| Title |
Solving Quantum Ground-State Problems with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep00088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhaokai Li, Man-Hong Yung, Hongwei Chen, Dawei Lu, James D. Whitfield, Xinhua Peng, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Jiangfeng Du |
| Abstract |
Quantum ground-state problems are computationally hard problems for general many-body Hamiltonians; there is no classical or quantum algorithm known to be able to solve them efficiently. Nevertheless, if a trial wavefunction approximating the ground state is available, as often happens for many problems in physics and chemistry, a quantum computer could employ this trial wavefunction to project the ground state by means of the phase estimation algorithm (PEA). We performed an experimental realization of this idea by implementing a variational-wavefunction approach to solve the ground-state problem of the Heisenberg spin model with an NMR quantum simulator. Our iterative phase estimation procedure yields a high accuracy for the eigenenergies (to the 10⁻⁵ decimal digit). The ground-state fidelity was distilled to be more than 80%, and the singlet-to-triplet switching near the critical field is reliably captured. This result shows that quantum simulators can better leverage classical trial wave functions than classical computers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| China | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 27% |
| Researcher | 22 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 51 | 58% |
| Chemistry | 13 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 2% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2012.
All research outputs
#12,847,342
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#55,554
of 121,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,006
of 126,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#38
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 121,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.