Abstract
A computational problem fed into a gatemodel quantum computer identifies an objective function with a particular computational pathway (objective function connectivity). The solution of the computational problem involves identifying a target objective function value that is the subject to be reached. A bottleneck in a gatemodel quantum computer is the requirement of several rounds of quantum state preparations, highcost run sequences, and multiple rounds of measurements to determine a target (optimal) state of the quantum computer that achieves the target objective function value. Here, we define a method for optimal quantum state determination and computational path evaluation for gatemodel quantum computers. We prove a state determination method that finds a target system state for a quantum computer at a given target objective function value. The computational pathway evaluation procedure sets the connectivity of the objective function in the target system state on a fixed hardware architecture of the quantum computer. The proposed solution evolves the target system state without requiring the preparation of intermediate states between the initial and target states of the quantum computer. Our method avoids highcost system state preparations and expensive running procedures and measurement apparatuses in gatemodel quantum computers. The results are convenient for gatemodel quantum computations and the nearterm quantum devices of the quantum Internet.
Introduction
Quantum computers^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} utilize the fundamentals of quantum mechanics to perform computations^{11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19}. For experimental gatemodel quantum computer architectures and the nearterm quantum devices of the quantum Internet^{20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60}, gatebased architectures provide an implementable solution to realize quantum computations^{2,3,4,9,10,23,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85}. In a gatemodel quantum computer the operations are realized via a sequence of quantum gates, and each quantum gate represents a unitary transformation^{10,23,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,86,87,88,89,90,91}. The input of a quantum computer is a quantum system realized via several quantum states, and the unitaries of the quantum computer change the initial system state into a specific state^{9,10,62,63}. The output quantum system is then measured by a measurement array.
A computational problem fed into a quantum computer defines an objective function with a particular connectivity (computational pathway)^{10}. The solution of this computational problem in the quantum computer involves identifying an objective function with a target value that is subject to be reached. To achieve the target objective function value, the quantum computer must reach a particular system state such that the gate parameters of the unitary operations satisfy the target value. These optimal gate parameter values of the unitary operations of the quantum computer identify the optimal state of the quantum computer. This optimal system state is referred to as the target system state of the quantum computer. Finding the target system state involves multiple measurement rounds and iterations, with highcost system state preparations (Note, the term "quantum state preparation" in the current context refers to a quantum state determination method. It is because the aim of the proposed procedure is the determination of an optimal state of the quantum computer, i.e., the optimal values of the gateparameters of the unitaries of the quantum computer, see also^{10}), quantum computations, and measurement procedures. Therefore, optimizing the determination procedure of the target system state is essential for gatemodel quantum computers.
Here, we define a method for state determination and computational path evaluation for gatemodel quantum computers. The aim of state determination is to find a target system state for a quantum computer such that the predetermined target objective function value is reached. The aim of the computational path evaluation is to find the connectivity of the objective function in the target system state on the fixed hardware architecture^{10} of the quantum computer. To resolve these issues, we define a framework that utilizes the theory of kernel methods^{92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102} and highdimensional Hilbert spaces. In traditional theoretical computer science, kernel methods represent a useful and low computationalcost tool in statistical learning, signal processing theory and machine learning. We prove that these methods can also be utilized in gatemodel quantum computations for particular problems.
The novel contributions of our manuscript are as follows:

1.
We define a method for optimal quantum state determination and computational path evaluation for nearterm quantum computers.

2.
The proposed state determination method finds a target system state for a quantum computer at a given target objective function value.

3.
The computational pathway evaluation finds the connectivity of the objective function in the target system state on the fixed hardware architecture of the quantum computer.

4.
The proposed solution evolves the target system state of the quantum computer without requiring the preparation of intermediate system states between the initial and target states of the quantum computer.

5.
The method avoids highcost system state preparations, expensive running procedures and measurement rounds in gatemodel quantum computers.

6.
The results are useful for gatemodel quantum computers and the nearterm quantum devices of the quantum Internet.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, related works are summarized. Section 2 presents the problem statement. Section 3 discusses the results. Finally, Section 4 concludes the paper. Supplemental information is included in the Appendix.
Related Works
The related works are summarized as follows.
Gatemodel quantum computers
The model of gatemodel quantum computer architectures and the construction of algorithms for qubit architectures are studied in^{10}. The proposed system model of the work also serves as a reference for our system model. Some related preliminaries can also be found in^{62,63}.
In^{9}, the authors defined a gatemodel quantum neural network. The proposed system model is a quantum neural network realized via a gatemodel quantum computer.
In^{61}, the authors studied a gatemodel quantum algorithm called the “Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm” (QAOA) and its connection with the SherringtonKirkpatrick (SK)^{103} model. The results serve as a framework for analyzing the QAOA, and can be used for evaluating the performance of QAOA on more general problems.
The behavior of the objective function value of the QAOA algorithm for some specific cases has been studied in^{74}. As the authors concluded, for some fixed parameters and instances drawn from a particular distribution, the objective function value is concentrated such that typical instances have almost the same value of the objective function.
Further performance analyses of the QAOA algorithm can be found in^{76,77}. Practical implementations connected to gatemodel quantum computing and the QAOA algorithm can be found in^{78,79}.
In^{104}, the authors studied methods quantum computing based hybrid solution methods for largescale discretecontinuous optimization problems. The results are straightforwardly applicable for gatemodel quantum computers. As the authors concluded, the proposed quantum computing methods have high computational efficiency in terms of solution quality and computation time, by utilizing the unique features of both classical and quantum computers.
A recent experimental quantum computer implementation has been demonstrated in^{1}. The results of the work confirmed the quantum supremacy^{2,3} of quantum computers over traditional computers in particular problems.
The work of^{4} gives a summary on quantum computing technologies in the NISQ (Noisy IntermediateScale Quantum) era and beyond.
Quantum state preparation
In^{105}, the authors studied the utilization of reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control. The authors studied the performance of reinforcement learning in the problem of finding short, highfidelity driving protocol from an initial to a target state in nonintegrable manybody quantum systems of interacting qubits. As the authors concluded, the performance of the proposed reinforcement learning method is comparable to optimal control methods.
In^{106}, the authors studied the question of efficient variational simulation of nontrivial quantum states. The results represent an efficient and general route for preparing nontrivial quantum states that are not adiabatically connected to unentangled product states. The system model integrates a feedback loop between a quantum simulator and a classical computer. As the authors concluded, the proposed results are experimentally realizable on nearterm quantum devices of synthetic quantum systems.
In^{107}, the problem of simulated quantum computation of molecular energies is studied. While, on a traditional computer the calculation time for the energy of atoms and molecules scales exponentially with system size, on a quantum computer it scales polynomially. The authors demonstrated that such chemical problems can be solved via quantum algorithms using modest numbers of qubits.
In^{108}, the authors studied the modeling and feedback control design for quantum state preparation. The work describes the modeling methods of controlled quantum systems under continuous observation, and studies the design of feedback controls that prepare particular quantum states. In the proposed analysis, the fieldtheoretic model is subjected to statistical inference and is ultimately controlled.
For an information theoretical analysis of quantum optimal control, see^{109}. In this work, the authors studied quantum optimal control problems and the solving methods. The authors showed that if an efficient classical representation of the dynamics exists, then optimal control problems on manybody quantum systems can be solved efficiently with finite precision. As the authors concluded, the size of the space of parameters necessary to solve quantum optimal control problems defined on pure, mixed states and unitaries is polynomially bounded from the size of the of the set of reachable states in polynomial time.
In^{110}, the authors studied the complexity of controlling quantum manybody dynamics. As the authors found, arbitrary time evolutions of manybody quantum systems can be reversed even in cases when only part of the Hamiltonian can be controlled. The authors also determined a lower bound on the control complexity of a manybody quantum dynamics for some particular cases.
System Model and Problem Statement
System model
Let QG be the quantum gate structure of a gatemodel quantum computer, defined with L unitary gates, where an ith, i = 1, …, L unitary gate \({U}_{i}\left({\theta }_{i}\right)\) is
where P_{i} is a generalized Pauli operator formulated by the tensor product of Pauli operators \(\left\{X,Y,Z\right\}\), while θ_{i} is the gate parameter associated with \({U}_{i}\left({\theta }_{i}\right)\).
The L unitary gates formulate a system state \( \vec{\theta }\rangle \) of the quantum computer, as
where \({U}_{i}\left({\theta }_{i}\right)\) identifies an ith unitary gate and \(\vec{\theta }\) is the collection of the gate parameters of the unitaries, defined as
The system state in (2) identifies a \(U(\vec{\theta })\) unitary resulted from the product of the L unitary operations \({U}_{L}\left({\theta }_{L}\right){U}_{L1}\left({\theta }_{L1}\right)\ldots {U}_{1}\left({\theta }_{1}\right)\) of the quantum computer. For an input quantum system \( \varphi \rangle \), the \( \psi \rangle \) output quantum system of QG is as
The \(f(\vec{\theta })\) objective function subject to a maximization is defined as
where \(C\left(z\right)\) identifies a classical objective function^{10} of a computational problem, while z is a bitstring resulting from an M measurement.
The C classical objective function represents the objective function of a computational problem \({\mathscr{P}}\) fed into the quantum computer. The C objective function is a subject of maximization via the quantum computer. Objective function examples are the combinatorial optimization problems^{9}, and the objective functions of largescale programming problems^{104}, such as the graph coloring problem, molecular conformation problem, jobshop scheduling problem, manufacturing cell formation problem, and the vehicle routing problem^{104}.
At a target value \({f}^{\ast }(\vec{\theta })\),
the problems are therefore to find a \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\) that reaches the target state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) of the quantum computer and to identify the optimal \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) computational pathway for \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \).
Definition 1.
(Computational pathway). The connectivity of \(C\left(z\right)\) defines a computational pathway as the sum of \({C}_{ij}\left(z\right)\) objective function values evaluated between quantum states ij in the QG structure:
The \(C\left(z\right)\) computational pathway between quantum states ij sets the connectivity of objective function in a given state \( \vec{\theta }\rangle \) of the quantum computer.
Definition 2.
(Optimal computational pathway). The \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) optimal computational pathway of the quantum computer is the computational pathway associated with the optimal (target) state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \). The \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) computational pathway sets the connectivity of the objective function in the target state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) of the quantum computer.
Definition 3.
(Connectivity graph of the quantum hardware). The \({\mathscr{G}}=\left(V,S\right)\) connectivity graph refers to the fixed connectivity of the hardvare of the QG quantum gate structure, where the v ∈ V nodes are quantum systems, while the s ∈ S edges are the connections between them. An edge s_{i,j} with index pair \(\left(i,j\right)\) identifies a physical connection between quantum systems v_{i} and v_{j}.
Problem statement
The problem statement is given in Problems 1 and 2, as follows.
Problem 1.
(Target state determination of the quantum computer). For a given target objective function value \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\), find the \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) target state of the quantum computer from an initial state \( {\vec{\theta }}_{0}\rangle \) and an initial objective function \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\).
Problem 2.
(Computational path of the quantum computer in the target state). Determine the connectivity of the objective function \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) of \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\) for the target quantum state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) of the quantum computer.
Our solutions for Problems 1 and 2 are proposed in Theorems 1, 2, and Lemma 1.
Results
Evaluation of the target state of the quantum computer
Theorem 1.
(Target system state evaulation). The \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) system state associated with the \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\) target objective function can be evaluated from an initial state \( {\vec{\theta }}_{0}\rangle \) via a decomposition of the initial objective function \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\).
Proof.
Let \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) be the initial objective function value associated with \( {\vec{\theta }}_{0}\rangle \) and with gate parameters \({\vec{\theta }}_{0}\). The \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) value can be rewritten as
where χ is a vector of regression coefficients being evaluated via a \({\mathscr{K}}\) kernel machine (see (33)), while \({\vec{\theta }}_{0}\) is decomposed as
where \(F({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) and \(F\left(U\right)\) are orthogonal components, such that \(F({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) depends on the actual objective function value, while \(F\left(U\right)\) is a component independent from the current value of the objective function (i.e., \(F\left(U\right)\) is a fixed component for an arbitrary \(\vec{\theta }\)) that lies in the null space. Since \({\vec{\theta }}_{0}\) and \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) are known, the χ regression coefficient vector can be determined from (8).
Using (9), the initial objective function in (8) can be rewritten at a particular χ as
where the \(F({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\) component is evaluated at a given χ as
where + is the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse^{92,102}. Since \(F\left(U\right)\) has no dependence on the actual system state, it can be expressed from (9) and (11) as
Then, let \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\) be the parameter vector associated with the target state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) of the target objective function \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\).
Applying the same decomposition steps for the target \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\), the component \(F(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\) at a given χ is
Therefore, the target vector \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\) can be rewritten via (13) and (12) as
Using the \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\) gate parameters in (14), the target system state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) can be built up to achieve the target objective function \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\). The target system state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) of a given \(f(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }})\) is therefore evolvable from the initial values \({\vec{\theta }}_{0}\), \(f({\vec{\theta }}_{0})\), and χ that can be computed from (8).
Algorithm 1 summarizes the steps of the target system state evolution method. ■
The results on the determination of the connectivity of the objective function in the target state are included in Theorem 2.
Connectivity of the objective function in the target state
Theorem 2.
(Connectivity of the objective function in the target state). The \(\left(i,j\right)\) pairs of the s_{i,j} edges of \({\mathscr{G}}\), ∀ s_{i,j} ∈ S, in a target objective function \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)={\sum }_{\forall {s}_{i,j}\in S}{C}_{{s}_{i,j}}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) associated to \({f}^{\ast }(\vec{\theta })\) can be determined from \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\), where \({C}_{{s}_{i,j}}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) is an objective function component associated to s_{i,j}.
Proof.
Let \({\mathscr{G}}=\left(V,S\right)\) be the connectivity graph^{10} associated with the QG quantum gate structure of the quantum computer (see Definition 3), and let \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\) be evaluated as given in (14). Let \({\mathscr{X}}\) be the input space and let \({\mathscr{K}}\) be a kernel machine, defined for a given \(x,y\in {\mathscr{X}}\) via kernel function^{88}, as
where
is a nonlinear map from \({\mathscr{X}}\) to the highdimensional Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) \({\mathscr{H}}\) associated with \({\mathscr{K}}\). Without loss of generality,
and we assume that the map Γ in (16) has no inverse.
The connectivity of the objective function and the pairwise connectivity of the quantum computer’s hardware are not related, since these connections are represented in different layers^{10}. While the physicallayer connectivity is determined by the QG quantum gate structure of the fixed quantum hardware, the connectivity of the \(C\left(z\right)\) objective function is determined in the logicallayer that formulates a computational pathway. As a corollary, the proposed algorithm works on fixed quantum hardware and iterates in the logical layer to determine the connectivity of the objective function such that the objective function is maximized.
Let \(\vec{\kappa }\) be the vector of s_{i,j} edges, ∀ s_{i,j} ∈ S, and let \(\vec{\Omega }\) be the vector of the actual \({C}_{{s}_{i,j}}\left(z\right)\) objective function values associated with the s_{i,j} edges. The initial computational path of the quantum computer is therefore
where κ_{i} and \({\Omega }_{{\kappa }_{i}}\) identify the ith elements of \(\vec{\kappa }\) and \(\vec{\Omega }\), respectively.
Then, let ϒ_{0} be an element of the input space \({\mathscr{X}}\), defined as
and let τ_{0} be the map of ϒ_{0} in \({\mathscr{H}}\), as
where λ is a matrix of eigenvectors associated with the edge and objective function values in \( {\vec{\theta }}_{0}\rangle \).
Then, let ϒ^{*} be the target element in \({\mathscr{X}}\) subject to be determined,
where \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) and \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\) are target vectors that identify the connectivity of the \({C}_{{s}_{i,j}}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) objective function values in the target state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \), such that the \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) computational path can be evaluated as
where \({\kappa }_{i}^{\ast }\) and \({\Omega }_{{\kappa }_{i}^{\ast }}^{\ast }\) refer to the ith elements of \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) and \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\), respectively.
Then, let τ^{*} be the map of the target \({\Upsilon }^{\ast }\in {\mathscr{X}}\) in \({\mathscr{H}}\), defined as
where λ^{*} is a matrix of eigenvectors associated with the edge and objective function values in state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \).
Since (23) is linear, in the \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) state, the maps \(\Gamma \left(\vec{\kappa }\right)\) and \(\Gamma \left(\vec{\Omega }\right)\) of \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) and \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\), can be rewritten as
and
with
Since (23) can be evaluated from (20) in \({\mathscr{H}}\), the task here is therefore to identify ϒ^{*} in \({\mathscr{X}}\) from τ^{*}. As ϒ^{*} is determined, the target vectors \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) and \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\) for the target objective function in (22) are also found.
Since the map Γ in (16) has no inverse, finding ϒ^{*} in \({\mathscr{X}}\) from τ^{*} defines an illposed problem^{93,94,99,100,101}. In this setting, the determination of ϒ^{*} from τ^{*}, requires the use of a \({\mathscr{P}}\) projector on τ_{0}(20) in \({\mathscr{H}}\), which yields a \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) element in \({\mathscr{H}}\). If τ^{*} lies in (or close to) the span of \(\left\{\Gamma \left({\Upsilon }_{i}\right)\right\}\), where ϒ_{i} is an ith training data, \({\Upsilon }_{i}\in {\mathscr{X}}\), from a training set \({{\mathscr{S}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\) of N training data,
then τ^{*} can be represented as a linear combination of the training data^{93,94,95}. As a corollary, \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) yields a close approximation of τ^{*} in \({\mathscr{H}}\):
The \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) projection is defined as
where V_{i} is a matrix of normalized eigenvectors of \({\mathscr{K}}\), while β_{i}s are projections as
while α_{i} is an ith coefficient in the eigenvector V as
where τ_{i} is the map of training data ϒ_{i}, as
Then, based on (30) and (31), a jth component of χ from (8), \(\chi ={\{{\chi }_{j}\}}_{j=1}^{N}\), can be determined as
where \({\widetilde{\Upsilon }}_{i}\) is a training data from a training set \({\widetilde{{\mathscr{S}}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\), such that the constraint^{92,93} of
holds for \({\widetilde{{\mathscr{S}}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\), where \(\mu (\Gamma ({\widetilde{{\mathscr{S}}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}))\) is the mean of the Γmapped training points \({\widetilde{{\mathscr{S}}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\), while \({\widetilde{\alpha }}_{i}^{j}\) is an ith coefficient of a jth eigenvector \({\widetilde{V}}_{j}\),
As it can be proven^{92,93,94}, the constraint in (34) satisfied, if the relation of
holds for a particular training set \({{\mathscr{S}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\), where \(\vec{\alpha }\) is the set of eigenvectors of \(\vec{K}\) with eigenvalues λ, while \(\left\langle \vec{K}\right\rangle \) is the centered kernel matrix of \({\mathscr{K}}\), defined as
where \(\vec{K}\) is the kernel matrix of \({\mathscr{K}}\), while \({\mathscr{I}}\) is as
where I is the identity matrix, while \(\vec{J}\) is an N × N matrix of ones.
Therefore, χ from (8) can be determined via the use of \(\left\langle \vec{K}\right\rangle \) in (36) for a given \({{\mathscr{S}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\), which guarantees that (34) is satisfied, i.e., the \(\Gamma \left({{\mathscr{S}}}_{{\mathscr{X}}}\right)\) mapped training data have zero mean that allows us to evaluate χ in an exact form.
The goal of projection \({\mathscr{P}}\) is to minimize the \({f}_{d}\left({\tau }^{\ast },{\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\right)\) distance in \({\mathscr{H}}\), where
Thus, at a given (29) and (39), the term in (21) can be rewritten as an optimality criteria
By introducing a nonnegative regularization parameter Φ^{93} to weight the distance of \({\left\Vert {\Upsilon }^{\ast }{\Upsilon }_{0}\right\Vert }^{2}\), the result in (39) at a given \({\Upsilon }_{0}\in {\mathscr{X}}\) can be rewritten as
where ζ refers to terms independent of ϒ^{*}, while ℓ_{i} is defined as
where n is associated to the projection \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\), since τ_{0} is projected to the subspace spanned by the first n eigenvectors V_{1}, …, V_{q}.
The result in (41) can be simplified by removing all terms independent of ϒ^{*}, such that \({f}_{d}({\tau }^{\ast },{\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right))\) can be minimized for arbitrary \({\mathscr{K}}\), as
where
At a \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) with relation (43), ϒ^{*} is determined as follows. Using (43) with an arbitrary \({\mathscr{K}}\), ϒ^{*} can be evaluated as
where the Φ regularization coefficient achieves the stability of ϒ^{*}, while
where \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) is defined in (29).
Then let \({\mathscr{K}}{\prime} \) be the derivative of \({\mathscr{K}}\) such that it formulates the gradient with respect to ϒ^{*} as
As follows, for a \(\vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\), the target \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) and \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\) can be determined for an arbitrary \({\mathscr{K}}\) via a stable solution ϒ^{*}(45), such that \(\vec{{\kappa }^{\ast }}\) contains the \(\left(i,j\right)\) pairs of the s_{i,j} edges for \({C}_{{s}_{i,j}}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\), while \(\vec{{\Omega }^{\ast }}\) identifies the values of \({C}_{{s}_{i,j}}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) in \( {\theta }^{\ast }\rangle \).
The proof is concluded here. ■
Computational pathway of the optimal state of the quantum computer
Lemma 1.
The \({C}^{\ast }\left(z\right)\) computational pathway of the optimal quantum state \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) can be determined for an arbitrary \({\mathscr{K}}\).
Proof.
To construct an iteration method for the determination of \( \vec{{\theta }^{\ast }}\rangle \) via ϒ^{*}, some preliminary conditions are set as follows. For the \({\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right)\) projection, we set the condition
therefore
Then, let \(\varepsilon \left({\Upsilon }^{\ast }\right)\) be the extremum of ϒ^{*} defined^{94,95} as
where
The gradient with respect to \(\varepsilon \left({\Upsilon }^{\ast }\right)\) is
As \({\mathscr{K}}\) is smooth, it can be shown that the condition of (49) always holds, since there is a neighborhood of the extremum^{93,94} of \({f}_{d}(\Gamma (\varepsilon \left({\Upsilon }^{\ast }\right)),{\mathscr{P}}\left({\tau }_{0}\right))\).
To provide the stability of \({\Upsilon }_{i}^{\ast }\) in an ith iteration step, we utilize the Φ regularization coefficient from (43) for the evaluation \({\Upsilon }_{i}^{\ast }\), and for the computation the \({f}_{d}^{\left(i\right)}(\cdot )\) is the distance function associated to an ith iteration step.
The steps are given in Algorithm 2. ■
Conclusions
Gatemodel quantum computers represent an implementable way for nearterm experimental quantum computations. The resolution of a computational problem fed into a quantum computer can be modeled via reaching the target value of an objective function. The objective function is determined by the actual computational problem. To satisfy the target objective function value, a quantum computer must reach a target system state. In the target system state, the gate parameters of the unitaries pick up values that set the objective function into the target value. Finding the target system state is a challenge that requires several rounds of measurement and system state preparations via the quantum computer. Here, we proved that the target state of the quantum computer can be evaluated from an initial system state and an initial objective function. The solution significantly reduces the cost of objective function evaluation, since the proposed method requires no the preparation of intermediate system states via the quantum computer between the initial and target system states. We defined a method for the evaluation of the computational path of the quantum computer for the target state, and an algorithm to solve the computational path problem in an iterative manner.
Ethics statement
This work did not involve any active collection of human data.
Data availability
This work does not have any experimental data.
References
Arute, F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature, Vol 574, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4158601916665 (2019).
Aaronson, S. & Chen, L. Complexitytheoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments. Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference, CCC ’17, pages 22:122:67, (2017).
Harrow, A. W. & Montanaro, A. Quantum Computational Supremacy. Nature 549, 203–209 (2017).
Preskill, J. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
IBM. A new way of thinking: The IBM quantum experience, http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum (2017).
Alexeev, Y. et al. Quantum Computer Systems for Scientific Discovery, arXiv:1912.07577 (2019).
Loncar, M. et al. Development of Quantum InterConnects for NextGeneration Information Technologies, arXiv:1912.06642 (2019).
Foxen, B. et al. Demonstrating a Continuous Set of Twoqubit Gates for Nearterm Quantum Algorithms, arXiv:2001.08343 (2020).
Farhi, E. & Neven, H. Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors, arXiv:1802.06002v1 (2018).
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Neven, H. Quantum Algorithms for Fixed Qubit Architectures. arXiv:1703.06199v1 (2017).
Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum Machine Learning. Nature 549, 195–202 (2017).
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep Learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2014).
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA (2016).
Debnath, S. et al. Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits. Nature 536, 63–66 (2016).
Monz, T. et al. Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm. Science 351, 1068–1070 (2016).
Barends, R. et al. Superconducting quantum circuits at the surface code threshold for fault tolerance. Nature 508, 500–503 (2014).
Kielpinski, D., Monroe, C. & Wineland, D. J. Architecture for a largescale iontrap quantum computer. Nature 417, 709–711 (2002).
Ofek, N. et al. Extending the lifetime of a quantum bit with error correction in superconducting circuits. Nature 536, 441–445 (2016).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. A Survey on Quantum Computing Technology, Computer Science Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.11.002, ISSN: 15740137, (2018).
Pirandola, S. Endtoend capacities of a quantum communication network. Communication physics 2, 51 (2019).
Pirandola, S. & Braunstein, S. L. Unite to build a quantum internet. Nature 532, 169–171 (2016).
Wehner, S., Elkouss, D. & Hanson, R. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science 362, 6412 (2018).
Van Meter, R. Quantum Networking, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, ISBN 1118648927, 9781118648926 (2014).
Chakraborty, K., Rozpedeky, F., Dahlbergz, A. & Wehner, S. Distributed Routing in a Quantum internet, arXiv:1907.11630v1 (2019).
Khatri, S., Matyas, C. T., Siddiqui, A. U. & Dowling, J. P. Practical figures of merit and thresholds for entanglement distribution in quantum networks. Physical Review Research 1, 023032 (2019).
Kozlowski, W. & Wehner, S. Towards LargeScale Quantum Networks, Proc. of the Sixth Annual ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication, Dublin, Ireland, arXiv:1909.08396 (2019).
Pal, S., Batra, P., Paterek, T. & Mahesh, T. S. Experimental localisation of quantum entanglement through monitored classical mediator, arXiv:1909.11030v1 (2019).
Pirandola, S. Bounds for multiend communication over quantum networks. Quantum Science and Technology 4, 045006 (2019).
Pirandola, S. et al. Advances in Quantum Cryptography, arXiv:1906.01645 (2019).
Laurenza, R. & Pirandola, S. General bounds for senderreceiver capacities in multipoint quantum communications. Phys. Rev. A 96, 032318 (2017).
MiguelRamiro, J. & Dur, W. Delocalized information in quantum networks, arXiv:1912.12935v1 (2019).
Pirker, A. & Dur, W. A quantum network stack and protocols for reliable entanglementbased networks, arXiv:1810.03556v1 (2018).
Tanjung, K. et al. Probing quantum features of photosynthetic organisms. npj Quantum Information, 20566387 4 (2018).
Tanjung, K. et al. Revealing Nonclassicality of Inaccessible Objects. Physical Review Letters, 1079–7114 119 12 (2017).
Caleffi, M. EndtoEnd Entanglement Rate: Toward a Quantum Route Metric, 2017 IEEE Globecom, https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2017.8269080 (2018).
Caleffi, M. Optimal Routing for Quantum Networks, IEEE Access, Vol 5, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2763325 (2017).
Caleffi, M., Cacciapuoti, A. S. & Bianchi, G. Quantum Internet: from Communication to Distributed Computing, aXiv:1805.04360 (2018).
Castelvecchi, D. The quantum internet has arrived, Nature, News and Comment, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586018018353, (2018).
Cacciapuoti, A. S. et al. Quantum Internet: Networking Challenges in Distributed Quantum Computing, arXiv:1810.08421 (2018).
Rozpedek, F. et al. Optimizing practical entanglement distillation. Physical Review A 97, 062333 (2018).
Humphreys, P. et al. Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network, Nature 558, (2018).
Liao, S.K. et al. Satellitetoground quantum key distribution. Nature 549, 43–47 (2017).
Ren, J.G. et al. Groundtosatellite quantum teleportation. Nature 549, 70–73 (2017).
Hensen, B. et al. Loopholefree Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526 (2015).
Hucul, D. et al. Modular entanglement of atomic qubits using photons and phonons, Nature Physics 11(1) (2015).
Noelleke, C. et al. Efficient Teleportation Between Remote SingleAtom Quantum Memories. Physical Review Letters 110, 140403 (2013).
Sangouard, N. et al. Quantum repeaters based on atomic ensembles and linear optics. Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 33 (2011).
Quantum Internet Research Group (QIRG), web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/qirg/about/ (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Optimizing HighEfficiency Quantum Memory with Quantum Machine Learning for NearTerm Quantum Devices, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598019566890 (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Theory of NoiseScaled Stability Bounds and Entanglement Rate Maximization in the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598020582006 (2020).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Decentralized BaseGraph Routing for the Quantum Internet, Physical Review A, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022310 (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, Topology Adaption for the Quantum Internet, Quantum Inf Process 17, 295, https://doi.org/10.1007/s111280182064x (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement Access Control for the Quantum Internet, Quantum Inf Process 18, 107, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1112801922265 (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Opportunistic Entanglement Distribution for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159801938495w (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Multilayer Optimization for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159801830957x (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement Availability Differentiation Service for the Quantum Internet, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598018288013 (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. EntanglementGradient Routing for Quantum Networks, Scientific Reports, Nature, (https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159801714394w) (2017).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Adaptive Routing for Quantum Memory Failures in the Quantum Internet, Quantum Inf Process 18, 52, https://doi.org/10.1007/s111280182153x (2018).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. A Poisson Model for Entanglement Optimization in the Quantum Internet, Quantum Inf Process 18, 233, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1112801923351 (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Entanglement Accessibility Measures for the Quantum Internet, Quantum Inf Process, https://doi.org/10.1007/s111280202605y (2020).
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Zhou, L. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the SherringtonKirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size, arXiv:1910.08187 (2019).
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028.(2014).
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Applied to a Bounded Occurrence Constraint Problem. arXiv:1412.6062. (2014).
Rebentrost, P., Mohseni, M. & Lloyd, S. Quantum Support Vector Machine for Big Data Classification. Physical Review Letters 113. (2014)
Lloyd, S. The Universe as Quantum Computer, A Computable Universe: Understanding and exploring Nature as computation, H. Zenil ed., World Scientific, Singapore, 2012, arXiv:1312.4455v1 (2013).
Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning, arXiv:1307.0411v2 (2013).
Lloyd, S., Garnerone, S. & Zanardi, P. Quantum algorithms for topological and geometric analysis of data. Nature Communications 7, arXiv:1408.3106 (2016).
Lloyd, S. et al. Infrastructure for the quantum Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 34, 9–20 (2004).
Lloyd, S., Mohseni, M. & Rebentrost, P. Quantum principal component analysis. Nature Physics 10, 631 (2014).
Gyongyosi, L., Imre, S. & Nguyen, H. V. A Survey on Quantum Channel Capacities, IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 99, 1, https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2786748 (2018).
Schuld, M., Sinayskiy, I. & Petruccione, F. An introduction to quantum machine learning. Contemporary Physics 56, pp. 172185. arXiv: 1409.3097 (2015).
Imre, S. & Gyongyosi, L. Advanced Quantum Communications  An Engineering Approach. WileyIEEE Press (New Jersey, USA), (2013).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. A Survey on Quantum Computing Technology, Computer Science Review, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.11.002, ISSN: 15740137 (2018).
Brandao, F. G. S. L., Broughton, M., Farhi, E., Gutmann, S. & Neven, H. For Fixed Control Parameters the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm’s Objective Function Value Concentrates for Typical Instances, arXiv:1812.04170 (2018).
Zhou, L., Wang, S.T., Choi, S., Pichler, H. & Lukin, M. D. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on NearTerm Devices, arXiv:1812.01041 (2018).
Lechner, W. Quantum Approximate Optimization with Parallelizable Gates, arXiv:1802.01157v2 (2018).
Crooks, G. E. Performance of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm on the Maximum Cut Problem, arXiv:1811.08419 (2018).
Ho, W. W., Jonay, C. & Hsieh, T. H. Ultrafast State Preparation via the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm with Long Range Interactions, arXiv:1810.04817 (2018).
Song, C. et al. 10Qubit Entanglement and Parallel Logic Operations with a Superconducting Circuit. Physical Review Letters 119(18), 180511 (2017).
Pirandola, S., Laurenza, R., Ottaviani, C. & Banchi, L. Fundamental limits of repeaterless quantum communications, Nature Communications, 15043, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15043 (2017).
Pirandola, S. et al. Theory of channel simulation and bounds for private communication. Quantum Science and Technology 3, 035009 (2018).
Pirandola, S. Capacities of repeaterassisted quantum communications, arXiv:1601.00966 (2016).
Pathumsoot, P. et al. Modeling of Measurementbased Quantum Network Coding on IBMQ Devices, arXiv:1910.00815v1 (2019).
Petz, D. Quantum Information Theory and Quantum Statistics, SpringerVerlag, Heidelberg, Hiv: 6 (2008).
Shor, P. W. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994).
Romero, J. et al. Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. arXiv: 1701.02691 (2017).
Yoo, S. et al. A quantum speedup in machine learning: finding an Nbit Boolean function for a classification. New Journal of Physics 16.10, 103014 (2014).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. State Stabilization for GateModel Quantum Computers, Quantum Inf Process 18, 280, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1112801923970 (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Quantum Circuit Design for Objective Function Maximization in GateModel Quantum Computers, Quantum Inf Process 18, 225, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1112801923262, 2 (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Training Optimization for GateModel Quantum Neural Networks, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159801948892w (2019).
Gyongyosi, L. & Imre, S. Dense Quantum Measurement Theory, Scientific Reports, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598019432502 (2019).
Bukar, A. M. & Ugail, H. A Nonlinear Appearance Model for Age Progression, In: Hassanien, A. E. and Oliva, D. A. (eds.), Advances in Soft Computing and Machine Learning in Image Processing, Studies in Computational Intelligence Vol. 730, Springer (2018).
Abrahamsen, T. J. & Hansen, L. K. Input Space Regularization Stabilizes Preimages for Kernel PCA Denoising, IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing, (2009).
Mika, S. et al. Kernel pca and denoising in feature spaces, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 11. pp. 536–542, MIT Press, (1999).
ShaweTaylor, J. & Cristianini, N.Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis. Cambridge University Press (2004).
Liu, W., Principe, J. & Haykin, S. Kernel Adaptive Filtering: A Comprehensive Introduction. Wiley (2010).
Bucak, S. S., Jin, R. & Jain, A. K. Multiple Kernel Learning for Visual Object Recognition: A Review. TPAMI, (2013).
Gonen, M. & Alpaydin, E. Multiple Kernel Learning Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2211–2268 (2011).
Honeine, P. & Richard, C. Preimage problem in kernelbased machine learning. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 28(2), 77–88 (2011).
Scholkopf, B., Smola, A. & Muller, K. R. Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem. Neural Computation 10(5), 1299–1319 (1996).
Li, J.B., Chu, S.C. & Pan, J.S. Kernel Learning Algorithms for Face Recognition. Springer, New York (2014).
BenIsrael, A. & Greville, T.N.E. Generalized inverses: Theory and applications, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. ISBN 0387002936, (2003).
Panchenko, D. The SherringtonKirkpatrick model. Springer monographs in mathematics, New York: Springer, (2013).
Ajagekar, A., Humble, T. & You, F. Quantum Computing based Hybrid Solution Strategies for Largescale DiscreteContinuous Optimization Problems. Computers and Chemical Engineering 132, 106630 (2020).
Bukov, M. et al. Reinforcement Learning in Different Phases of Quantum Control. Physical Review X 8, 031086 (2018).
Ho, W. W. & Hsieh, T. H. Efficient variational simulation of nontrivial quantum states. SciPost Phys. 6, 029 (2019).
AspuruGuzik, A., Dutoi, A. D., Love, P. J. & HeadGordon, M. Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies. Science 309(5741), 1704–1707 (2005).
Handel, R., Stockton, J. K. & Mabuchi, H. Modelling and feedback control design for quantum state preparation. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 7, S179 (2005).
Lloyd, S. & Montangero, S. Information theoretical analysis of quantum optimal control. Physical Review Letters 113, 010502 (2014).
Caneva, T. et al. Complexity of controlling quantum manybody dynamics. Physical Review A 89, 042322 (2014).
Acknowledgements
Open access funding provided by Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME). The research reported in this paper has been supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA Premium Postdoctoral Research Program 2019), by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund (TUDFO/51757/2019ITM, Thematic Excellence Program), by the National Research Development and Innovation Office of Hungary (Project No. 20171.2.1NKP201700001), by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund  OTKA K112125 and in part by the BME Artificial Intelligence FIKP grant of EMMI (Budapest University of Technology, BME FIKPMI/SC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.GY. designed the protocol and wrote the manuscript. L.GY. analyzed the results.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gyongyosi, L. Quantum State Optimization and Computational Pathway Evaluation for GateModel Quantum Computers. Sci Rep 10, 4543 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598020613164
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598020613164
Further reading

Scalable distributed gatemodel quantum computers
Scientific Reports (2021)

Hybrid quantum investment optimization with minimal holding period
Scientific Reports (2021)

Speeding up quantum perceptron via shortcuts to adiabaticity
Scientific Reports (2021)

Routing space exploration for scalable routing in the quantum Internet
Scientific Reports (2020)

Circuit Depth Reduction for GateModel Quantum Computers
Scientific Reports (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.