The classical world is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics. When attempting to simulate models of nature, one has to incorporate its quantum-mechanical nature. In many cases, simulating the quantum-mechanical nature is synonymous to quantum time evolution (QTE), which is the process of evolving a quantum state over time with respect to a Hamiltonian H. Current applications of QTE ranges from simulating Ising models, approximating quantum Gibbs states, and solving combinatorial optimization problems.
The implementation of QTE on an actual physical system such as a gate-based quantum computer requires the respective evolution to be translated into quantum gates. This translation can be approximated with approaches like Trotterization. However, this approach may lead to deep quantum circuits depending on the evolution time and expected accuracy, thus is not well-suited for near-term quantum computers. An alternative approach is Variational quantum time evolution (VarQTE) which approximates the target state with a state whose time dependence is projected onto the parameters of a variational ansatz and can be used to simulate quantum time dynamics with parameterized quantum circuits. Thus, it can utilize near-term devices for solving practically relevant tasks. However, available parameterized unitaries possess limited expressivity due to the usage of short circuits which results in an approximation error with VarQTE.
The authors in this work derive global phase-agnostic error bounds for real and imaginary time evolution based on McLachlan’s variational principle. The error bounds for variational quantum real and imaginary time evolution are referred to as VarQRTE (Variational Quantum Real Time Evolution) and VarQITE (Variational Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution), respectively.
The authors proposed theoretical derivations of the error bounds for the Bures metric between a state prepared with VarQTE and the target state. The preparation of the state was taken in infinitesimally small time steps in order to prevent large errors in the numerical simulations. To demonstrate the efficiency of the derived error bounds, the authors present 3 examples; an illustrative Hamiltonian (Hill), an Ising model and two qubit hydrogen molecule approximations. Furthermore, different ODE formulations and solvers (Euler & RK54) were used to implement VarQRTE and VarQITE, with the final goal being the comparison between the error bounds.
For VarQRTE, the results show very tight error bounds for (Hill) when the Euler method was implemented with 100 time steps, as well as an adaptive step size RK54 ODE solver. The results show that RK54 achieves better error bounds as well as smaller fluctuations in the system energy while using significantly less time steps. In the case of the Ising model, the argmin ODE, which is analytically equivalent to solving the standard ODE with a least square solver, leads to smaller errors than the standard ODE. Moreover, the experiment which uses RK54 and the argmin ODE, leads to the smallest state error as well as error bound in the case of hydrogen Hamiltonian. For VarQITE, the application of RK54 reduces the error in the integration in comparison to standard ODE when implemented on (Hill). However, the argmin ODE performs better than the standard ODE by a small margin in case of the Ising model. For VarQITE applied to Hydrogen, the argmin ODE was used with RK54 and all gradient errors were reduced to 0.
The overall results suggest that the error bounds are good approximations to the actual error in case the gradient errors are small, otherwise they can grow fast, exceeding the meaningful range. Also, the error bounds are strongly dependent on the numerical integration method used. For instance, the numerical integration error introduced by forward Euler can easily exceed the error bounds beyond the useful range, however an adaptive step size scheme such as RK54 can significantly increase the numerical stability and accuracy. Furthermore, ODE formulation based on the minimization of the local gradient error also contributes to reducing the simulation errors. An open question for future investigation is to derive error bounds that are applicable for larger errors and quantification of the influence of quantum hardware noise on these error bounds. Finally, a critical investigation of the behavior of VarQTE and the respective error bounds is crucial at designated points, such as phase transitions in order to unlock the full potential of the QTE simulation technique.