chemistry




Quantized levels
Atomic emission spectra Atoms are quantum:
discrete intrinsic energy levels*
Hydrogen
Energy
…
|3⟩
Helium
|2⟩
Neon
|1⟩
Sodium
|0⟩
Mercury
Quantization of energy
* The notion of an energy level was proposed by Bohr in 1913.
Image credit: NMSU, N. Vogt
The light of atoms

Atomic energy levels and transitions
Electron potential-energy landscape
Quantization of
energy
Radial distance from nucleus

Qubit from Atom
Anharmonic degree of
freedom and spin
Isolated from environment

Energy
and thermal bath
Low-loss
No level here
Level diagram allows for
qubit-specific control and
readout
There are always more than

two levels
Radius
Artificial atoms
capacitor inductor

Anharmonic d.o.f. and spin Harmonic oscillator
Energy Energy
Magnetic flux
Radius
non-linear
inductor
Anharmonic d.o.f. and spin Anharmonic oscillator

Energy Energy
anharmonicity
Magnetic flux
Radius
Big-picture connections
Idealization of Anharmonic Physical circuit Physical layout

qubit oscillator model
|1⟩
|1⟩
|0⟩ |0⟩
Idealization Physical reality

Circuit Quantum
Electrodynamics
(cQED)
Macro
overview

There are two kinds of physicists:
Those who believe all of physics is spins.

Those who believe all of physics is oscillators.

cQED Ingredients
Circuit elements Microwave oscillators
Combine …

cQED Ingredients
Small dissipation
Isolation from environment
Low temperature
Nonlinearity
Large vacuum fluctuations
Superconductivity
Nominally zero intrinsic dissipation and heat
Nominal temperature far below energy level splitting
Non-linear, robust Josephson tunnel junction effect
* Low energy dynamics. Microwave image: vectorpocket; Nobel photograph: Jonathunder; Josephson photograph: Nobel Foundation archive.
Wavelength (m)
Wavelength
scale
Frequency (Hz)
Effective
temperature
Order of 10-2 K 0.5 K, 10 GHz, 3 cm

magnitude
Spectrum image: Inductiveload, NASA

A few introductory reviews
And many more… check online or ask us for specific topic
Qiskit Textbook (2020; more chapters coming) Gambetta, J. M., Chow, J. M., & Steffen, M. (2017)
Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing
Blais, A., Grimsmo, A. L., Girvin, S. M., & Wallraff, A. (2020) system. Npj Quantum Information, 3(1), 2
Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics (arXiv:2005.12667)
Girvin, S. M. (2011) Circuit QED: superconducting qubits coupled
Kjaergaard, M., Schwartz, … Oliver, W. D. (2020) to microwave photons. Quantum machines: measurement and
Superconducting Qubits: Current State of Play control of engineered quantum systems, 113, 2.
Annual Reviews of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 369-395
Clerk, A. A., Girvin, S. M., Marquardt, F., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2010)
Krantz, P., Kjaergaard, M., Yan, F., … & Oliver, W. D. (2019) Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification
A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(2), 1155–1208
Applied Physics Reviews, 6(2), 021318
Clarke, J., & Wilhelm, F. K. (2008)
Corcoles, A. D., Kandala, A., … Gambetta, J. M. (2019) Superconducting quantum bits. Nature, 453(7198), 1031–1042
Challenges and Opportunities of Near-Term Quantum
Computing Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1–15. Devoret, M. H. (1997)
Quantum Fluctuations in Electrical Circuits.
Wendin, G. (2017) In Fluctuations Quantiques/Quantum Fluctuations (p. 351)
Quantum information processing with superconducting …
circuits. Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(10), 106001 Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (34)
Circuit Quantum
Electrodynamics
Introduction
To do quantum,
start with classical
Classical oscillator

Transmon qubit

Transmon qubit
Substrate Qubit pad

Dielectric Metal
Qubit inductor
Non-Linear
e.g., Josephson Junction

Transmon qubit: charge
Net positive charge Net negative charge

~ 1012 mobile e−

Electric field and voltage
Voltage
Electric field

Charge and capacitance
Constitute relationship
Capacitance
For a good discussion, see ”The Feynman Lectures on

Physics Vol. II Ch. 22: AC Circuits." Caltech. Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (41)
Conservation of charge Charge and current
Universal relationship
Caution: Passive
sign convention
Initial conditions

Magnetic flux and inductance
Faraday’s law of induction Constitute relationship
Universal relationship
Inductance
Initial conditions
Magnetic flux
For kinetic inductors,
~98% of qubit inductive energy is not
in stored magnetic fields, but in
kinetic inductance
Power and energy
Universal
Energy stored in Instantaneous

(delivered to) power flowing
component to component

Four fundamental manifestations of electricity

Four fundamental manifestations of electricity
Constitutive
elemental
relationships

Electromagnetic oscillator
capacitance value node of the circuit
inductance
value
inductor
capacitor
ground

Kirchhoff’s network laws*
Conservation of charge Faraday’s law of induction

Kirchhoff’s current law Kirchhoff’s voltage law
As we will see later, for the Lagrangian description in flux basis, KVL acts as a set of holonomic
constraints and KCL as the equations of motion
Oscillator analogy
Velocity
Deviation from equilibrium
Equilibrium position
Resonance
frequency Spring: Svjo
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian*
Kinetic energy − Potential energy
Canonically conjugate variable

(momentum; charge)
Euler-Lagrange equations, F = ma
Kinetic energy + Potential energy
* Temporarily going to assume some minimal knowledge of classical mechanics.

Since we eliminated the KVL constraints, this is a Lagrangian of the second kind. Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (50)
Energy The LC classical harmonic oscillator
Graph: Minev; Spring-mass: Svjo

“It is by logic that we prove,
but by intuition that we discover.”
Henri Poincaré
Photo by Eugène Pirou

Hamiltonian dynamics and phase space
with

Complex action-angle variable
Classical analog of the

bosonic ladder operator

Unveiling the quantum
Quantum harmonic oscillator

Unveiling the quantum
Dangerous bend
ahead on quantization

Drawing: Zurek, Physics Today (1991)

Dirac's canonical quantization
Quantum (commutator) Classical (Poisson bracket)
These look
a lot alike!
Source: Cambridge University,

Cavendish Laboratory / Wikimedia where where
Commons
Procedure: Supplant the Poisson brackets by commutators

“There is, however, a fairly general
method of obtaining quantum
conditions, applicable to a very large
class of dynamical systems. This is
the method of classical analogy”
P.A.M. Dirac
Dirac's canonical quantization: Quick exposure
Supplant classical Poisson bracket
and all quantum algebra follows…
Derivation: Dirac derives the quantum form of the Poisson bracket — the commutator — from
merely assuming that
1. Classical Poisson bracket rules hold (by analogy, the new theory must be consistent with the old!)
2. The dynamical variables do not commute; i.e., xp ≠ px
3. The Poisson bracket has a single result and single unique meaning
Problems:
• Operator ordering ambiguities.
Consider A and B are polynomials in x and p; e.g., x2×p or p×x2
• Curvilinear coordinate systems (potentially transmon if cos(Φ/φ0) considered wrapped)
• Quantum gravity …
Photo: F. Schmutzer

The classical and quantum oscillator
Classical Quantum

The classical and quantum oscillator
Classical Quantum
Hamiltonian
Phase space
(Heisenberg
picture)

Ladder operators and matrix representation
annihilation creation general hopping
Image: Griffiths, D.J.

Hand-written notes
Hamiltonian and energy Mean, variance, and RMS fluctuations

Calculations of the energy

Expectation value of magnetic flux and charge

Fluctuations of flux

Fluctuations of flux and charge

Wavefunctions of the quantum oscillator
Energy
Classically forbidden
region

Energy /
Scaled
wavefunction
amplitude
region

Energy /
Scaled
wavefunction
amplitude
region

Phase-space (Husimi Q function)

Pop-up question
The flux and charge operators are Hermitian
observables.
How can some expectations, such as
be imaginary?
Or, others be negative…?

Advanced questions
Will discuss
answers on my
blog sometime
soon
Quantum Harmonic Oscillator Applets
Energy levels of SHO applet from

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis
Wigner function
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/WignerFunctionOfHarmonicOscillator/
Coherent states
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CoherentStatesOfTheHarmonicOscillator/

Linear harmonic oscillator summary

Energy
The LC quantum harmonic oscillator
Graph: Minev; Spring-mass: Svjo Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (77)
…
wavefunction amplitude
Energy / Scaled
Classically
forbidden region
The road behind and ahead
Qubit in the cloud cQED: Transmon qubit Unveiling the
quantum oscillator
Qubit from atom / oscillator Classical circuits & the LC Transmon qubit

Next steps
Tightly integrated lab work with Dr. Nick Bronn and Co.!
More depth on qubit control
Run experiments on real devices
Check out references, problems given in the lecture,

dangerous bends
Break away from the rules of today
Thank you!
Zlatko K. Minev
@zlatko_minev zlatko-minev.com IBM Quantum
Superconducting Qubits II
Transmon & Measurements
Introduction
Zlatko K. Minev
IBM Quantum
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY
Image copyright:
@zlatko_minev zlatko-minev.com ZKM unless otherwise noted
The road ahead
Transmon qubit Qubit and readout (/qubit) Lab
Qubit control On measurements

Takeaways from Lecture I
(and building on)

“Quantum phenomena do not
occur in a Hilbert space, they
occur in a laboratory.”
Asher Peres
Qubit in the cloud
* Laptop image: rawpixel.com; Photos: IBM

Transmon qubit: physical picture
Net positive charge
Magnetic flux

A first approximation
Harmonic oscillator
Energy
Magnetic flux
Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (7/104)

Classical to quantum bridge
…
wavefunction amplitude
Energy / Scaled
Classically
forbidden region
Graph: Minev; Spring: Svjo Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (9)
Phase-space (Husimi Q function)

The cloud of quantum uncertainty

Transmon Qubit
Introduction Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (12)

The transmon as a non-linear oscillator
Josephson
tunnel junction
Non-linear inductor

Josephson tunnel junction
generalized
magnetic
flux
SEM image: L. Frunzio
Circuit image: Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020)

The Transmon qubit
EJ
Energy
Classically
forbidden region
-EJ
-" 0 "
≈ 3.3 × 10−16 Wb Reduced magnetic flux Φ/!0
Image: Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020) Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (15)
Semi-classical intuition: phase space picture

The Transmon qubit
EJ
Energy
Classically
forbidden region
-EJ
-" 0 "
Reduced magnetic flux Φ/!0
Hand-written notes
Hand-written notes
The Transmon qubit
EJ
RWA or 1st
order PT
Energy
Due to nl & commutator Due to non-linearity (nl) Classically
forbidden region
where -EJ
-" 0 "
“Lamb shift” Anharmonicity Zero-point Reduced magnetic flux Φ/!0
due to ZPF fluctuations Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (20)
The Kerr Hamiltonian of the transmon
EJ
Energy
Solution known (SHO) New from nonlinearity
Classically
forbidden region
-EJ
-" 0 "
Reduced magnetic flux (Φ/!0)
1st order correction to energy: and to eigenstates:
To first order perturbation theory the eigenstates do not change! Only the energy changes. Dispersive.
Exploring a real transmon qubit
EJ
Energy
Solution known (SHO) New from nonlinearity
Classically
forbidden region
-EJ
-" 0 "
Experimental parameters Reduced magnetic flux (Φ/!0)

Exploring a real transmon qubit
EJ
Energy
Dispersive, states didn’t change to 1st order
“Lamb shift” due to ZPF
Classically
forbidden region
-EJ
Parameters used in figure (of a measured qubit) -" 0 "

Quantum fluctuations of the transmon qubit
EJ
Energy
-EJ
-" 0 "
Energy diagram and transition spectrum
Energy levels Transition spectrum
ωq

Ladder operators and matrix representation
annihilation creation general hopping
Image: Griffiths, D.J.

The Transmon qubit: restricting Hilbert space
Restrict to qubit subspace of |0> and |1>
Energy
0
0
Φ/!0

The Transmon qubit: restricting Hilbert space
Restrict to qubit subspace of |0> and |1>
Energy
Fock number Qubit Pauli Z Qubit Pauli X and Y
operator operator operators
0
0
Φ/!0

Drawing: Zurek, Physics Today (1991)
Calculating the energy-participation ratio
Energy stored in junction

!" =
Inductive energy stored in mode 5
Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020); Dissertation arXiv: 1902.10355 Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (30)
Energy participation-ratio: a bridge
What fraction of the energy of mode m

is stored in junction j?
for j>1, root requires sign bit smj = ±1

Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020); Dissertation arXiv: 1902.10355 Drawing: Zurek, Physics Today (1991)
All this explicated in
Minev dissertation Sec. 4.1 (arXiv: 1902.10355)
In detail, to appear soon in the EPR paper:

Transmon Qubit
Control and beyond Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (33)
Single-qubit quantum gates
IBM Quantum
Qubit control
input-output line
qubit (control, shaped signals, but also environment)
Qubit control: overview
qubit

qubit


Qubit control: Covered in Lab 1 by Nick Bronn & Co.
qubit
input-output line
(control, shaped signals, but also environment)
Control, noise, and dissipation go hand-in-hand
Can lead to uncontrolled, random bit and
phase flip.
Fluctuation-dissipation theorem* noisy environment
susceptibility, noise, and dissipation

always go hand-in-hand
Intrinsic and I-O channels, lead to

relaxation times:
T1 : energy
T2 : (coherence) transverse
Noisy environment, and
always zero-point quantum fluctuations
* This is a major topic in condensed matter physics;
we will only touch on it. Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (40)
Coherence in superconducting circuits
Isolation vs. control
Fluxonia
(Chicago, UMD)
(Yale) (Yale)
2-D Transmon
(IBM)
2-D Transmon
(IBM) multi-qubit
systems
Year
2020
Image reproduced Reagor (2015), an update of Devoret and Schoelkopf (2013), and updated
Is the junction phase/flux
compact or not?

Harmonic Approximation

Tight-binding model

Quantum measurement:
a very brief primer

Principal element of sensing: the measurement

A classical measurement example
Are there fumes in the oil barrel?
Example based on Wiseman and Milburn (2010)
Barrel image:freepik.com Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (47)
Two basic classes of measurements
Demolition Non-demolition
Caution: Classical
measurements can
also be disturbing!
e.g., photon absorption e.g., dispersive cavity

Both accessible in circuits, more on this later
Takeaways: Basic character of quantum measurements
Necessarily disturb system (back-action)

non-commuting
Heisenberg uncertainty
fundamental limits to precision, e.g., SQL, …
no joint probability distribution (over x, p)
quasi-probabilities (Wigner, Q)
no classical Fisher information
entropy-increasing
contextuality
….
Qubit measurement with circuits
Direct monitoring cQED dispersive
qubit qubit cavity
Demolition Quantum non-demolition* (QND)
Spontaneous emission Inhibited spontaneous emission

Blais et al., PRA (2004)
Clarke & Wilhelm, Nature (2008) Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (51)
Qubit coupled to resonator

Qubit coupled Qubit coupled
to resonator to qubit
Readout Two-qubit gates

Qubit and oscillator

Qubit measurement with circuits




Two coupled transmon qubits
Canonical charge is modified by coupling capacitor

Can use EPR to avoid issues
Energy-participation eigenmode approach
Linearize
Linearize
All linear
Easy to solve, classical problem
Eigenmode solutions
Linearize
Solutions are eigenmodes (normal mode),
just more SHO. Their Eigenfrequencies are
The Hamiltonian of two SHO is
The non-linear part of the Hamiltonian is

Recall
The coupling capacitor CC effect is accounted for in

the definition of the eigenmode a and b operators.
We need the junction flux in mode operators.

Eigen-decomposition of junction flux
Eigen (dressed) coordinates
“Bare”
coordinates
Canonical transformation
eigenvectors (found classically)
Use in It follows
and, similarly, for the second junction flux
(second quantization in eigen basis of linearized circuit)

See Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020); Dissertation arXiv: 1902.10355 Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (64)
Partitioning the Hamiltonian
What fraction of the

where , and so on
energy of a mode m
is stored in the junction? and for weak coupling
See Minev et al., EPR to appear (2020); Dissertation arXiv: 1902.10355 Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (65)
Breakdown of the Hamiltonian
RWA. Notation: dropping ZPF and index for 1
Terms like those of isolated transmon
Drop small terms (cross-participation) …
Only new addition is this non-linear,

photon-number dependent coupling,
called the cross-Kerr.

Linearize system and find eigenmodes
Review of steps
1. Linearize and find eigenmodes
2. Taylor series of nl. potential to 4th order
3. RWA and normal order
4. Dispersive approximation
Using labels to q for qubit eigenmode and c for cavity

eigenmode, and
Joint spectrum
Transition
spectrum !q !q χqc
Recall that harmonic
oscillator has evenly spaced
levels
ωq -Δq ωc

Conditional cavity spectrum
Response qubit in |1> qubit in |0>

cavity
probe
Lorentzian peak
(response of cavity on irradiation)
Frequency Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (69)

cQED dispersive readout: measuring Z
Pointer states of measurement

apparatus (cavity) corresponding to
the qubit in the ground (g) and
excited (e) states

cQED dispersive readout: measuring Z
distinguishability
Integration time Tint

efficient, fast measurements
image: Clerk et al. (2010) Zlatko Minev — Qiskit Global Summer School 2020 (71)
The road behind
Transmon qubit Qubit and readout (/qubit) Lab
Qubit control On measurements

Next steps
Tightly integrated lab work with Dr. Nick Bronn and Co.!
Run experiments on real devices
Check out references, problems given in the lecture,

dangerous bends
Break away from the rules of today
Thank you!
Zlatko K. Minev
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existence.
One cannot help but be in awe when he

contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of
the marvelous structure of reality.
It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a

little of this mystery each day.
Photo: F. Schmutzer

Simulating Chemistry on a
Quantum Computer
Part I
Antonio Mezzacapo
Qiskit Global Summer School 2020
IBM Quantum
TJ Watson Research Center

Yorktown Heights, NY
Topics covered IBM Quantum
Construct Qubit Hamiltonians for molecules
- Second quantization notation

- Basics of fermion to qubit mappings
Variational Quantum Algorithms
- Why they work

- Popular Variational Wavefunctions
- Open challenges
IBM Quantum
IBM Quantum
Molecular Hamiltonians
Molecular Hamiltonians IBM Quantum
Quantum
Speedup
Hardware Practical
economy applications
Quantum Chemistry: What can quantum computers do?
Reaction rates Molecular structure

Electronic KE Nuclear KE Electron-nuclear Electron-electron Nuclear-nuclear

Coulomb Coulomb Coulomb
Electronic KE Nuclear KE Electron-nuclear Electron-electron Nuclear-nuclear

Coulomb Coulomb Coulomb
IBM Quantum
Fermion to qubit mappings

Fermion to qubit mappings IBM Quantum
Ho do we write the action of fermionic creation and annihilation operators in these

scrambled bases? Let’s identify three sets of qubits for each fermionic mode i:
The parity set, The update set, The flip set
The parity set: tells us the set of qubits that encodes the parity of the fermionic modes
with index less than i. The parity of this set of qubits will give us the global phase
The update set: the set of qubits that must be flipped when the fermionic mode i change
occupation
The flip set: the set of qubits that determines whether qubit i has the same or inverted
parity with respect to fermionic mode i
H2 Hamiltonian (4 fermionic modes): 4–qubit to 1–qubit
Independent Pauli 3 single-qubit Pauli
Symmetries: with commutation rules
Build 3 Clifford operators
Apply the Clifford

unitaries to the H2
Hamiltonian
IBM Quantum
Variational circuits
Variational circuits IBM Quantum
Fermionic Hamiltonian problem
Map the problem to qubits
Trial State prepared

on quantum chip
Optimization
Energy measurement
on quantum chip
Solution
0
10
Entanglers: 0
Entanglers: 1
Entanglers: 2
Entanglers: 3
-1 Entanglers: 4
10 Entanglers: 6
Entanglers: 8
Energy Error
10 -2
Chemical accuracy
-3
10
10 -4
10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2
Noise Strength
QAOA on fixed
Qubit architectures
UCCSD
Hardware Efficient:
QAOA
Entanglers + Euler Rotations
Easier to realize Guided by physical/chemical

on quantum hardware intuition
Convergence to the exact ground state is never guaranteed in general

IBM Quantum
Optimization
Optimization IBM Quantum
Fermionic Hamiltonian problem
Map the problem to qubits
Trial State prepared

on quantum chip
Optimization
Energy measurement
on quantum chip
Solution
Optimization IBM Quantum
SPSA optimization: same level of accuracy

with 1/p less function calls, with stochastic
fluctuations
VQE on hardware IBM Quantum
Current challenges for using quantum computers to target
chemistry applications IBM Quantum
Measurement errors
Phase estimation algorithm
Control problems
Quantum dynamics Sampling speed

Hamiltonian simulation
Qubit reset/on chip
feedback
Variational algorithms
Coherence times
Hamiltonian averaging
Gate sequence
optimization
Subspace methods
Better bases
for excited states
Better qubit
Software (Theory) encodings
Error mitigation
Hardware (Experiment) schemes
Sampling problem
Topics covered IBM Quantum
Construct Qubit Hamiltonians for molecules
- Second quantization notation

- Basics of fermion to qubit mappings
Variational Quantum Algorithms
- Why they work

- Popular Variational Wavefunctions
- Open challenges
Notes IBM Quantum
Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory

Author(s): Trygve Helgaker Poul Jørgensen Jeppe Olsen
Advanced Quantum Mechanics

Authors: Schwabl, Franz
Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory

Authors : Szabo, Ostlund
Notes IBM Quantum
Notes IBM Quantum
Notes IBM Quantum
Notes IBM Quantum
Notes IBM Quantum
Simulating chemistry on a quantum
computer II
Abhinav Kandala
akandala@us.ibm.com
IBM Quantum
QISKIT Global Summer School

July 29, 2020
IBM Research Frontiers
Institute 1
IBM Quantum
Motivations: Quantum hardware meets quantum algorithms

0.4
0.2
Energy (Hartree)
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0 1 2 3 4
Interatomic distance (Angstrom)
2 © 2017 IBM Corporation

IBM Quantum

IBM Quantum
Potential energy curve of a molecule

0.4
Unstable
0.2
Energy (Hartree) 0
-0.2
-0.4 Equilibrium Dissociation
-0.6
-0.8
-1
∆E Rate ∝ Exp(-∆E/kT)
-1.2
0 1 2 3 4
IBM Quantum
The Electronic Structure Problem

Interacting fermionic problems: A core challenge in modern computational physics
and HPC
N
X XN XM
1 2 ZA X 1
He = ri +
i=1
2 i=1
r iA j>i
r ij
A=1
H| Gi = EG | Gi

Can we build a programmable,
well-controlled quantum system to
simulate the properties of other
natural quantum systems, like
molecules?
Natural atoms Artificial Atoms
10-9 m 10-3 m
Classical Quantum
0 0
Quantum Bits (“Qubits”) can be in
a superposition of 0 and 1
1 1
10110…1001
10110…1001 11010…1010
00100…1101
10110…1111
N bit number: 2N possible states Can be in a superposition of all
Always in 1 of those states 2N states
IBM Quantum
Quantum Circuits
Decompose unitary N
U 2 U(2 )
| i = U |0 . . . 0i
†
U= CNOT0,2 T0 T2 . . . X0 X1
Universal gate set: CNOT (two-qubit gate) and single qubit rotations
David DiVincenzo, Two-Bit Gates are Universal for Quantum Computation, PRA 15, 1015 (1995)
IBM Quantum
Short depth circuits
Approximate quantum computing with noisy quantum hardware
Time • Near-term quantum

hardware is noisy
Q0 • Fault tolerant architectures

not immediately accessible
Q1
• Novel algorithms focused on
Q2 using short depth circuits
that make best use of
Q3 coherence window

Quantum Hardware recap ..
Artificial atom: Transmon
100 µm
Superconductor (Al)
Insulator (Al2O3)
Superconductor (Al)
JAP, 125(16), 165301, 2019

Artificial atom: Transmon
Superconductor (Al)
|2⟩
Energy
|1⟩ Insulator (Al2O3)

ℏ𝜔0
|0⟩
Superconductor (Al)
JAP, 125(16), 165301, 2019

F
Single qubit control: Rabi Oscillations
|2⟩
Energy
|1⟩
ℏ𝜔0
|0⟩
Image: QISKIT textbook

F
Single qubit control: Rabi Oscillations
Image: QISKIT textbook
|2⟩
Energy
|1⟩
ℏ𝜔0
|0⟩
F • Amplitude/duration of pulse controls angle of rotation.
• Phase of pulse controls axis of rotation

IBM Quantum
Two-qubit entangling gates
Apply operations on two qubit product states to create an entangled state,

i.e. one that cannot be factored into its individual qubit components.
Entanglement generated by conditional rotations i.e rotations of a qubit

(target) dependent on the state of the other (control).
IBM Quantum
Two-qubit entangling gates: Cross resonance
Q2
𝜔2
Q1
Can generate a CNOT with only microwave pulses

IBM Quantum
Dispersive readout
0
~!01 0 Qubit State dependent
H= ˆz + ~(!r + ˆz )â† â resonator frequency
2
Monitor transmission
at this peak frequency 0 0
Transmission
Cavity
Readout Tone Frequency

1 1
High transmission Low transmission
IBM Quantum
Superconducting quantum processor: ibmq_5_yorktown

IBM Quantum
Device characterization
Frequency Single-qubit U2
Qubit T1 (µs) T2 (µs) (GHz) Readout error error rate CNOT error rate
cx0_1: 1.380e-2,
Q0 64.2 74.54 5.286 2.45E-02 6.49E-04 cx0_2: 1.430e-2
cx1_0: 1.380e-2,
Q1 77.35 83.17 5.238 1.75E-02 5.72E-04 cx1_2: 1.713e-2
cx2_0: 1.430e-2,
cx2_1: 1.713e-2,
cx2_3: 1.470e-2,
Q2 50.9 41.91 5.031 2.75E-02 8.32E-04 cx2_4: 1.708e-2
cx3_2: 1.470e-2,
Q3 60.04 47.72 5.296 3.35E-02 9.79E-04 cx3_4: 1.245e-2
cx4_2: 1.708e-2,
Q4 57.19 64.79 5.084 1.45E-02 4.17E-04 cx4_3: 1.245e-2
Q: Which 2 qubits would you choose for a H2 simulation?

IBM Quantum
Device characterization
Frequency Single-qubit U2
Qubit T1 (µs) T2 (µs) (GHz) Readout error error rate CNOT error rate
cx0_1: 1.380e-2,
Q0 64.2 74.54 5.286 2.45E-02 6.49E-04 cx0_2: 1.430e-2

Hardware errors
Errors
• Incoherent
• Leakage
• Coherent
• Measurement
Incoherent errors: Energy relaxation
• Initialize qubit in |1> state and probe its
decay to |0>
• How quickly does the qubit lose its

energy?
• P(|1>) = exp{-t/T1}
Sweep delay time

Xp Measure
Incoherent errors: Dephasing
• Initialize qubit in superposition state
• How quickly does the qubit lose its phase

coherence?
• Characteristic time: T2
Sweep delay time

H H Measure
Coherence budget
Single qubit gate time ~ 0.01 x 10-6 s
Two qubit gate time ~ 0.1 x 10-6 s
T1 , T2~ 100 x 10-6 s

Leakage errors
• Transmon qubits are weakly

anharmonic (𝝎01- 𝝎12 ~ 0.330
GHz). Not true two-level
systems. PRL 116,020501 (2016)
• Can place limits on gate speed Square Pulse:
• Leakage out of
computational subspace
Gaussian Pulse:
• Pulse shaping is important

Coherent errors
-3
x 10
-0.8
-1
Signal (a.u.)
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Repetitions
Sheldon et al, PRA 93, 012301 (2016)
Example: Under/Over rotations

IBM Quantum
Measurement errors
0
~!01 0 Qubit State dependent
H= ˆz + ~(!r + ˆz )â† â resonator frequency
2
Example:
Transmission
Prepare ‘0’
Measured {‘0’ : 99% ‘1’: 1%}
Cavity
Prepare ‘1’
Readout Tone Frequency Measured {‘0’ : 5% ‘1’: 95%}
Monitor transmission Measurement fidelity: 97%

at this peak frequency
Back to chemistry
IBM Quantum
The Electronic Structure Problem
Interacting fermionic problems: A core challenge in modern computational physics

and HPC
N
X XN XM
1 2 ZA X 1
He = ri +
i=1
2 i=1
r iA j>i
r ij
A=1
H| Gi = EG | Gi

IBM Quantum
The problem and its qubit representation
In general, problem of M electrons in N spin

orbitals (M<N) mapped onto N qubit- Hamiltonian
with O(N4) Pauli strings
Jordan Wigner, Brayvi-Kitaev, Parity mapping …

X
H =schemeshN↵spin(↵)
For standard second-quantization orbitals are mapped ontoxN qubits
y z ⌦M
↵ A 2 ±{I, , , }
IBM Quantum
Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE)
Variational principle: the energy of any trial wave-function is

greater than or equal to the exact ground state energy
~
h (✓)|H| ~
(✓)i
EG
~ (✓)i
h (✓)| ~
<latexit sha1_base64="RvrZaf+U6pdsiZ0ltLPkNA3tPyM=">AAACXXicdVFLSwMxGMyu7/qqelDwEiyCXsquFNSbIKLHClaFppRs+m0bzGbX5FuhrP2T3vTiXzHdVlCxA4Fh5ps8JlGmpMUgePf8ufmFxaXllcrq2vrGZnVr+96muRHQEqlKzWPELSipoYUSFTxmBngSKXiIni7H/sMLGCtTfYfDDDoJ72sZS8HRSd0qsthwUTDFdV8Ba1p5xF5AMBwA8uPXm9e/EjPl5GhmZFaAsj4806tucT3qVmtB/bwEnZDTxpSchzSsByVqZIpmt/rGeqnIE9AoFLe2HQYZdgpuUAq3dYXlFjIunngf2o5qnoDtFGU7I3rolB6NU+OWRlqqPxMFT6wdJpGbTDgO7F9vLP7ntXOMzzqF1FmOoMXkoDhXFFM6rpr2pAGBaugIF0a6u1Ix4K5udB9ScSV8v5TOJvcn9TCoh7eN2sXetI5lsk8OyBEJySm5IDekSVpEkA+PeCtexfv0F/w1f2My6nvTzA75BX/3C3JUtt8=</latexit>

IBM Quantum
Variational principle

IBM Quantum
Variational principle

IBM Quantum
Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE)
~
E(✓)
X
H= h↵ (↵)
↵
Map problem onto Paulis
✓~ Use classical optimizer
Prepare guess state | ~

G (✓)i
Measure its energy
X
~ =
E(✓) h↵ h ~
G (✓)| ↵ | G (✓)i
~
Nat. Commun 5, 4213 (2014)
↵
36
Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
© 2017 IBM Corporation
IBM Quantum
Mapping fermions to qubits

Pauli string
H = h1 IXIY + h2 XZZX + h3 XZY Z

<latexit sha1_base64="XTHYuLInmxsZrQdawsErh/PgykE=">AAACAnicdVDLSgMxFM3UV62vqitxEyxCQSgztVC7EApu2l0F204fw5BJ005o5kGSEcpQ3Pgrblwo4tavcOffmE5HUNEDl3s4516Se5yQUSF1/UPLrKyurW9kN3Nb2zu7e/n9g44IIo5JGwcs4KaDBGHUJ21JJSNmyAnyHEa6zvRq4XdvCRc08G/kLCSWhyY+HVOMpJLs/FHj0rWNptnsnbl22ez3TdXPzX6vb+cLeqmWAC5JtZKSmgGNkp6gAFK07Pz7cBTgyCO+xAwJMTD0UFox4pJiRua5YSRIiPAUTchAUR95RFhxcsIcniplBMcBV+VLmKjfN2LkCTHzHDXpIemK395C/MsbRHJ8YcXUDyNJfLx8aBwxKAO4yAOOKCdYspkiCHOq/gqxizjCUqWWUyF8XQr/J51yydBLxnWlUC+mcWTBMTgBRWCAKqiDBmiBNsDgDjyAJ/Cs3WuP2ov2uhzNaOnOIfgB7e0TJSmV8A==</latexit>
Number of non-identity single qubit Pauli operators : weight of

the Pauli string
Larger weight Pauli strings are increasingly sensitive to

measurement error
Choice of fermion-qubit mapping important: Each fermionic

operator maps to O(N) qubits for JW, O(log N) for BK

IBM Quantum
Tapering of qubits
H = h1 IXIY + h2 XZZX + h3 XZY Z

<latexit sha1_base64="XTHYuLInmxsZrQdawsErh/PgykE=">AAACAnicdVDLSgMxFM3UV62vqitxEyxCQSgztVC7EApu2l0F204fw5BJ005o5kGSEcpQ3Pgrblwo4tavcOffmE5HUNEDl3s4516Se5yQUSF1/UPLrKyurW9kN3Nb2zu7e/n9g44IIo5JGwcs4KaDBGHUJ21JJSNmyAnyHEa6zvRq4XdvCRc08G/kLCSWhyY+HVOMpJLs/FHj0rWNptnsnbl22ez3TdXPzX6vb+cLeqmWAC5JtZKSmgGNkp6gAFK07Pz7cBTgyCO+xAwJMTD0UFox4pJiRua5YSRIiPAUTchAUR95RFhxcsIcniplBMcBV+VLmKjfN2LkCTHzHDXpIemK395C/MsbRHJ8YcXUDyNJfLx8aBwxKAO4yAOOKCdYspkiCHOq/gqxizjCUqWWUyF8XQr/J51yydBLxnWlUC+mcWTBMTgBRWCAKqiDBmiBNsDgDjyAJ/Cs3WuP2ov2uhzNaOnOIfgB7e0TJSmV8A==</latexit>

IBM Quantum
Tapering of qubits

IBM Quantum
Trial State Preparation
• Unitary Coupled Cluster ansatz :

Offers physical intuition, focuses
ground state search in ”good”
space
• However, translates to very

expensive gate count
• Alternative approach: Keeping

hardware limitations in mind, do
what hardware can do best!
A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, et al,

40 Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
IBM Quantum

IBM Quantum
Trial state preparation: Arbitrary single qubit rotation
Software implemented Z-
gates
(Perfect, zero time)
Variational parameters:
• Pulse envelope
• Pulse length
• Amplitude
• Phase
IBM Quantum
• Sequence of interleaved
arbitrary single qubit rotations
and naturally available
entangling gates
• Depth set by available quantum

coherence (incoherent errors)
• N(3d+2) variational parameters
• This structure offers some

robustness to coherent errors

43 Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
IBM Quantum
Energy measurement : Measuring expectation values
Post
rotations

IBM Quantum
Post
rotations

IBM Quantum
Post
rotations

IBM Quantum
Energy measurement: Measurement Basis

IBM Quantum
Energy measurement: Measurement Basis

IBM Quantum
Energy measurement: Pauli Grouping

IBM Quantum
Energy measurement: Shot noise

000
0 N=100
N=100 N=1000
N=1000 N=10000
N=500
N=500 N=100 N=1000
Even if ground state

69e+00
369e+00 <E>=-1.042582e+00
<E>=-1.042582e+00 <E>=-1.063855e+00
<E>=-1.063855e+00 <E>=-1.061010e+00
<E>=-1.068369e+00
<E>=-1.061010e+00 <E>=-1.042582e+00 <E>=-1.063855e+00
8840e-05
40e-05 Evar=3.146017e-03
Evar=3.146017e-03 Evar=1.415262e-04
Evar=1.415262e-04 Evar=4.441416e-04
Evar=1.458840e-05
Evar=4.441416e-04 Evar=3.146017e-03 Evar=1.415262e-04
1414 1515 1515
7 14 15
preparation is perfect,
estimating <O> will still
1212 6 12
1010
1010
5
1010
10
have error 10
8 8 4 8
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
Counts
6 6 3 6
5 5 5 5 5
4 4 2 4
2 2 1 2
0 0 0 0 000 0 0
-1 -1 -1.2
-1.2 -1.1
-1.1 -1 -1 -1.2
-1.2 -1.1
-1.1 -1 -1 -1.2
-1.2
-1.2 -1.1
-1.1
-1.1 -1-1-1 -1.2 -1.1 -1 -1.2 -1.1 -1
gy Energy
Energy Energy
Energy Energy
Energy
Energy
Can affect accuracy of
Energy Energy
100 1000 10000 classical optimizer

Number of shots N
Classical optimizer
arXiv:1712.09913
Classical optimizer: Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic
Approximation (SPSA) a b
Need to reduce of calls to Quantum computer

c
Gradient approx.: Regardless of dimension of
optimization problem, utilizes only two
measurements per iteration
[1] J. C. Spall, Multivariate stochastic approximation using a

simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation, IEEE Transactions A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, et al,
on Automatic Control 37, 332 (1992) Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
Classical optimizer
arXiv:1712.09913
IBM Quantum
Run time overhead
• Number of energy estimations per

iteration
• Number of Pauli strings in the

Hamiltonian
• Number of shots
• System initialization

Putting it all together ..
Experimental optimization of a 6 Qubit Hamiltonian
-13.6 Xq ( q,0,
2
) Zq ( q,0,
3
) Zq ( q,1,
1
) Xq ( q,1,
2
) Zq ( q,1,
3
)
a b
-13.8
(Radians)
Energy (Hartree)
/2 -7.
-7
-14
0
-7.
-14.2 -7
Energy (Hartree)
q,i,
- /2
j
-7.
-14.4
- c 0.
0
-14.6
E (Hartree)
0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200
0.
Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration Iteration
-14.8 0
0.
-15
-15.2
Final Exp. Result
-15.4
Exact
-15.6
0 50 100 150 200 250
Iteration A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, et al,
Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
Application to quantum chemistry : H2
HA: 1s1 HB: 1s1

4 spin orbitals mapped to 2 qubits
-0.6 d=4 Å
Equilibrium d = 0.735 Å
-0.8
H = (-1.05237)II+(0.39735)ZI+(0.39735)IZ+
Energy (Hartree)
(0.11279)ZZ+(0.18093)XX -1
d=0.735 Å
Dissociation d = 4 Å -1.2
H = (-0.70461)II+(0.00012)ZI+(0.00012)IZ+ -1.4
(1.6673e-10)ZZ+(0.33438)XX
-1.6
-1.8
0 100 200 300 400 500

Trial Step
Application to quantum chemistry : H2
HA: 1s1 HB: 1s1 0.4

100
4 spin orbitals mapped to 2 qubits Q6 Q1
0.2
50
Equilibrium d = 0.735 Å
0 Q5 Q4 Q3
0
H = (-1.05237)II+(0.39735)ZI+(0.39735)IZ+
Energy (Hartree)
C
R
2-
(0.11279)ZZ+(0.18093)XX -0.2
4
Q7 Q2
-0.4 H H
Dissociation d = 4 Å
-0.6
H = (-0.70461)II+(0.00012)ZI+(0.00012)IZ+
(1.6673e-10)ZZ+(0.33438)XX
-0.8
-1
a
-1.2
0 1 2 3 4
IBM Quantum
Application to quantum chemistry : Going beyond period 1 ....

XZXZ XXXX
ZZZZ XZZX
-0.0026669416291266101 0.02892604472017965 ZXZX XXZX
0.080333850925909334 -0.0012708408559466877
XZII XXII -0.0074989926703520624
IIII -0.0093271960584065342
-0.012585096432460004 -0.029639606309848882 XIZX
-0.20665748323683217 ZXII
II XIII IXII 0.0012708408559466877
ZIII 0.0027917513494058743 YYZX
-1.05237 0.012585096432460002 0.0027917513494058743 IZZX
-0.096022179507889355 IIZX 0.0074989926703520624
ZI IIXZ IIXX 0.0080251584900907554
ZZII -0.0027917513494058726
0.39735 0.012585096432460008 -0.029639606309848868
-0.20612801807987652 ZIZX
IZ IIXI IIIX ZZZX
IZII -0.016781393784256322
0.39735 0.012585096432460006 0.0027917513494058743 0.009769353678915493
0.36474560607027956 ZIIX
ZZ XIXX XXZZ
IIZI XZXI 0.016781393784256322
0.11279 -0.0081947444613071196 -0.0028953260749665956 ZXXZ
0.096022179507889077 -0.0026669416291266101 ZXZI
XIIX XXZI
IIZZ XIXZ -0.016781393784256322 -0.001270840855946688
-0.0012708408559466877 -0.03915481859276021 ZXXI
-0.20612801807987641 0.0026669416291266101 IXZI
XX XXXI XXIZ -0.001270840855946688
IIIZ XIXI -0.016781393784256322
0.18093 -0.0081947444613071196 0.024279988585959714 ZXIZ
-0.36474560607027956 0.0026669416291266101 ZXIX
XXIX IXZZ 0.0080251584900907554
ZIZI XZIZ 0.0093271960584065342 -0.0097693536789154965
H2: 5 Pauli -0.14543788191435422 0.0072647375176923996
XIIZ
0.0074989926703520624
IXXI
IXZX
-0.0093271960584065342
IXIZ
ZIZZ 0.0080251584900907554 ZXXX
terms, 2 sets 0.056040328985617657 -0.0072647375176923996
IZXZ
-0.001270840855946688
IXXX YYXZ 0.0074989926703520624
ZIIZ XZZZ
0.0072647375176923988 0.0074989926703520624 - 0.0081947444613071196
0.11081066572357191
IZXI IXIX 0.00024654966581589405 YYXI ZXYY
ZZZI
0.0072647375176923988 0.0093271960584065342 XZZI 0.0081947444613071196 -0.0074989926703520624
-0.056040328985617643
ZZIZ -0.011962198277325331
0.063672720404946023 XIZI YYYY XXXZ
IZZI ZZXZ ZZXX 0.011962198277325331 0.02892604472017965 -0.0081947444613071196
0.11081066572357193 -0.0028953260749665956 XIZZ YYII IXXZ
0.000246549665815894
IZZZ ZIXZ ZIXX 0.00024654966581589405 0.029639606309848882 -0.001270840855946688
-0.063672720404946037 -0.011962198277325331 0.039154818592760203 IIYY
YYZZ
IZIZ ZIXI ZZIX 0.029639606309848868
0.0028953260749665956 ZZYY
-0.095215796658694896 -0.011962198277325331 -0.009769353678915493 YYZI 0.0028953260749665956
ZZXI IZXX 0.03915481859276021 ZZYY ZIYY
0.000246549665815894 -0.02427998858595971
YYIZ 0.0028953260749665956 -0.039154818592760203
XZXX IZIX
-0.024279988585959714 ZIYY IZYY
0.0081947444613071196 -0.0080251584900907554
XZIX YYXX -0.039154818592760203 0.02427998858595971
0.0012708408559466877 -0.02892604472017965 XZYY IZYY
YYIX XXYY 0.02427998858595971
-0.0081947444613071196
-0.0074989926703520624 -0.02892604472017965
XIYY
IXYY
59 -0.0074989926703520624
0.0081947444613071196
LiH: 100 Pauli terms,
© 2017 IBM25 sets
Corporation
IBM Quantum
VQE for quantum chemistry
0.4 -6.6 -12

100 40
40
Q6 Q1 Q6 Q1 Q6 Q1
0.2 -6.8 -12.5
C
5
C
50 20
6-
R
R
20
1-
R
1-
3
3
CR2-1
CR2-1
0 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q5 CR4-5 Q4 Q3
0 -7 0 -13
0
Energy (Hartree)
Energy (Hartree)
Energy (Hartree)
C
C
R
R
2-
2-
2-
-0.2
4
4
Q7 Q2 Q7 Q2 -13.5 Q7 Q2
-7.2
H H Be
-0.4 H H
-14
-7.4 Li H
-0.6
-14.5
-7.6
-0.8
-15
-1 -7.8
a b -15.5 c
-1.2 -8
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Interatomic distance (Angstrom) Interatomic distance (Angstrom) Interatomic distance (Angstrom)
H2: 2 qubits LiH: 4 qubits BeH2: 6 qubits
5 pauli terms, 2 sets 100 pauli terms, 25 sets 165 pauli terms, 44 sets
• Decoherence • Accuracy of the classical

• Sampling error optimizer A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, et al,
60 • Limited iterations • Insufficient depth Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
IBM Quantum
Performance trade-off: Decoherence v/s Circuit depth
10 0
Entanglers: 0
Entanglers: 1
Entanglers: 2
Entanglers: 3
Entanglers: 4
10 -1 Entanglers: 6
Entanglers: 8
Energy Error
10 -2
Chemical accuracy
10 -3
-4
10
10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2
Noise Strength
61 Nature 549, 242-246 (2017)
The longitude problem IBM Quantum
H1 H2 H3 H4
1730-1735 1737-1739 1740-1759 1755-1759
Invention of
Bimetallic strip
62 http://collections.rmg.co.uk
Error mitigation
IBM Quantum
Zero-noise extrapolation
Expectation value of observable of interest:
n
X
⇤ k
EK ( ) = E + ak + Rn+1 ( , L, T )
k=1
Assume experimentalist has exquisite control over incoherent noise (T1, T2)
EK ( ) = E ⇤ + aK + O( 2 )
⇤ 2 2
EK (c ) = E + aK c + O(c )
2 cEK ( ) EK (c ) ⇤ 2
ÊK ( )= = E + O( )
c 1
N
With N measurements, can reduce error in estimate to O( )
How
64
does one measure E(ci ) ?? © 2017 IBM Corporation
IBM Quantum
When two wrong’s make a right

Amplifying noise strength equivalent to to rescaling dynamics under the assumption of
time invariant noise.

IBM Quantum
Error Mitigation: 1Q trajectory
|1> |1> |1>

1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
1 1
0 0 0
-0.5 -1 -1 -0.5
0 0 -0.5 0
0.5
|0> |0>
0.5 0.5 -1
|0>
-1 1 -1 1 1

IBM Quantum
Error Mitigation in molecular simulation: 4Q LiH
Li H Li H
Kandala et al Kandala et al
Nature
67 549, 242-246 (2017) Nature 567, 491–495 (2019) © 2017 IBM Corporation
IBM Quantum
What we’ve covered today
0.4 -6.6 -12

100 40
40
Q6 Q1 Q6 Q1 Q6 Q1
0.2 -6.8 -12.5
C
5
C
50 20
6-
R
R
20
1-
R
1-
3
3
CR2-1
CR2-1
0 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q5 CR4-5 Q4 Q3
0 -7 0 -13
0
Energy (Hartree)
Energy (Hartree)
Energy (Hartree)
Techniques go
C
C
R
R
2-
2-
2-
-0.2
4
4
Q7 Q2 Q7 Q2 -13.5 Q7 Q2
-7.2
H H Be
beyond just
-0.4 H H
-14
-7.4 Li H
-0.6
chemistry …
-14.5
-7.6
-0.8
-15
-1 -7.8
a b -15.5 c
-1.2 -8
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Interatomic distance (Angstrom) Interatomic distance (Angstrom) Interatomic distance (Angstrom)
THANK YOU

QGSS'20 Lectures

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

QGSS'20 Lectures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

QGSS'20 Lectures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20.07.

I) From bit to Dirac notation measurement Bloch

Bell states Teleportation Q

I. From b its to qubits

classical states for amputation eitler

quantum mechanics state be simultane ouslg and "

quantum algorithmus with exponentiell speed -

state collapses to of its states

and not all

cand each right

• all quantum states are normalized ,

state will collapse state

Bonn rule that state 14> collapses during to the

basis { 1×7 Ixt > } to the state ↳

Hoss rüttelt ? III ELI

is measured in the basis { Its ,

¥ IEEE hofft Etf YI ?

We can write normal ized (

measure los 1115 :

löst -1 which all the Bloch

angle on the Bloch sphere ,

of bnilding blocks that out elementary compilations called gates

( ! f) (G) 113 5×117 10×11 t HXOI)

bit flip I NOT -

phase flip rotation around

creates super position ! also HITS los HH Hs :

similarly as 5=1^0 ! ) adds 98 to the phase q S

the total lbipartite) state is 110>„ ß : =

entangled ( very strong

we can show that

quantum circuits can

called Bell states that are

14 In (1005+1115) 14017 :(101 > t )

1007 (1007+1107)/52 '

1113 (1017-1113)/1 ( 1013 HOHNE -

ijinon.ba !!!! )::

wants to send her lunhnown ) state

She can only send him two classical bit

maximales entangled state 14007 =

IM a) ⑦ ( NOK ßH >B) + (1017A - -

on sort in the Bell basis

Bob C- ② outputs i. j to Bob

(f) T.FI I ¢ >B

gab it and gets to > !

apples → Bob 's

Note that Alice 's ,

have the initial state expected

theorem state to Bob

when desto ging her own .

formonenqunbi the north pole presents state state le >

- the size of the blob is

north the south and all other states

algorithmen : Oracles , DJ theory implementation ,

II. ) Grover 's algorithmen : Grover

have oracle device that cannot lookinside ,

to which and which returns

the oracle meist be reversible

Of ↳ Ig > 10 ④flx ) > Ix> 11 ⑦ µ >