Quantum tomography

Page from 2013


Just as electrical engineers need to use multimeters and oscilliscopes to verify that their circuit components function as expected, quantum physicists need to verify that their quantum components work. In quantum computing, it is necessary to verify that the input qubits are actually what you think they are, and to verify that quantum gates act the way you expect them to act. Verification is an essential tool for both engineering these systems, as well as for understanding the underlying physics.

The method of verifying a quantum state is known as quantum state tomography. The experimentalist collects a series of measurements of the system, and then tries to infer what the system is. Because these measurements are linear, this is an example of a linear inverse problem.

In quantum information, the basic quantum state is a collection of qubits. For a system of q qubits, if the state is separable, then we can mathematically represent it with about q complex numbers, in analogy with how we store bits in a normal coputer. However, quantum states can also be entangled, in which case we require about d=2^q complex numbers to represent the state. This exponential growth in data is one of the reasons quantum computing has advantages over classical computing (e.g. the famous Shor's algorithm).

In general, we represent our quantum state as a density matrix which is a Hermitian matrix X of size 2^q times 2^q. The quantum tomography measurement process collects measurements

 b = mathcal{A}(X) + z, quad (mathcal{A}(X))_i = text{trace}(E_i^*X)

where z is a term that represents noise, and E_i is a Hermitian matrix that represents an observable. For experimental reasons, E_i is the tensor product of Pauli matrices.

The main challenge of tomography is easy to state: it is hard and slow to collect each measurement E_i. After a long period of time (about half a day), the measurements are no longer reliable, so there is a fixed time budget. But the quantum state requires about 2^{2q} numbers, so for large qubit systems this is an unreasonable number of measurements. Conventional approaches have been stuck at about 8 qubit systems, but physicists would like to study larger systems for a variety of reasons.

This page discusses our solutions to the problem. To learn more about other uses of quantum state tomography as well as the related technique of quantum process tomography, see this paper by Scott Aaronson, which gives a few references for uses of tomography (e.g. observing chemical reactions, confirm preparation of photon or ion entangle states, testing quantum gates, and characterizing optical devices). For more information on quantum information, we recommend Quantum Computation and Quantum Information by Nielsen and Chuang, Cambridge University Press 2011.

A convex approach

This approach is described in my paper Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing (Gross, Liu, Flammia, Becker and Eisert, in Physical Review Letters, 2010), and it is based on the new paradigm of matrix completion.

This section is still under construction, Jan 2013.

A non-convex approach

Can we find an algorithm that is both faster and more accurate than the convex approach? In 2013, Volkan Cevher and I show that, surprisingly, we can.

This section is still under construction, Jan 2013.

Above: Median of 10 independent problems for 8 qubit recovery. The noise is 30 dB SNR, so the absolute noise level increases as the measurements increase.

Above: Our non-convex approach with and without the trace constraint. The “trace projector” projects onto the trace constraint, while the “trace scaling” scales the eigenvalues to satisfy the trace constraint.

Another scalable non-convex algorithm

In 2005, S. Burer and R.D.C. Monteiro showed two things: first, it is possible to re-write the non-convex algorithm in what I call a “splitting” approach, and secondly, that if r is large enough (about sqrt{m} where m is the number of constraints), then the non-convex algorithm has the same global minimum as the convex problem and no other local minima (see also Moscato, Norman and Pataki 1998).

The advantage of the splitting approach is cheaper computational costs, since it avoids eigenvalue decompositions. However, despite the formal equivalence of the two low-rank problems in terms of their local minima, they two formulations need not have the same stationary points. Furthermore, they lead to different computer implementations, so each algorithm may convege to a different local minima.

This section is still under construction, Jan 2013.

Above: Our non-convex approach compared to the non-convex splitting approach.
Above: Our non-convex approach compared to the non-convex splitting approach. In this example, the algorithms converge to different points.

Computational issues in the non-convex approach

For a rank r dtimes d matrix, our algorithm requires mathcal{O}(rd) memory and each step takes mathcal{O}(rd^2) computation.

The problem is much more challenging than matrix completion because the mathcal{A} measurement operator is much larger and denser. In tomography, each row of this matrix has d nonzero entries (“nnz”), as opposed to 1 entry in matrix completion. Since we have m = mathcal{O}(rd) rows, this means mathcal{A} requires mathcal{O}(d^2) storage if handled naively.

The following table compares the basic statistics of the quantum tomography problem with the well-known Netflix prize data set, which was considered a huge data set when released in 2007.

problem matrix size nnz(mathcal{A}) storage (naive) storage (clever) range(mathcal{A}^*)
Netflix 17,770 x 480,189 mathcal{O}(rd) ~.9 GB depends sparse
Quantum tomography, 16 qubits 65,536 x 65,536 mathcal{O}(rd^2) ~400 GB 100 MB dense

Another complicating factor is that the gradient, which is in the range of mathcal{A}^*, is not sparse, and therefore it is slow to multiply. For this reason, Lanczos methods to compute the eigenvalue decomposition are slow.

We tackle these numerical difficulties with the following tools:

Below, we show our basic implementation for small problems that uses pure Matlab, and our production-scale implementation that we ran on the cluster. The time per iteration grows approximately with the dimension squared.

Above: Computation time as a function of the dimension.