I Introduction
Quantum computers have developed from hypothetical devices to real systems capable of harnessing quantum entanglement and the efficient representation of information to bring a new paradigm to computation and information processing. One major area of application of quantum computers is in the simulation of other quantum systems, where qubit encoding of wave functions of many-particle systems can be enacted particularly efficiently. These ideas have been used in quantum fermionic systems such as quantum chemistry
[1, 2, 3, 4], materials [5, 6], and nuclear physics [7, 8, 9, 10]. In nuclear physics, general quantum algorithms such as the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) and its extensions [11] have been widely used to find energy eigenvalues in systems such as the deuteron, as represented through an effective field theory [12, 13], the Lipkin Meshkov Glick model [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19], and the nuclear shell-model [20, 21, 17, 22, 23].
In the present work, we are concerned with the development and implementation of a quantum computational algorithm of the imaginary time evolution type to solve the nuclear Hartree-Fock equations. We use a simplified but typical nuclear effective interaction of the Skyrme form that gives rise to the usual non-linear Schrödinger equation, which can also be cast as a density functional theory problem. Although Hartree-Fock solutions are achievable on classical computers, implementation on quantum computer is a kind of benchmark [4], and we intend that our algorithm can serve as a starting point for much more sophisticated models with highly-correlated states, where quantum algorithms should be more useful. The procedure can be considered as a kind of state preparation algorithm for deeper quantum simulation, itself a topic of general interest [24], or as the starting point for quantum algorithms such as symmetry restoration as proposed for use with nuclear-like systems
[25, 26]. We also note that the solution, on quantum computer, of the type of nonlinear Schrödinger equation presented here is of interest beyond nuclear physics [27].
In what follows, we give a brief summary of the nuclear physics problem, a description of the imaginary time evolution algorithm with our particular quantum implementation, and follow with results in the simplest case – a spherical He nucleus in the absence of a Coulomb interaction and where there is a single () single-particle wave function to determine.
II Nuclear Model
For a nucleus consisting of strongly interacting nucleons, the time-independent Schrödinger equation governing the -body wavefunction is
|
|
|
(1) |
where includes all of space, spin, and isospin coordinates. This equation cannot be solved exactly in general and reasonable approximations are usually required. One common method for describing the nuclear structure and low energy dynamics [28, 29] is the mean field approximation. By treating each of the interacting particles as a single particle in the field created by the remaining particles, the -body problem is essentially reduced to a self-consistent one-body problem. Accompanying the mean-field approximation is the form of the nuclear interaction, which needs to be appropriate for use in the mean-field limit; either in the form of a renormalized realistic interaction, or a phenomenological one. We use here the latter form, of the Skyrme kind [30, 31].
The Skyrme interaction starts with a potential consisting of a two-body term and a three-body term
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
|
The three-body term is assumed to be a zero-range force
|
|
|
(3) |
while the two-body term is assumed to be short ranged, with matrix elements in momentum space given by
|
|
|
|
(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where , , and are the spin-exchange operator, Pauli spin matrices, and relative wave vector respectively (denoting as and as ). In configuration space equation (4) becomes
|
|
|
|
(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where are relative wave vector operators, with the subscripts denoting left-multiplying and right-multiplying respectively.
It can be shown that [31], for Hartree-Fock calculations, in which the nuclear wave function is assumed to be a Slater determinant of single particle states, the three-body term is equivalent to the density-dependent two-body interaction
|
|
|
(6) |
where is the single-particle density.
Considering the case of a nucleus with (e.g. \ce^4He, \ce^16O), the further simplifications of the absence of a Coulomb field, and with a simplified Skyrme force in which the , , and terms are neglected, we have a simplified model often used for exploratory studies [32, 33]. The potential is then reduced to an effective two-body interaction
|
|
|
|
(7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a Slater determinant wave function, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian (i.e. the energy) is
|
|
|
|
(8) |
|
|
|
|
By minimizing via the variational principle, while requiring that the single particle (SP) states are normalized,
|
|
|
(9) |
we obtain the Hartree-Fock equations [32]
|
|
|
(10) |
The Lagrange multipliers can be identified as the SP energies.
For spherically-symmetric nuclei in the absence of spin-orbit interaction, the SP wave functions can be factorised into radial, angular, spin, and isospin parts, in which the angular and spin parts remain uncoupled:
|
|
|
(11) |
The spherical harmonics form an orthonormal basis and describe the angular behaviour of , while the spinors and represent the spin and isospin dependencies of respectively.
Equation (10) is then reduced to the radial equation
|
|
|
(12) |
where
|
|
|
|
(13) |
|
|
|
|
is the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian. The density is now given by
|
|
|
|
(14) |
|
|
|
|
with the factor of 4 in the first line arising from spin and isospin degeneracies.
III Imaginary Time Evolution
In order to solve the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (10), an iterative method is usually employed. Here, we make use of the imaginary time evolution method.
The time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) of the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian
|
|
|
(15) |
has the formal solution
|
|
|
(16) |
Under imaginary time (), equation (16) becomes
|
|
|
(17) |
where is a normalization operator to renormalize the state after the application of the non-unitary imaginary time evolution operator.
When , converges to , the ground state of provided that the initial state is not orthogonal to it. [34].
In principle, the imaginary time evolution (ITE) operator could be applied once, with a large enough imaginary time , for a good approximation of the ground state. However, the true form of is unknown due to its density dependence, and the ITE has to be separated into steps, each with an imaginary time step of . This is equivalent to writing equation (17) as
|
|
|
(18) |
where is updated after each step using a newly obtained . Providing the imaginary time step is small enough, can be approximated by
|
|
|
(19) |
III.1 Quantum Imaginary Time Algorithm
There have been multiple attempts at implementing ITE on quantum devices [35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. One of the main obstacles is the non-unitarity of the operator as quantum circuits can only handle unitary operators. In the original QITE [40] algorithm, this is overcome by sectioning the qubit chain and performing approximated Trotter evolution [41, 42, 43] section by section. A later proposal [44] makes use of a randomized qDRIFT algorithm [45] which significantly reduces the circuit depth. In this paper, we use the idea of a duality computer [46, 47] to implement non-unitary Hermitian gates, with the aid of some auxiliary qubits.
In order to encode the unknown wave function solution to the HF equation, we have chosen the 3D isotropic oscillator basis (with oscillator length ) [48, 49, 50, 51]
|
|
|
(20) |
as our computational basis, where are the expansion coefficients and are the oscillator radial wavefunctions. In this basis, the matrix elements of the density are given by the sum of integrals of the product of four basis wavefunctions,
|
|
|
(21) |
These integrals are computed and tabulated classically at the beginning of the calculation, for evaluation of the density at each step of ITE, and a matrix representation of the time-evolution operator (19) is constructed.
Using qubits, the first coefficients of expansion can be represented as a state vector such that
|
|
|
(22) |
where , , etc.
The ITE operator , previously obtained classically, is a Hermitian matrix and can be decomposed into a sum of products of Pauli matrices (and identity matrices) acting on individual qubits [52]
|
|
|
|
(23) |
|
|
|
|
(24) |
where is the digit from the right of when expressed in quaternary and
|
|
|
(25) |
are the identity and Pauli matrices acting on the qubit. Using as an example, since , the corresponding gate is . The coefficients can then be stored in an ancillary state using ancillary qubits such that
|
|
|
(26) |
where .
In the larger Hilbert space spanned by and
|
|
|
(27) |
the outcome of the non-unitary can be obtained in a particular subspace. This is achieved by applying a series of controlled Pauli gates
|
|
|
(28) |
and Hadamard gates
|
|
|
(29) |
The result of the operations is given by
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus we obtain our expected value and result state in the first entries of the statevector.
III.2 case
The details of the case help clarify the general algorithm. We thus write out in full the case using three (one target and two ancillary) qubits, in which the ground state is expanded in the two lowest oscillator states.
The ITE operator, , is then a Hermitian matrix and its Pauli decomposition is
|
|
|
|
(31) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparing with equation (23), we see that
|
|
|
|
(32) |
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
(33) |
Hence,
|
|
|
(34) |
For a general target state
|
|
|
(35) |
the expected output is
|
|
|
|
(36) |
|
|
|
|
Applying from equation (28), we obtain
|
|
|
|
(37) |
|
|
|
|
Combining the contribution using the Hadamard gates
|
|
|
(38) |
on the ancillary qubits as described in equation (30), the qubits will be in the final state
|
|
|
(39) |
where the coefficients of the states and returns the required results from equation (36), up to a normalization constant .
III.3 Quantum Circuits
In a -qubit real state there are coefficients ( independent ones), denoted , . For the target state preparation subcircuits , (as in equation 22). For the ancillary state preparation subcircuits , (as in equation 23). The angles of rotation, , for the state preparation, are given by
|
|
|
(44) |
For , the subcircuit is
|
|
|
(45) |
, with the angles given by
|
|
|
|
(46) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general the statevector is not accessible through measurements as only the relative amplitudes can be obtained through the probabilties. In our algorithm we exploit the fact that all of our components are real and the relative phases can either be or . After direct measurements for deducing the relative amplitudes of the states, more circuits are composed by appending a Hadamard gate to the target qubit. This mixes the amplitudes. An increase in probablity indicates a relative phase of between the two states, and a decrease indicates a relative phase of .