← Atlas

Algorithms · Eigenvalue estimation

Molecular ground-state energies by phase estimation

Compute the ground-state energy of an atom or molecule, a calculation whose time the paper states scales exponentially with system size on a classical computer.

Attested & literatureUpdated

Open on the mapView frozen graph

A small worked example, computed in your browser. It is not a result from this record's papers.

Phase estimation of P(3*pi/4)

3 counting qubits estimating the phase of P(3π/4), which is 2π·3/8 exactly: a phase 3-bit QPE can represent exactly.

q0q1q2q3Step 1 of 4 · XXStep 2 of 4 · Hadamard layer(3)Hadamard layer(3)Step 3 of 4 · Controlled phase powers(3)Controlled phase powers(3)Step 4 of 4 · QFT inverse(3)QFT inverse(3)

Step 1 of 4 · X

Probability of each outcome after this step

  • 1000100%
  1. Puts the target qubit into |1⟩, which is an eigenstate of P(3*pi/4): applying the gate to it multiplies it by a phase and changes nothing else. That is the whole requirement QPE places on its input.

    The whole state moves from 0000 to 1000 — one certain outcome before, one certain outcome after, no superposition either side.

  2. Spreads the 3 counting qubits over all 8 values they can hold at once. Each one will later ask about a different power of the phase.

    Probability spreads from 1 outcome to 8. All 8 are equally likely.

  3. Counting qubit k applies P(3*pi/4) to the target 2^k times, controlled on itself. The target never changes — it is an eigenstate — so the phase it would have picked up is kicked back onto the control instead. This is the step that writes the answer into the register.

    The outcome probabilities do not move at all. What this step changes is phase — 8 distinct relative phases across the state now — which no measurement can see until a later step turns it back into probability.

  4. The inverse Fourier transform reads that phase pattern back out as a binary number. Phase in, bits out.

    Probability gathers from 8 outcomes onto 1. 1011 goes from 12.5% to 100.0%.

Readout The counting register reads 011 = 3 with probability 1: angle/(2π) = 3/8, recovered exactly.

Open in Studio
  • Record typeLiterature reference
  • Reference implementationqpe_for_molecules
  • Reported costPolynomial in place of exponential: the abstract states that the calculation time for the energy of atoms and molecules scales exponentially with system size on a classical computer but polynomially using quantum algorithms, that the number of quantum bits required scales linearly with the number of basis functions, and that the number of gates required grows polynomially with the number of quantum bits. No exponent, constant factor or target accuracy is attached to either polynomial. The one concrete count in the abstract is for readout: the recursive algorithm reduces the number of quantum bits required for the readout register from about 20 to 4.
  • Papers1

Where this sits

This record is named by the layer graph at:

  • Ground-state energy by phase estimation Method

    Takes A Hermitian HH reachable as a sum of terms, as sparse-access oracles or as a block-encoding; a way to prepare trial states, and — for the methods that need it — a trial state whose overlap with the ground state is not negligible; a target additive error ε\varepsilon and a confidence 1−δ1-\delta. Returns A scalar estimate of the lowest eigenvalue with a stated additive-error guarantee, plus the run or query budget it consumed. Whether that estimate is also a rigorous upper bound is a property of the method and is not promised by the slot.

Related entries

References

  • Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies

    Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Anthony D. Dutoi, Peter J. Love, Martin Head-Gordon · 2006

    Primary source: it states the polynomial-versus-exponential scaling claim, the linear qubit count in the number of basis functions, the polynomial gate count, and the recursive phase-estimation readout that it reports cuts the readout register from about 20 qubits to 4. It also describes the mappings of the molecular wave function to the qubits and the adiabatic ground-state preparation demonstrated for a stretched hydrogen molecule, and reports the water and lithium hydride calculations on a quantum computer simulator. Consult it for the basis sets, the accuracy of those two energies and the cost of the adiabatic preparation, none of which the abstract states.

Attested & literature
  • Peer-reviewed paper
Method
Curation only. This record documents the algorithm a published reference implementation demonstrates, not the demonstration itself: nothing in Leona runs Qmod. The primary reference's title, authors and submission year were read from its arXiv abs page, and the complexity claim taken from a clause of that paper's abstract (abstract of arXiv:quant-ph/0604193, quoted as written (the abstract contains no TeX): "The calculation time for the energy of atoms and molecules scales exponentially with system size on a classical computer but polynomially using quantum algorithms"; "The number of quantum bits required scales linearly with the number of basis functions, and the number of gates required grows polynomially with the number of quantum bits"; and "The recursive algorithm reduces the number of quantum bits required for the readout register from about 20 to 4". The abstract gives no exponent for either polynomial and no constant factor, so none is recorded here.). No circuit was constructed, simulated or run.
Result
Pass · the record's problem statement and primary reference agree with the sources named above.
Caveat
Nothing here was built, compiled, simulated or run, and no molecular energy was computed: this record documents the algorithm as its paper states it and does not reproduce any implementation of it. The water and lithium hydride ground-state energies are the paper's own results, and the abstract states they were carried out on a quantum computer simulator rather than on quantum hardware, which makes them a check of the construction in classical simulation and not a measured speed-up; the abstract gives no basis sets, no achieved accuracy and no run times, so nothing here fixes what those calculations delivered. The scaling claims are asymptotic and unquantified: the polynomial has no exponent, the linear qubit count has no constant, and neither figure accounts for error correction, so no resource estimate for a molecule of interest follows from them. The reduction from about 20 to 4 applies to the readout register only and bounds nothing about the register that holds the wave function. Phase estimation returns the ground-state energy only insofar as the prepared state overlaps the true ground state; the abstract calls the adiabatically prepared state a good approximate ground-state wave function and demonstrates the preparation for one stretched hydrogen molecule, without stating an overlap, a success probability or a preparation cost. The exponential classical scaling is asserted in the abstract and is not proved here, so this record does not establish it as a lower bound on classical computation.
Simulated Quantum Computation of Molecular Energies ↗
Kind
curated reference
Reviewed by
Leona Quantum curation pass
License
Citation metadata only; source publication terms apply
quantum chemistryphase estimationground state energystate preparationeigenvalue

Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.