1
$\begingroup$

I am currently simulating some quantum circuits, and want to calculate the probabilities of observing each individual state. I am able to use Cirq for this, and calculate it using $P_{00} = |\alpha|^2$. Code:

import cirq
import sympy
x0, x1 = sympy.symbols('x0 x1')
q = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, 2)
circuit = cirq.Circuit(
  cirq.rx(x0).on(q[0]), cirq.rx(x1).on(q[1]), 
  cirq.ry(3.14/4).on(q[0]), cirq.ry(3.14/4).on(q[1]))
resolver = cirq.ParamResolver({x0: 0.2, x1: 0.3})
simulator = cirq.Simulator()
results = simulator.simulate(program=circuit, param_resolver=resolver, 
qubit_order=q).final_state
print("Internal quantum state:", results)
print("Probabilities of observing each state:", [abs(x)**2 for x in results])

Output:

internal quantum state: [0.8377083+0.08743566j 0.3529709-0.11249491j 0.35297093-0.06251574j 0.13120411-0.08743566j]
probabilities of observing each state: [0.7094002059173512, 0.13724355108492148, 0.12849669756020887, 0.024859516013751914]

However, in multiple tutorials (for instance from TFQ) I see the use of "expectation_from_wavefunction":

z0 = cirq.Z(q[0])
qubit_map={q[0]: 1, q[1]: 1}
z0.expectation_from_wavefunction(results, qubit_map).real

output:

0.6757938265800476

My question: How can I use expectation_from_wavefunction to obtain the probabilities of observing the individual states ($P_{00}, P_{01}, P_{10}, P_{11}$)?
Bonus question: why would I favor this approach?

| improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why would want to use "expectation_from_wavefunction()" to calculate the probabilities when you can just do what you did; square the values of your wavefunction? The former takes more work than the latter. $\endgroup$ – Victory Omole Mar 22 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ @VictoryOmole Because in the tutorial of TFQ that I refer to, they only use the "expectation_from_wavefunction". All following examples build upon it. I think it helps with batching, but I am not sure. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Hubregtsen Mar 22 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ sorry, forgot to mention: the top approach works in Cirq. I am trying to run Tensorflow Quantum, and all tutorials here rely on this method. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Hubregtsen Mar 22 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ Tensorflow Quantum combines Tensorflow with Cirq. If you can "import tfq" you can "import cirq" and thus use all the functionality in Cirq. $\endgroup$ – Victory Omole Mar 23 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ expectation_from_wavefunction is used when you don't want to write the logic for yourself. This is more useful in cases with multi-qubit observables involving the X and Y axies. $\endgroup$ – Craig Gidney Apr 21 at 22:56
-1
$\begingroup$

why would I favor this approach?

The Expectation value is defined as $\langle A \rangle= \langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle$ where $\psi$ is the wavefunction and $A$ is the operator. Use "expectation_from_wavefunction()" if you don't want to write code that calculates $\langle\psi|A|\psi\rangle$.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I see now that the bottom approach calculates the expectation value, which is defined as ⟨𝐴⟩=⟨𝜓|𝐴|𝜓⟩. But how does this relate to the answer from the top approach? Because I see no relation between the numeric outcomes. For a 1-qubit system, would the expectation value not give me the probability of observing the qubit in the state 1? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Hubregtsen Mar 22 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ If you don't see the relation, what calculation did you perform? What do you get? $\endgroup$ – Victory Omole Mar 23 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ The code and its output should be shown in my question. I embed using Rx followed by an Ry. The top approach provides: internal quantum state: [0.8377083+0.08743566j 0.3529709-0.11249491j 0.35297093-0.06251574j 0.13120411-0.08743566j] probabilities of observing each state: [0.7094002059173512, 0.13724355108492148, 0.12849669756020887, 0.024859516013751914] The bottom approach (that seems to have an extra Rz, which I have also experimented with in the top approach to no affect) gives as output for the real component 0.6757938265800476. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Hubregtsen Mar 23 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ I meant: did you take the wavefunction and do a pen-and-paper calculation of that expectation value and get the same answer that z0.expectation_from_wavefunction(results, qubit_map).real gives you? $\endgroup$ – Victory Omole Mar 23 at 23:17
-1
$\begingroup$

The expectation value that the system provided me with was 0.6757938265800476. This was in a range of [-1,1]. Mapping this to a range of [0,1]: (0.6757938265800476+1)/2=0.837896913290024. The expectation value was the expectation value for qubit 0. This implies that it observed qubit 0 in state 0 83.7896913290024% of the time, and 1-0.837896913290024 in state 1.

The system also printed the following probabilities:
$P_{00} = 0.7094002059173512$
$P_{01} = 0.13724355108492148$
$P_{10} = 0.12849669756020887$
$P_{11} = 0.024859516013751914$

The probability to observe qubit 0 (indexing right to left) in state 0:
$ E_{q0} = 0.8378969 = 0.7094002 + 0.1284966 = P_{00} + P_{10}$

To answer the question "How can I use expectation_from_wavefunction to obtain the probabilities of observing the individual states": you can't. You can only relate this particular expectation value (with Pauli Z) to a set of state probabilities, but not to individual ones without extra information (such as observables in different computational basis)

"Why would I favor this approach": access to the internal quantum state is not realistic with quantum system, and would require more computation.

P.S. this is my current interpretation which I expect to be right on a high level. I think I still have details wrong, such as parts of the explanation. Very open to opinions.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.