HackerPapers

arXiv:1506.03539quant-ph

Reexamination of the evidence for entanglement in the D-Wave processor

Tameem Albash, Itay Hen, Federico M. Spedalieri, Daniel A. Lidar

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

A recent experiment [Lanting et al., PRX, (2014)] claimed to provide evidence of up to $8$-qubit entanglement in a D-Wave quantum annealing device. However, entanglement was measured using qubit tunneling spectroscopy, a technique that provides indirect access to the state of the system at intermediate times during the anneal by performing measurements at the end of the anneal with a probe qubit. In addition, an underlying assumption was that the quantum transverse-field Ising Hamiltonian, whose ground states are already highly entangled, is an appropriate model of the device, and not some other (possibly classical) model. This begs the question of whether alternative, classical or semiclassical models would be equally effective at predicting the observed spectrum and thermal state populations. To check this, we consider a recently proposed classical rotor model with classical Monte Carlo updates, which has been successfully employed in describing features of earlier experiments involving the device. We also consider simulated quantum annealing with quantum Monte Carlo updates, an algorithm that samples from the instantaneous Gibbs state of the device Hamiltonian. Finally, we use the quantum adiabatic master equation, which cannot be efficiently simulated classically, and which has previously been used to successfully capture the open system quantum dynamics of the device. We find that only the master equation is able to reproduce the features of the tunneling spectroscopy experiment, while both the classical rotor model and simulated quantum annealing fail to reproduce the experimental results. We argue that this bolsters the evidence for the reported entanglement.

arXiv comments
12 pages, 15 figures. v2: Updated to published version
Journal reference
Phys. Rev. A 92, 062328 (2015)
DOI
doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062328
Subjects
quant-phQuantum Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Sep 2016 to Sep 2016.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • > I can't believe so many people use this to "prove" that it's not a quantum computer. This is a complete and utter non sequitur. That's not why I'm saying it's probably not a quantum computer. It's not a quantum computer because in depth analysis of its behavior has…

      johncolanduoniView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.