Advances in development of quantum computing processors brought ample opportunities to test the performance of various quantum algorithms with practical implementations. In this paper we report on implementations of quantum compression algorithm that can efficiently compress unknown quantum information. We restricted ourselves to compression of three pure qubits into two qubits, as the complexity of even such a simple implementation is barely within the reach of today's quantum processors. We implemented the algorithm on IBM quantum processors with two different topological layouts-a fully connected triangle processor and a partially connected line processor. It turns out that the incomplete connectivity of the line processor affects the performance only minimally. On the other hand, it turns out that the transpilation, i.e. compilation of the circuit into gates physically available to the quantum processor, crucially influences the result. We also have seen that the compression followed by immediate decompression is, even for such a simple case, on the edge or even beyond the capabilities of currently available quantum processors.

Institute of Computer Science Masaryk University Šumavská 416 602 00 Brno Czech Republic

Institute of Physics Slovak Academy of Sciences Dúbravská cesta 9 841 04 Bratislava Slovak Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Benioff P. The computer as a physical system: A microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by turing machines. J. Stat. Phys. 1980;22:563–591. doi: 10.1007/BF01011339. DOI

Manin Y. Computable and Uncomputable. Sovetskoye Radio; 1980.

Feynman RP. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1982;21:467–488. doi: 10.1007/BF02650179. DOI

Nielsen MA, Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press; 2000.

Cheng H-P, Deumens E, Freericks JK, Li C, Sanders BA. Application of quantum computing to biochemical systems: A look to the future. Front. Chem. 2020;8:1066. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2020.587143. PubMed DOI PMC

Cao Y, et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chem. Rev. 2019;119:10856–10915. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803. PubMed DOI

Shor PW. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput. 1997;26:1484–1509. doi: 10.1137/S0097539795293172. DOI

Grover, L. K. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96, pp. 212–219 (Association for Computing Machinery, 1996). 10.1145/237814.237866

Long GL. Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate. Phys. Rev. A. 2001;64:022307. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022307. DOI

Toyama FM, van Dijk W, Nogami Y. Quantum search with certainty based on modified Grover algorithms: optimum choice of parameters. Quantum Inf. Process. 2013;12:1897–1914. doi: 10.1007/s11128-012-0498-0. DOI

Reitzner, D., Nagaj, D. & BuŽek, V. Quantum walks. Acta Phys. Slov. Rev. Tutor.61. 10.2478/v10155-011-0006-6 (2011).

Bennett CH, et al. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993;70:1895–1899. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895. PubMed DOI

Bennett CH, Wiesner SJ. Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1992;69:2881–2884. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881. PubMed DOI

Bäuml S, Winter A, Yang D. Every entangled state provides an advantage in classical communication. J. Math. Phys. 2019;60:072201. doi: 10.1063/1.5091856. DOI

Bennett CH, Brassard G. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 2014;560:7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025. DOI

Pirandola S, et al. Advances in quantum cryptography. Adv. Opt. Photon. 2020;12:1012. doi: 10.1364/aop.361502. DOI

Long GL, Liu XS. Theoretically efficient high-capacity quantum-key-distribution scheme. Phys. Rev. A. 2002;65:032302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032302. DOI

Pan D, Li K, Ruan D, Ng SX, Hanzo L. Single-photon-memory two-step quantum secure direct communication relying on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen pairs. IEEE Access. 2020;8:121146–121161. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3006136. DOI

Blatt R, Roos CF. Quantum simulations with trapped ions. Nat. Phys. 2012;8:277–284. doi: 10.1038/nphys2252. DOI

Bruzewicz CD, Chiaverini J, McConnell R, Sage JM. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2019;6:021314. doi: 10.1063/1.5088164. DOI

Huang H-L, Wu D, Fan D, Zhu X. Superconducting quantum computing: A review. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2020;63:180501. doi: 10.1007/s11432-020-2881-9. DOI

Monz T, et al. Realization of a scalable Shor algorithm. Science. 2016;351:1068–1070. doi: 10.1126/science.aad9480. PubMed DOI

Figgatt, C. et al. Complete 3-qubit Grover search on a programmable quantum computer. Nat. Commun.8. 10.1038/s41467-017-01904-7 (2017). PubMed PMC

Long G, et al. Experimental NMR realization of a generalized quantum search algorithm. Phys. Lett. A. 2001;286:121–126. doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(01)00416-9. DOI

IBM Quantum (2021). https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/

Rundle RP, Mills PW, Tilma T, Samson JH, Everitt MJ. Simple procedure for phase-space measurement and entanglement validation. Phys. Rev. A. 2017;96:022117. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.022117. DOI

Huffman E, Mizel A. Violation of noninvasive macrorealism by a superconducting qubit: Implementation of a Leggett–Garg test that addresses the clumsiness loophole. Phys. Rev. A. 2017;95:032131. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.032131. DOI

Deffner S. Demonstration of entanglement assisted invariance on IBM’s quantum experience. Heliyon. 2017;3:e00444. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00444. PubMed DOI PMC

Huang H-L, et al. Homomorphic encryption experiments on IBM’s cloud quantum computing platform. Front. Phys. 2016;12:120305. doi: 10.1007/s11467-016-0643-9. DOI

Wootton JR. Demonstrating non-abelian braiding of surface code defects in a five qubit experiment. Quantum Sci. Technol. 2017;2:015006. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/aa5c73. DOI

Fedortchenko, S. A quantum teleportation experiment for undergraduate students. arXiv:1607.02398 (2016).

Li R, Alvarez-Rodriguez U, Lamata L, Solano E. Approximate quantum adders with genetic algorithms: An IBM quantum experience. Quantum Meas. Quantum Metrol. 2017;4:1–7. doi: 10.1515/qmetro-2017-0001. DOI

Hebenstreit M, Alsina D, Latorre JI, Kraus B. Compressed quantum computation using a remote five-qubit quantum computer. Phys. Rev. A. 2017;95:052339. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.052339. DOI

Alsina D, Latorre JI. Experimental test of Mermin inequalities on a five-qubit quantum computer. Phys. Rev. A. 2016;94:012314. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012314. DOI

Devitt SJ. Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud. Phys. Rev. A. 2016;94:032329. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032329. DOI

Mandviwalla, A., Ohshiro, K. & Ji, B. Implementing Grover’s algorithm on the IBM quantum computers. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 2531–2537. 10.1109/BigData.2018.8622457 (2018).

Acasiete F, Agostini FP, Moqadam JK, Portugal R. Implementation of quantum walks on IBM quantum computers. Quantum Inf. Process. 2020;19:426. doi: 10.1007/s11128-020-02938-5. DOI

Zhang K, Rao P, Yu K, Lim H, Korepin V. Implementation of efficient quantum search algorithms on NISQ computers. Quantum Inf. Process. 2021;20:233. doi: 10.1007/s11128-021-03165-2. DOI

Bharti, K. et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) algorithms. arXiv:2101.08448 (2021).

Oliveira, A. N., de Oliveira, E. V. B., Santos, A. C. & Villas-Bôas, C. J. Quantum algorithms in IBMQ experience: Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm. arXiv:2109.07910 (2021).

Peruzzo A, et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 2014;5:4213. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213. PubMed DOI PMC

Wei S, Li H, Long G. A full quantum eigensolver for quantum chemistry simulations. Research. 2020;2020:1486935. doi: 10.34133/2020/1486935. PubMed DOI PMC

Bharti K, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2022;94:015004. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004. DOI

Plesch M, Bužek V. Efficient compression of quantum information. Phys. Rev. A. 2010;81:032317. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032317. DOI

Rozema LA, Mahler DH, Hayat A, Turner PS, Steinberg AM. Quantum data compression of a qubit ensemble. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014;113:160504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.160504. PubMed DOI

Yang Y, Chiribella G, Ebler D. Efficient quantum compression for ensembles of identically prepared mixed states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016;116:080501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.080501. PubMed DOI

Yang Y, Chiribella G, Hayashi M. Optimal compression for identically prepared qubit states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016;117:090502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.090502. PubMed DOI

Huang C-J, et al. Realization of a quantum autoencoder for lossless compression of quantum data. Phys. Rev. A. 2020;102:032412. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032412. DOI

Bai G, Yang Y, Chiribella G. Quantum compression of tensor network states. N. J. Phys. 2020;22:043015. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab7a34. DOI

Fan C-R, Lu B, Feng X-T, Gao W-C, Wang C. Efficient multi-qubit quantum data compression. Quantum Eng. 2021;3:e67. doi: 10.1002/que2.67. DOI

Park JL. The concept of transition in quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 1970;1:23–33. doi: 10.1007/BF00708652. DOI

Wootters WK, Zurek WH. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature. 1982;299:802–803. doi: 10.1038/299802a0. DOI

Dieks D. Communication by EPR devices. Phys. Lett. A. 1982;92:271–272. doi: 10.1016/0375-9601(82)90084-6. DOI

Holevo AS. Statistical Structure of Quantum Theory. Springer; 2001.

Qiskit: Open Source Quantum Development (2021). https://qiskit.org/

Qiskit: Transpiler documentation (2021). https://qiskit.org/documentation/apidoc/transpiler.html