1: % ****** Start of file F1.tex ******
2:
3:
4: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
5: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
7:
8: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
9: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
10: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
11: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
12:
13: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
14: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
15: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
16:
17: \newcommand{\bv}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
18:
19:
20: %\nofiles
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: %\nofiles
25:
26: \preprint{ }
27:
28: \title{Demonstrating quantum algorithm acceleration with NMR quantum computer}% Force line breaks with \\
29:
30: \author{Mikio Nakahara$^{1}$, Yasushi Kondo$^{1}$, Kazuya Hata$^{1}$
31: and Shogo Tanimura$^{2}$\\}
32:
33:
34: \affiliation{%
35: $^{1}$Department of Physics, Kinki University, Higashi-Osaka 577-8502, Japan\\
36: $^2$Graduate School of Engineering,
37: Osaka City University\\
38: Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, 558-8585, Japan\\
39: }%
40:
41:
42:
43: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
44: % but any date may be explicitly specified
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: In general, a quantum circuit is constructed with elementary gates, such as
48: one-qubit gates and CNOT gates.
49: It is possible, however,
50: to speed up the execution time of a given circuit
51: by merging those elementary gates together into larger modules, such that the
52: desired unitary matrix
53: expressing the algorithm is directly implemented. We demonstrate this
54: experimentally
55: by taking the two-qubit Grover's algorithm implemented in NMR quantum
56: computation,
57: whose pseudopure state is generated by cyclic permutations of the
58: state populations. This is the first exact time-optimal
59: solution, to our knowledge, obtained for a self-contained quantum algorithm.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \pacs{03.67.Lx, 82.56.Jn}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
63: % Classification Scheme.
64: \keywords{NMR quantum computer, time-optimal control, Grover's algorithm}
65:
66: %}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
67: %display desired
68: \maketitle
69:
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72:
73: A quantum computer is expected to solve some of computationally
74: hard problems for a conventional digital computer \cite{ref:1}. The
75: realization
76: of a practical quantum computer is, however, still challenging
77: in many respects \cite{ref:2}. One of the obstacles to any realization is
78: a phenomenon known as ``decoherence''. The number of gate
79: operations is severely limited since a quantum state is vulnerable
80: due to interactions with the surroundings. Many strategies
81: to overcome internal and external decoherence have been proposed,
82: such as (1) quantum error correcting codes \cite{ref:3} (2)
83: decoherence-free subspaces \cite{ref:4} (3)
84: holonomic quantum computation \cite{ref:5}, among others.
85: In a conventional design of a quantum circuit, the
86: so-called elementary set of gates \cite{ref:6, ref:a, ref:b}
87: such as single-qubit $SU(2)$ rotations
88: and CNOT gates, are utilized. This design is motivated by the universality
89: theorem proved in Ref. \cite{ref:6}.
90: Suppose we are to implement an $n$-qubit unitary matrix
91: $U_{\rm target}$. In the conventional implementation this matrix is
92: decomposed into a product of $SU(2)$ matrices acting bewteen a pair of
93: basis vectors. Then a CNOT gate transforms one of the basis vectors
94: to a new vector, so that the pair of the vectors forms a subspace
95: corresponding to a single qubit on which the $SU(2)$ matrix acts.
96:
97: Quantum algorithm acceleration is a totally new approach to the
98: decoherence issue. This principle is originally proposed
99: in the context of the holonomic quantum computation \cite{ref:7, ref:8,
100: ref:9} and of Josephson junction qubits \cite{ref:10, ref:11, ref:12}.
101: What is required to implement is not individual
102: elementary gates but rather the $n$-qubit matrix
103: $U_{\rm target} \in U(2^n)$ realizing the given quantum algorithm.
104: %\begin{equation}
105: %U_{\rm target}
106: % = {\mathcal T} \exp \left[-i \int_0^T H(\gamma(t)) dt\right]
107: %\in U(2^n),
108: %\label{eq:time}
109: %\end{equation}
110: This matrix is directly implemented by properly choosing
111: the control parameters in the Hamiltonian. The variational
112: principle tells us that the gate execution time reduces, in general,
113: compared to the conventional construction since the conventional gate sequence
114: belongs to the possible solutions in direct implementation.
115:
116: The proposal \cite{ref:10, ref:11, ref:12} has been made for
117: fictitious Josephson
118: charge qubits, which are still beyond reach. It is the purpose
119: of this paper to demonstrate the acceleration of a quantum algorithm
120: using an NMR quantum computer at our hand. For this demonstration,
121: we employ two-qubit Grover's search algorithm
122: whose initial state $|00 \rangle$ is generated as a pseudopure state
123: by cyclic permutations of the state populations \cite{ref:13}.
124: In this process, we need to prepare three different
125: initial states using $SU(4)$ transformations acting on a thermal
126: equilibrium ensemble. It is found that the optimized pulse sequence
127: reduces the gate operation time to 25\% of the conventional
128: pulse sequence operation time in two ensembles while it remains unchanged
129: in one ensemble, which is already optimized using the conventional
130: pulse sequence.
131:
132: The next section is devoted to the formalism of our approach.
133: The Hamiltonian for the two-qubit molecule is introduced and
134: the time-evolution operator is defined.
135: Section III is the main part of this paper, where the exact solutions
136: for Grover's algorithm are obtained. These solutions are experimentally
137: verified with our NMR computer. Section IV is devoted to summary
138: and discussion.
139:
140: \section{Time-Optimal Path in NMR Quantum Computation}
141:
142: In the present paper, we are concerned with an NMR quantum computer
143: with a two-qubit heteronucleus molecule. To be more specific, we use
144: Carbon-13 labeled chloroform
145: as a computational resource throughout our theoretical and experimental
146: analyses. The Hamiltonian of the molecule is
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: H(\gamma) &=& -\omega_{11} \left[\cos \phi_1 (\sigma_x \otimes I_2/2) +
149: \sin \phi_1 (\sigma_y \otimes I_2/2) \right]\nonumber\\
150: & &-\omega_{12} \left[\cos \phi_2 (I_2 \otimes \sigma_x /2) +
151: \sin \phi_2 (I_2 \otimes \sigma_y/2) \right]\nonumber\\
152: & &+ 2\pi J \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z/4,
153: \label{eq:ham}
154: \end{eqnarray}
155: in the rotating frame of each nucleus.
156: Here $I_2$ is the unit matrix of order 2 while $\sigma_k$ is
157: the $k$th Pauli matrix. The parameter $\omega_{1i}$ is the
158: amplitude of the RF pulse for the $i$th spin while
159: $\phi_i$ is its phase. These four independent control parameters
160: are collectively denoted as $\gamma$.
161:
162: The time-evolution operator
163: \begin{equation}
164: U[\gamma(t)] = {\mathcal T} \exp\left[-i \int_0^T
165: H(\gamma(t)) dt\right]
166: \end{equation}
167: associated with the Hamiltonian
168: (\ref{eq:ham}) is a functional of $\gamma(t)$, where ${\mathcal T}$ is the
169: time-ordered product and we employ the natural units in which $\hbar$ is set
170: to unity. Note that
171: $U[\gamma(t)] \in SU(4)$ since (\ref{eq:ham}) is traceless. Suppose we want
172: to implement a unitary
173: gate $U_{\rm target}$. Then our task is to find a function $\gamma(t)$
174: such that
175: \begin{equation}
176: U[\gamma(t)] = U_{\rm target}.
177: \label{eq:inverse}
178: \end{equation}
179: The solution of this
180: problem is highly nontrivial and we often resort to
181: numerical analysis \cite{ref:7, ref:8, ref:11, ref:12}.
182: Note, moreover, that we would like
183: to construct time-optimal solutions among many possible solutions
184: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:inverse}) to fight against decoherence. It must
185: also be examined whether the optimal solution thus obtained has
186: control parameters that are experimentally accessible.
187:
188: It was shown in Refs.~\cite{ref:14, ref:15} that there exists a
189: geometrical picture
190: for the time-optimal solution in the case of NMR quantum computation
191: for two-qubit heteronuclear molecules. Here we summarize briefly the
192: relevant aspects of their idea that are required for our investigation.
193: The crucial observation is that the one-qubit rotation is
194: carried out in a negligible time compared to that required for
195: two-qubit operation generated by the $J$-coupling term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham})
196: and hence time required for the one-qubit rotation
197: can be neglected in evaluating the
198: gate operation time. Then it is natural to consider the homogeneous
199: space $SU(4)/K$, where $K \equiv SU(2) \otimes SU(2)$,
200: in which two-qubit gates that
201: differ by one-qubit operations $U_1 \otimes U_2 \in K$ are
202: identified. The path in the homogeneous space is then generated by
203: the $J$-coupling term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ham}).
204: A remark is in order.
205: The Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham}) contains neither
206: $\sigma_z \otimes I_2$ nor $I_2 \otimes \sigma_z$ and it seems
207: impossible to consider the equivalence class based on
208: the whole subgroup $K$.
209: Note, however, that these terms are easily generated
210: by $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ as
211: \begin{equation}
212: e^{-i \alpha \sigma_z/2} = e^{i \pi \sigma_y/4} e^{-i \alpha \sigma_x/2}
213: e^{-i \pi \sigma_y/4},
214: \label{eq:1qubit}
215: \end{equation}
216: for example, and hence it makes sense to identify all the elements of
217: $SU(4)$, that differ with each other modulo the subgroup $K$.
218: With the same token, the terms $\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x$ and
219: $\sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y$ may be included in the $J$-coupling part of the
220: Hamiltonian since
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: \lefteqn{e^{-i \pi J t \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x}
223: = e^{i \pi(\sigma_y \otimes I_2 + I_2 \otimes \sigma_y)/4}}\nonumber\\
224: & &\times e^{-i \pi J t \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z/2}
225: e^{-i \pi(\sigma_y \otimes I_2 + I_2 \otimes \sigma_y)/4}
226: \label{eq:2qubit}
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: for example. It should be noted that the set $\{\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x,
229: \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y, \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z\}$ comprises the
230: Cartan subalgebra of $SU(4)$ in a relevant basis and hence
231: \begin{eqnarray*}
232: \lefteqn{e^{-i (\alpha_1 \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x+\alpha_2 \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y
233: + \alpha_3 \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z)}}\nonumber\\
234: &=& e^{-i \alpha_1 \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x}
235: e^{-i \alpha_2 \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y}
236: e^{-i \alpha_3 \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z}.
237: \end{eqnarray*}
238:
239: Suppose we want to find a time-optimal path $\gamma(t)$ connecting
240: the unit matrix $I_4$ of order four and the target matrix $U_{\rm target}
241: \in SU(4)$. The prescription given above suggests that we should
242: find the time-optimal path in $SU(4)/K$ that
243: connects the equivalence classes $K$ and $U_{\rm target} K$.
244: In other words, we have to solve the matrix equation
245: \begin{equation}
246: U_{\rm target} = K_2 U_J(t) K_1,
247: \label{eq:decomp}
248: \end{equation}
249: where $K_1, K_2 \in K$ and
250: \begin{equation}
251: U_J (t_i) = e^{-(i \pi J/2)( t_1 \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x
252: +t_2 \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y+t_3 \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z)}.
253: \label{eq:uj}
254: \end{equation}
255: The total execution time is then given by $T=\sum_{i=1}^3 t_i$.
256: The group $SU(4)$ is 15-dimensional,
257: while each of the $K_i$ has six parameters
258: and $U_J(t)$ has three, thus $2 \times 6 + 3 = 15$ parameters in total.
259: It follows from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:1qubit}) and (\ref{eq:2qubit}) that
260: the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham}) contains the necessary and sufficient number of
261: control parameters to construct an arbitrary quantum gate.
262:
263: \section{Time Optimal Solutions of Grover's Algorithm}
264:
265: \subsection{Grover's Algorithm}
266:
267: The solution of the decomposition (\ref{eq:decomp}) is difficult to
268: find and we have to resort to numerical methods in general.
269: As an example, we work out in the present section Grover's seach algorithm
270: \cite{ref:16} in the framework outlined in the previous section.
271: Grover's algorithm for a two-qubit case is implemented by
272: unitary matrices of the form
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: U_{00} &=& \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
275: -1&0&0&0\\
276: 0&0&1&0\\
277: 0&1&0&0\\
278: 0&0&0&1
279: \end{array} \right)\label{eq:00}\\
280: U_{01}
281: &=& \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
282: 0&0&1&0\\
283: -1&0&0&0\\
284: 0&0&0&-1\\
285: 0&-1&0&0
286: \end{array} \right)
287: \label{eq:01}\\
288: U_{10}&=& \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
289: 0&1&0&0\\
290: 0&0&0&-1\\
291: -1&0&0&0\\
292: 0&0&-1&0
293: \end{array} \right)\label{eq:10}\\
294: U_{11}&=&\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
295: 0&0&0&1\\
296: 0&-1&0&0\\
297: 0&0&-1&0\\
298: -1&0&0&0
299: \end{array} \right)\label{eq:11}
300: \end{eqnarray}
301: where $U_{ij}$ picks out the desired ``data'' $(ij)$ by operating on $|00
302: \rangle$ as
303: \begin{equation}
304: U_{ij}|00 \rangle = e^{i \alpha} | ij \rangle,\quad (i,j = 0, 1)
305: \end{equation}
306: where we have written explicitly the possible phase on the rhs \footnote{
307: The convensional pulse sequences \cite{ref:13} produce the matrices which
308: differ from (\ref{eq:00}) -- (\ref{eq:11}) in the {\it phase} of the matrix
309: elements, which does not bring about any observable difference.
310: }.
311: %The group $SU(4)$ has the center $Z = \{\pm I_4, \pm i I_4\}$ and
312: %the unitary transformation, in the context of quantum mechanics,
313: %is defined modulo the center $Z$, which corresponds
314: %to the redefinition of the phase of the basis vectors.
315:
316: An interesting observation is that all the matrix elements are either
317: 0 or $\pm 1$, which implies that $U_{ij}$ is not only in $SU(4)$ but also
318: in $SO(4)$. This further restricts the degrees of freedom of the matrix
319: since $SO(4)$ is six-dimensional.
320: In fact, our numerical results show that the decomposition
321: (\ref{eq:decomp}) takes a highly constrained form.
322:
323: \subsection{Optimization}
324:
325: According to the presecription given in the previous section, we search
326: a pulse sequence of the form $U_{ij}= K_2 U_J K_1$. Instead of
327: solving this inverse problem, we define the equivalent variational
328: problem which is easy to solve, at least numerically. Let
329: \begin{equation}
330: U[\gamma(t)] = K_2(\gamma_2) U_J(t)
331: K_1(\gamma_1),
332: \end{equation}
333: where
334: \begin{equation}
335: K_i(\gamma_i) = e^{i (a_1 \sigma_x +b_1 \sigma_y + c_1 \sigma_z)}
336: \otimes e^{i (a_2 \sigma_x +b_2 \sigma_y + c_2 \sigma_z)}
337: \end{equation}
338: and $U_J(t)$ has been given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:uj}). Now we define the
339: penalty function $p[\gamma(t)]$ as
340: \begin{equation}
341: p[\gamma(t)] = \|U[\gamma(t)] -U_{\rm target}\|_{\rm F},
342: \end{equation}
343: where $\| A \|_{\rm F} = \sqrt{{\mathrm{tr}} A^{\dagger} A}$ is the
344: Frobenius
345: norm of a matrix $A$. Note that $p[\gamma(t)]$ is positive definite
346: and that its zeros are the absolute minima. Thus solving the inverse problem
347: is recast into a variational task for finding the absolute minima of
348: $p[\gamma(t)]$.
349:
350: To find the absolute minima, we have generated 512 initial conditions
351: and searched for the optimal solutions with the polytope algorithm on a
352: parallel computer with 512 CPUs. To our surprise, the execution
353: time $T = \sum_{i=1}^3 t_i$ is discrete and assumes the values
354: \begin{equation}
355: T =(n + 1)/J, \quad n=0, 1, 2 \ldots
356: \end{equation}
357: for all four cases.
358: The ambiguity $2\pi n$ corresponds
359: to the path leaving from $I_4$ and traversing the compact group
360: $SU(4)$ $n$ times before hitting the destination $U_{\rm target} K_2$.
361: The result shows that Fig. 1 of \cite{ref:14} is misleading at least
362: in the present case: the distance
363: between the cosets $I_4 K_1$ and $U_{\rm target}K_2$ is {\it unique}
364: in the sense that the only degree of freedom left
365: is how many times the path traverses $SU(4)$ before arriving at the target.
366:
367: The optimal execution time obtained here, however, is the same as
368: that for the conventional pulse sequence \cite{ref:13} in all cases.
369: In other words, the conventional
370: pulse sequences are already time-optimal. For such a simple algorithm,
371: time-optimization may be carried out by inspection by experts.
372: Therefore, we look for more complicated cases to demonstrate
373: the power of this method. Suppose
374: we would like to execute Grover's search algorithm with a room-temperature
375: liquid state NMR computer. The sample is in a thermal equilibrium state
376: and we will use the temporal averaging by cyclic permutations
377: of state populations to obtain a pseudopure
378: initial state. This is carried out by applying the unitary operators
379: \begin{equation}
380: U_{\rm{cp}} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
381: 1&0&0&0\\
382: 0&0&0&1\\
383: 0&1&0&0\\
384: 0&0&1&0
385: \end{array}
386: \right) = {\mathrm{CNOT}}_{12} {\mathrm{CNOT}}_{21}
387: \end{equation}
388: and
389: \begin{equation}
390: U_{\rm{cp}}^2
391: =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
392: 1&0&0&0\\
393: 0&0&1&0\\
394: 0&0&0&1\\
395: 0&1&0&0
396: \end{array}
397: \right) = {\mathrm{CNOT}}_{21} {\mathrm{CNOT}}_{12}
398: \end{equation}
399: to the initial thermal state
400: before $U_{ij}$ is executed. Here ${\mathrm{CNOT}}_{ij}$
401: stands for the CNOT gate with the control bit $i$ and
402: the target bit $j$.
403:
404: We now present our search result for $U_{10}, U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$
405: and $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$, the other ${ij}$ producing similar results.
406: \begin{itemize}
407: \item
408: $U_{10}$: An example of a typical time-optimal solution for $U_{10}$ is % #43
409: \begin{eqnarray}
410: K_1 &=& I_2 \otimes I_2\nonumber\\
411: U_J&=& e^{i (\pi/4)(\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x-\sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y)}
412: \\
413: %&=& e^{i(\pi/4)(-\sigma_y \otimes I_2+ I_2 \otimes \sigma_y)}
414: %e^{-i(\pi/4)\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z} \nonumber\\
415: %& &e^{i(\pi/4)(\sigma_y \otimes I_2- I_2 \otimes \sigma_y)}
416: %e^{i(\pi/4)(\sigma_x \otimes I_2+ I_2 \otimes \sigma_x)}\\
417: %& &e^{-i(\pi/4)\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z}
418: %e^{i(\pi/4)(\sigma_x \otimes I_2- I_2 \otimes \sigma_x)} \nonumber\\
419: %K_2 &=& e^{-i (\pi/4) \sigma_z \otimes I_2+ i(\pi/2 \sqrt{2})
420: %(I_2 \otimes \sigma_x +I_2 \otimes \sigma_y)}.\nonumber
421: K_2 &=& e^{-i (\pi/4) \sigma_z} \otimes e^{i(\pi/2 \sqrt{2})
422: (\sigma_x + \sigma_y)}.\nonumber%\\
423: %&=& \left[e^{i (\pi/4) \sigma_x}e^{i (\pi/4) \sigma_y}e^{-i(\pi/4) \sigma_x}
424: %\right] \otimes e^{i(\pi/2 \sqrt{2})
425: %(\sigma_x + \sigma_y)},\nonumber
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: The execution time is $T=1/J$, which simply
428: reproduces that for the conventional pulse sequence \cite{ref:13}.
429: Therefore, the conventional pulse sequence is already optimized.
430: We will employ the conventional pulse sequence for $U_{10}$ in the
431: following.
432: \item $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$: For this case, an example of the time-optimal
433: pulse sequence is % # 84
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: %K_1 &=& e^{-i (\pi/4) (I_2 \otimes \sigma_x)}
436: K_1 &=& I_2 \otimes e^{-i (\pi/4) \sigma_x }
437: \nonumber\\
438: U_J&=& e^{-i (\pi/4)\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z}\\
439: %K_2 &=& e^{i (\pi/2) \sigma_y \otimes I_2+ i(\pi/3 \sqrt{3})
440: %(I_2 \otimes \sigma_x+ I_2 \otimes \sigma_y+I_2 \otimes \sigma_z)}.\nonumber
441: K_2 &=& e^{i (\pi/2) \sigma_y} \otimes e^{ i(\pi/3 \sqrt{3})
442: (\sigma_x+ \sigma_y+ \sigma_z)}\nonumber\\
443: &=& e^{i (\pi/2) \sigma_y} \otimes \left[ e^{ i(\pi/4) \sigma_y}
444: e^{i(\pi/4)\sigma_x}\right],\nonumber
445: \end{eqnarray}
446: where the second line of $K_2$ shows the pulse sequence
447: made of the existing terms in the Hamiltonian.
448: It should be noted that this pulse sequence
449: requires the execution time $T = 1/2J$ in spite of an additional
450: gate $U_{\rm cp}$, which is composed of two CNOT gates and costs
451: $1/J$ of time to execute in the conventional pulse sequence.
452: The execution time of the
453: time-optimal pulse sequence is 25\% of that for
454: the conventional pulse sequence. The execution time for the other
455: solutions takes discrete values $(n+1/2)/J,\ (n=0, 1, 2, \ldots)$.
456: This corresponds to a path traversing $SU(4)$ $n$ times
457: before arriving at the $U_{\rm target}$.
458: \item $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$: An example of the time-optimal pulse
459: sequence is %# 23
460: \begin{eqnarray}
461: K_1 &=& e^{-i (\pi/3 \sqrt{3})( \sigma_x +\sigma_y+\sigma_z)}
462: \otimes I_2
463: \nonumber\\
464: &=& \left[e^{-i(\pi/4) \sigma_x} e^{-i(\pi/4) \sigma_y}\right]\otimes
465: I_2 \nonumber\\
466: U_J&=& e^{-i (\pi/4)\sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z}\\
467: K_2 &=& e^{i (\pi/4) \sigma_x} \otimes I_2.\nonumber
468: \end{eqnarray}
469: Note again that the execution time of the gate for the time-optimal pulse
470: sequence is 25\% of that for the conventional pulse sequence. In general,
471: the execution time is
472: $(n+1/2)/J,\ (n=0, 1, 2, \ldots)$ as in the above case.
473: \end{itemize}
474:
475: The generators in the pulse sequences, that do not exist in
476: the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham}), are
477: rewritten in favor of the existing terms by making use of the
478: conjugate transformations (\ref{eq:1qubit}) and (\ref{eq:2qubit}).
479: The results are summarized in Table I.
480: Also shown in the Table are the results according to the
481: conventional pulse sequence for the respective gate.
482:
483: \begin{table*}[htb]
484: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|}
485: \hline
486: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Conventional pulse sequence}\\
487: \hline
488: Gate&Pulse sequence&Execution time\\
489: \hline
490: $U_{10}$&
491: \verb|1: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 1/J\\
492: &
493: \verb|2: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
494: \hline
495: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}$&
496: \verb|1: -X -(1/2J)-X --------------Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 2/J\\
497: &
498: \verb|2: --------------X -(1/2J)-X -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
499: \hline
500: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}^2$&
501: \verb|1: --------------X -(1/2J)-X -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 2/J\\
502: &
503: \verb|2: -X -(1/2J)-X --------------Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
504: \hline
505: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Time-optimal pulse sequence}\\
506: \hline
507: Gate&Pulse sequence&Execution time\\
508: \hline
509: $U_{10}$&
510: \verb|1: -X -(1/2J)-Xm-Ym-(1/2J)-Y -Pi(45)-|& 1/J\\
511: &
512: \verb|2: -X -(1/2J)-Xm-Y -(1/2J)-X -Ym -|& \\
513: \hline
514: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}$&
515: \verb|1: -X -(1/2J)-Xm-Ym- |& 1/2J\\
516: &
517: \verb|2: -Ym-Ym- |& \\
518: \hline
519: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}^2$&
520: \verb|1: |& 1/2J\\
521: &
522: \verb|2: -Y -X -(1/2J)-Xm- |& \\
523: \hline
524: \end{tabular}
525: \caption{Control pulse sequences for Grover's algorithm,
526: which picks out the `file' $|10 \rangle$
527: starting from the pseudopure
528: state $|00\rangle$, which is obtained by cyclic permutations.
529: The carbon nucleus is the first qubit while
530: the hydrogen nucleus is the second.
531: The upper Table shows the conventional pulse sequences \cite{ref:13}
532: required to execute Grover's algorithm with
533: the pseudopure state. The uppermost row shows
534: the pulse sequence for the gate $U_{10}$, while the second and the
535: third rows show those for $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$ and $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$,
536: respectively. Here
537: {\tt X} ({\tt Xm}) and {\tt Y} ({\tt Ym}) denote $\pi/2$ pulse
538: along $x$ ($-x$) and $y$ ($-y$) axis,
539: respectively.
540: The lower Table shows the time-optimal pulse sequences. The symbol
541: {\tt Pi(45)} %appeared in the optimized pulse sequence
542: denotes $\pi$-pulse along $(1,1,0)$ direction of the Bloch sphere.
543: }
544: \label{table:ps}
545: \end{table*}
546:
547: \subsection{Experiments}
548:
549: In our experiments, we used 0.6 milliliter,
550: 200 millimolar sample of Carbon-13 labeled
551: chloroform (Cambridge Isotopes) in d-6 acetone \cite{ref:13}.
552: Data were taken at room
553: temperature with a JEOL ECA-500 (the hydrogen Larmor frequency being
554: approximately 500~MHz) spectorometer \cite{ref:jeol}.
555: The measured coupling strength is $J=215.5$~Hz and
556: the transverse relaxation time $T_2$ is $\sim 7.5$~s for the
557: hydrogen nucleus while $\sim 0.30$~s for the carbon nucleus.
558: The longitudinal relaxation time $T_1$ is measured to be
559: $\sim 20$~s for both nuclei.
560: The spin 1 and 2 in Table~\ref{table:ps}
561: correspond to Carbon-13 and H, respectively.
562:
563:
564: Our experimental results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:s},
565: which shows the spectra corresponding to the $|1 0 \rangle$
566: state. The spectra in Fig.~~\ref{fig:s} (a)
567: were obtained by using hard pulses whose duration is 25~$\mu$s
568: for $\pi/2$ pulses. We have intentionally introduced
569: longer pulses with 250~$\mu$s duration to see the effect of imperfections,
570: see Fig.~\ref{fig:s} (b). In the first case, we can well ignore the time
571: evolution due to the J-coupling while pulses are applied since
572: the characterist time for the $J$-coupling is $\sim 1/J \sim 5$ms.
573: In the latter case, however, six 250~$\mu$s pulses amounts to the
574: total duration of 1.5ms, which is comparable to $1/J$ and we expect
575: that the difference in the number of pulses will manifest.
576: Figure~\ref{fig:s} (b) clearly demonstrates
577: that time-optimal pulse sequences produce sharper main peak compared to the
578: conventional pulse sequences and less unwanted signal,
579: showing the superiority of our solutions.
580: We also expect that quantum algorithm accreleration should
581: be effective to fight against decoherence.
582:
583: \begin{figure}[h]
584: \begin{center}
585: %\includegraphics[bb=0 0 570 500,width=9.5cm]{spectra.eps}
586: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{spectra.eps}
587: \end{center}
588: \caption{
589: The spectra for the peak corresponding to $|10 \rangle$ state.
590: Negative signal amplitudes indicate that the carbon nucleus is in
591: the state
592: $|1 \rangle$, while appearance of the main signal at
593: the frequency of 77.5~ppm (instead of 79.2~ppm) implies that
594: the hydrogen nucleus is in the
595: $|0 \rangle$ state. The insets show the signals in the vicinity of
596: 79.2~ppm where a signal may appear if the hydrogen nulceus has
597: $|1 \rangle$ component. The scales in the insets
598: are the same as in the main panels.
599: (a) The upper panel shows the spectra obtained
600: with conventional (dotted line)
601: and optimized (solid line) pulse sequences. Each $\pi/2$-pulse duration is
602: set to 25~$\mu$s. The main peak produced by the optimized
603: pulse sequences is slightly sharper than that of the conventional one.
604: (b) The lower panel shows spectra
605: with conventional (dotted line)
606: and optimized (solid line) pulse sequences, in which the duration of the
607: $\pi/2$-pulse is now set to 250~$\mu$s.
608: The signal produced by the optimized
609: pulse sequences is clearly better than that by the conventional ones.
610: Note also that unwanted signal in the inset is weaker for
611: the time-optimal pulse sequences.
612: %thus proving experimentally that quantum algorithm accreleration
613: %is effective to fight against imperfections in experiments.
614: }
615: \label{fig:s}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
619:
620: In summary, we have demonstrated both theoretically and
621: experimentally that quantum algorithms
622: may be accelerated if the unitary matrix realizing an
623: algorithm is directly implemented by manipulating the control
624: parameters in the Hamiltonian.
625: We have verified this by
626: implementing Grover's algorithm which picks out the ``file'' $|10 \rangle$
627: starting from the pseudopure state generated by cyclic permutations of
628: the state populations. We obtained the time-optimal
629: pulse sequences and compared the results with those obtained by
630: the conventional pulse sequences. It turns out that the gate $U_{10}$
631: is already optimized in the conventional pulse sequence while the
632: gates $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$ and $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$ required for
633: the cyclic permutations are accelerated so that the execution time
634: is 25\% of that for the conventional pulse sequence in both cases.
635: The number of the pulses required for $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$
636: ($_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$) is 4 (3) in the time-optimal pulses sequence,
637: while it is 14 in both cases if the conventional pulse
638: sequences are employed. The smallness in the number of pulses required leads
639: to a higher-quality spectrum.
640:
641: \section*{Acknowledgements}
642:
643: We would like to thank Manabu Ishifune for sample preparation,
644: Toshie Minematsu for assistance in
645: NMR operations and Katsuo Asakura and Naoyuki Fujii of JEOL
646: for assistance in NMR pulse programming.
647: Parallel computing for the present work has been carried out with the
648: CP-PACS computer under the ``Large-scale Numerical Simulation Program''
649: of Center for Computational Physics, University of Tsukuba.
650: We would like to thank Martti Salomaa for drawing their attention to
651: Refs. \cite{ref:14, ref:15} and
652: careful reading of the manuscript.
653: MN is grateful for partial support of a
654: Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture,
655: Sports, Science and Technology (No.~13135215) and
656: Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No.~14540346).
657: ST would like to thank JSPS for partial support (No.~15540277).
658:
659: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
660: \bibitem{ref:1} M.~A.~Nielsen, and I.~L.~Chuang,
661: {\it Quantum Computation and Quantum Information}, (Cambridge University
662: Press, Cambridge,
663: 2000).
664: \bibitem{ref:2} F.~De.~Martini and C.~Monroe (eds.),
665: {\it Experimental Quantum Computation and Information}, (IOS Press, Amsterdam,
666: 2002).
667: \bibitem{ref:3} A.~R.~Calderbank and P.~W.~Shor, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, 1098
668: (1996).
669: \bibitem{ref:4} D.~A.~Lidar, I.~L.~Chuang, and K.~B.~Whaley, Phys. Rev.
670: Lett. {\bf 81}, 2594 (1998).
671: \bibitem{ref:5} P.~Zanardi and M.~Rasetti, Pjys. Lett. A, {\bf 264}, 94
672: (1999).
673: \bibitem{ref:a} J.~J.~Vartiainen, M.~M\"ott\"onen, and M.~M.~Salomaa,
674: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 177902 (2004).
675: \bibitem{ref:b} M.~M\"ott\"onen, J.~J.~Vartiainen, V.~Bergholm, and
676: M.~M.~Salomaa, quant-ph/0404089 (2004).
677: \bibitem{ref:6} A.~Barenco, C.~H.~Bennett, R.~Cleve, D.~P.~DiVincenzo,
678: N.~Margolus, P.~Shor, T.~Sleator, J.~A.~Smolin, and H. Weinfurter,
679: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 3457 (1995).
680: %
681: \bibitem{ref:7} A.~O.~Niskanen, M.~Nakahara, and M.~M.~Salomaa,
682: Quantum Inf. Comput. {\bf 2}, 560 (2002).
683: \bibitem{ref:8} A.~O.~Niskanen, M.~Nakahara, and M.~M.~Salomaa,
684: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 67}, 012319 (2003).
685: \bibitem{ref:9} S.~Tanimura, D.~Hayashi, and M.~Nakahara,
686: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 325}, 199 (2004).
687: \bibitem{ref:10} A.~O.~Niskanen, J.~J.~Vartiainen, and M.~M.~Salomaa,
688: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 197901 (2003).
689: \bibitem{ref:11} J.~V.~Vartiainen, A.~O.~Niskanen, M.~Nakahara
690: and M.~M.~Salomaa, Int. J. Quant. Inf. {\bf 2}, 1 (2004)
691: \bibitem{ref:12} J.~V.~Vartiainen, A.~O.~Niskanen, M.~Nakahara
692: and M.~M.~Salomaa, Phys. Rev. A, to be published.
693: \bibitem{ref:13} I.~L.~Chuang, N.~Gershenfeld, and M.~Kubinec,
694: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 3408 (1998).
695: \bibitem{ref:14} N.~Khaneja, R.~Brockett, and S.~J.~Glaser, Phys. Rev.
696: A {\bf 63}, 032308 (2001).
697: \bibitem{ref:15} N.~Khaneja, Harvard Thesis (2000).
698: \bibitem{ref:16} L.~Grover, in {\it Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM
699: Symposium on the Theory of Computation} (ACM Press, New York, 1996), 212,
700: \bibitem{ref:17} L.~K.~Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 325 (1997).
701: \bibitem{ref:jeol} http://www.jeol.com/nmr/nmr.html
702: \end{thebibliography}
703:
704: \end{document}
705:
706:
707: Original Table
708:
709: \begin{table*}
710: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|}
711: \hline
712: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Conventional pulse sequence}\\
713: \hline
714: Gate&Pulse sequence&Execution time\\
715: \hline
716: $U_{10}$&
717: \verb|1: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 1/J\\
718: &
719: \verb|2: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
720: \hline
721: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}$&
722: \verb|1: -X -(1/2J)-X -------------Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 2/J\\
723: &
724: \verb|2: -------------X -(1/2J)-X -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
725: \hline
726: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}^2$&
727: \verb|1: -------------X -(1/2J)-X -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 2/J\\
728: &
729: \verb|2: -X -(1/2J)-X -------------Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|
730: & \\
731: \hline
732: \hline
733: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Time-optimal pulse sequence}\\
734: \hline
735: Gate&Pulse sequence&Execution time\\
736: \hline
737: $U_{10}$&
738: \verb|1: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-X -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& 1/J\\
739: &
740: \verb|2: -Y -(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-(1/2J)-Ym-Xm-|& \\
741: \hline
742: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}$&
743: \verb|1: -(1/2J)-Ym-Ym-|& 1/2J\\
744: &
745: \verb|2: -X -(1/2J)-Xm-Ym-|& \\
746: \hline
747: $U_{10}U_{\rm cp}^2$&
748: \verb|1: -Y -X -(1/2J)-Xm----|& 1/2J\\
749: &
750: \verb|2: |& \\
751: \hline
752: \end{tabular}
753: \caption{Control pulse sequences for Grover's algorithm,
754: which picks out the `file' $|10 \rangle$ starting from the pseudopure
755: state $|00\rangle$, which is obtained by cyclic permutations.
756: The upper Table shows the conventional pulse sequences \cite{ref:13}
757: required to execute Grover's algorithm with
758: the pseudopure state. The uppermost row shows
759: the pulse sequence for the gate $U_{10}$, while the second and
760: third rows show those for $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}$ and $U_{10} U_{\rm cp}^2$,
761: respectively. Here
762: X (Xm) and Y (Ym) denote
763: $\pi/2$ pulse along X(-X) and Y(-Y) axis,
764: respectively.
765: %Note that $U_{\rm cp}$ and $U_{\rm cp}^2$ used in the experiments are
766: %simplified without correct phase shifts, but known to work as cyclic
767: %permutations.
768: The lower Table shows the pulse sequences for
769: the time-optimal pulse. The carbon nucleus is the first qubit while
770: the hydrogen nucleus is the second.
771: }
772: \end{table*}
773:
774:
775:
776: