Aaron Miller
Treespilation and the Bonsai Algorithm: Grow Your own Fermion-to-Qubit Mappings
Abstract:
Quantum computers hold great promise for efficiently simulating Fermionic systems, benefiting fields like quantum chemistry and materials science. To achieve this, algorithms typically begin by choosing a Fermion-to-qubit mapping to encode the Fermionic problem in the qubits of a quantum computer The mapping transforms a local problem in Fermionic space into a non-local one in qubit space. This is a problem that in quantum chemistry is compounded by intricate electronic interactions, resulting in deep circuits, particularly on current quantum computers with limited qubit connectivity.
In our recent work [1,2], we propose an algorithm for designing flexible fermion-to-qubit mappings using ternary trees. We explore the relationship between the structure of these trees and key properties of the resulting mapping, such as Pauli weight and mode occupation delocalization. We demonstrate how well-known mappings like Jordan-Wigner [3], Parity [4], Bravyi-Kitaev [5], and ternary-tree mappings [6,7] are easily understood in this formalism and introduce the Bonsai algorithm for generating mappings tailored to limited hardware connectivity. Applied to Heavy-Hexagon layouts, it achieves favourable Pauli weight scaling of $O(√N)$ and eliminates the necessity for SWAP gates in single excitation operations. Building on this, we present treespilation [2] for optimizing mappings based on the Fermionic representation of the state we want to implement on the quantum computer and the desired transpilation scheme. We demonstrate it by reducing CNOT gate counts needed for simulating chemical ground states found with ADAPT-VQE, achieving significant reductions, up to 74%, on fully connected systems. We observe similar reductions on devices with limited qubit connectivity like IBM Eagle chips, with CNOT counts in certain instances surpassing those initially achieved with fully connected devices. Broadly speaking, these results show that the circuit gains from optimizing the problem—in this case, a Fermionic problem—with the transpilation scheme in mind.
[1] A. Miller, Z. Zimbor ́as, S. Knecht, S. Maniscalco, and G. Garc ́ıa-P ́erez, “Bonsai algorithm: Grow your own fermion-to-qubit mappings,” PRX Quantum, vol. 4, p. 030314, 2023.
[2] A. Miller, A. Glos, and Z. Zimbor ́as, “Treespilation: Architecture- and State-Optimised Fermion-to-Qubit Mappings,” Mar. 2024. arXiv:2403.03992 [quant-ph].
[3] P. Jordan and E. Wigner, “ ̈Uber das Paulische ̈Aquivalenzverbot,” Zeitschrift f ̈ur Physik, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 631–651, 1928.
[4] M. Fellner, K. Ender, R. ter Hoeven, and W. Lechner, “Parity quantum optimization: Benchmarks,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 952, 2023.
[5] S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, “Fermionic quantum computation,” Annals of Physics, vol. 298, no. 1, pp. 210–226, 2002.
[6] A. Vlasov, “Clifford algebras, spin groups and qubit trees,” Quanta, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 97–114, 2022.
[7] Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, “Optimal fermion-to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 276, 2020.