109 pages for an approach to quantum sensing using random projections in Practical recipes for the model order reduction, dynamical simulation, and compressive sampling of large-scale open quantum systems by John Sidles, Joseph Garbini, L. E. Harrell, Alfred Hero, Jon Jacky, Joe Malcomb, A. G. Norman and A. M. Williamson promise us. The abstract reads:
This article presents practical numerical recipes for simulating high-temperature and nonequilibrium quantum spin systems that are continuously measured and controlled. The notion of a \spin system" is broadly conceived, in order to encompass macroscopic test masses as the limiting case of large-j spins. The simulation technique has three stages: first the deliberate introduction of noise into the simulation, then the conversion of that noise into an informatically equivalent continuous measurement and control process, and finally, projection of the trajectory onto a Kahlerian state-space manifold having reduced dimensionality and possessing a Kahler potential of multilinear (i.e., product-sum) functional form. These state-spaces can be regarded as ruled algebraic varieties upon which a projective quantum model order reduction (QMOR) is performed. The Riemannian sectional curvature of ruled Kahlerian varieties is analyzed, and proved to be non-positive upon all sections that contain a rule. It is further shown that the class of ruled Kahlerian state-spaces includes the Slater determinant wave-functions of quantum chemistry as a special case, and that these Slater determinant manifolds have a Fubini-Study metric that is Kahler-Einstein; hence they are solitons under Ricci flow. It is suggested that these negative sectional curvature properties geometrically account for the fidelity, efficiency, and robustness of projective trajectory simulation on ruled Kahlerian state-spaces. Some implications of trajectory compression for geometric quantum mechanics are discussed. The resulting simulation formalism is used to construct a positive P-representation for the thermal density matrix and to derive a quantum limit for force noise and measurement noise in monitoring both macroscopic and microscopic test-masses; this quantum noise limit is shown to be consistent with well established quantum noise limits for linear amplifiers and for monitoring linear dynamical systems. Single-spin detection by magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) is then simulated, and the data statistics are shown to be those of a random telegraph signal with additive white noise, to all orders, in excellent agreement with experimental results. Then a larger-scale spin-dust model is simulated, having no spatial symmetry and no spatial ordering; the high-fidelity projection of numerically computed quantum trajectories onto low-dimensionality Kahler state-space manifolds is demonstrated. Finally, the high-fidelity reconstruction of quantum trajectories from sparse random projections is demonstrated, the onset of Donoho-Stodden breakdown at the Candes Tao sparsity limit is observed, and methods for quantum state optimization by Dantzig selection are given.
.....We will conclude our survey of spin-dust simulations with some concrete calculations that are motivated by recent advances in the theory of compressive sampling (CS) and sparse reconstruction. It will become apparent that synoptic simulations of quantum trajectories mesh very naturally with CS methods and ideas. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of CS methods applied to quantum state-spaces. Our analysis will mainly draw upon the ideas and methods of Donoho [61] and of Candes and Tao [37], and our discussion will assume a basic familiarity with these and similar CS articles [30, 31, 32, 34, 36], especially a recent series of articles and commentaries on the Dantzig selector [17, 29, 38, 64, 79, 137, 167]. Our analysis can alternatively be viewed as an extension to the quantum domain of the approach of Baraniuk, Hegde, and Wakin [11, 47, 194] to manifold learning [188] from sparse random projections.
Our objectives in this section are:
At the time of writing, the general field of compressive sensing, sampling and simulation is evolving rapidly"Nowadays, novel exciting results seem to come out at a furious pace, and this testifies to the vitality and intensity of the field "[8] and our overall goal is to provide mathematical recipes by which researchers in quantum sensing, sampling and simulation can participate in this enterprise.
- establish that synoptically simulated wave functions 0 are compressible objects in the
- sense of Candes and Tao [37],
- Establish that high fidelity quantum state reconstruction from sparse random projections
- is algorithmically tractable,
- Describe how nonlinear GK projection can be described as an embedding within a larger linear state-space of a convex optimization problem, and thereby
- Specify algorithms for optimization over quantum states in terms of the Dantzig selector (a linear convex optimization algorithm) of Candes and Tao [37].
4.6.1. Establishing that quantum states are compressible objects .....
Greetings, Nuit Blanchers! Our UW QSE Group definitely would like to hear from researchers who are interested in extending CS methods to quantum state-spaces.
ReplyDeleteThe passage that Igor quotes was originally intended to be just one or two paragraphs long, comprising a review of Candace and Tao's recent work, together with some handwaving arguments about how CS methods might be relevant to large-scale quantum simulations.
But then we couldn't resist the temptation to try some sparse quantum reconstructions ... which worked far better than we thought they would ... and so then we had to understand why they worked so well ... and the next thing we knew we were wading deep into the CS literature.
Although we presently have a great many CS-related questions, there is not CS topic about which we have more questions than the construction of ultra-large sampling matrices.
For quantum applications, randomly generated sampling matrices are computationally infeasible. Thus not only do the sampling matrices have to be constructable, they have to be "factorable" ... this property is for quantum simulation purposes even more important than a strict RIP property.
We would be very interested and appreciative of opportunities to collaborate with other CS researchers ... especially we are keenly aware that our present "nuts and bolts" approach to quantum CS needs to be better balanced with formal rigor.
Also, thanks for running such a great blog ... we'll be regulars here from now on! :)
John:
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell the subject of the construction of the right measurement matrix is really still an open subject (I am going to write a small entry on it later this week) as regards to the type of property they should follow in order to be suitable for CS. For instance, Anna Gilbert et al (see the presentation of the l1 meeting) talks about the combinatorial approach to the measurement matrix (they exist in the field of sketching). In that case, the matrices are sparse and as such that they do not bother building them, since the actual measurement process would take a higher number of operations if it were to be implemented as a matrix.
When you state factorable, do you mean that the operators would ideally be implemented as tensor product of 1-d measurement matrices ?
With regards to your statement:
"...But then we couldn't resist the temptation to try some sparse quantum reconstructions ... which worked far better than we thought they would ... and so then we had to understand why they worked so well ... and the next thing we knew we were wading deep into the CS literature...."
I did not see much of an implementation of CS in the paper, can you explain to me those sparse quantum reconstructions ?
Thanks,
Igor.
Hi Igor!
ReplyDeleteThis sparse reconstructions we implemented are pretty simple-minded.
We have a quantum state, generated by our simulations, that is specified by (say 2048) coefficients in a Hilbert basis.
We have the idea that this state is compressible, in the sense that it is near (in Hilbert space) to a low-dimension Kahlerian algebraic variety.
That being true, how many Hilbert components do we need to know, in order to estimate the entire state?
Surely not *all* the Hilbert components. In fact (as CS folks will expect) it suffices to know only a (relatively small) number of (random) projections.
The main new element is that we are projecting not onto linear subspaces, but onto the embedded Kahlerian varieties (aside: these embedded varieties are given various names by various communities, e.g., they are known as matrix product states to condensed matter physicists ... but everyone is talking about the same mathematical objects).
As for *why* these Kahlerian varieties are the natural subspace ... well that's the physics part of the review article.
To carry this program through in *really* large dimensions, we can't use random projections ... they are too costly to compute. Hence our interest in deterministic sampling matrices, which we construct geometrically via a theorem that relates pairwise orthogonality to pairwise Hamming distance in a dictionary of atoms.
We would like to be able to prove theorems about the RIP properties of these Hamming isometry constructions ... but we are at present not smart enough to do this ... so for now we determine these properties by exhaustive computations.
A picture of an 8x16 (complex) sampling matrix constructed by these Hamming isometry methods is here (this matrix is also discussed in the manuscript).
What frustrates us quantum system engineers about the RIP literature is that many properties are proved asymptotically about Gaussian sampling matrices, but if you *try* these random Gaussian constructions in small dimensions, they perform rather poorly ... much worse than Hamming isometry constructions.
As a concrete challenge, what 8x16 sampling matrix has the best RIP properties? Can anyone do better than the RIP properties of the above Hamming isometry construction?
As a followup to the preceding post, here is a link to a Mathematica file that specifies the full 8x16 Hamming-2 isometry matrix -- just to save numerically-minded folks the effort of coding up the spin-1/2 rotation matrices (the review gives the details of the construction).
ReplyDelete