Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Chemistry
Benchmarking Variational Quantum Eigensolvers for Entanglement Detection in Many-Body Hamiltonian Ground States
arXiv
Authors: Alexandre Drinko, Guilherme I. Correr, Ivan Medina, Pedro C. Azado, Askery Canabarro, Diogo O. Soares-Pinto
Year
2024
Paper ID
65724
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
93
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) have emerged in recent years as a promise to obtain quantum advantage. These task-oriented algorithms work in a hybrid loop combining a quantum processor and classical optimization. Using a specific class of VQA named variational quantum eigensolvers (VQEs), we choose some parameterized quantum circuits to benchmark them at entanglement witnessing and entangled ground state detection for many-body systems described by Heisenberg Hamiltonian, varying the number of qubits and shots. Quantum circuits whose structure is inspired by the Hamiltonian interactions presented better results on cost function estimation than problem-agnostic circuits.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) have emerged in recent years as a promise to obtain quantum advantage.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.