Kaedah kompilasi untuk litar simulasi Hamiltonian
Anggaran penggunaan: kurang daripada 1 minit pada pemproses IBM Heron (NOTA: Ini adalah anggaran sahaja. Masa jalan sebenar anda mungkin berbeza.)
Hasil pembelajaran
Selepas melalui tutorial ini, anda akan memahami:
- Cara menggunakan Qiskit transpiler dengan SABRE untuk pengoptimuman susunan dan penghalaan
- Cara memanfaatkan transpiler berkuasa AI untuk pengoptimuman litar yang lebih canggih
- Cara menggunakan plugin Rustiq untuk mensintesis operasi
PauliEvolutionGatedalam litar simulasi Hamiltonian - Cara menanda aras dan membandingkan kaedah kompilasi menggunakan kedalaman dua-Qubit, jumlah bilangan gate, dan masa jalan
Prasyarat
Kami cadangkan anda biasa dengan topik berikut sebelum melalui tutorial ini:
Latar belakang
Kompilasi litar kuantum mengubah algoritma kuantum peringkat tinggi kepada litar fizikal yang mematuhi kekangan perkakasan sasaran. Kompilasi yang berkesan boleh mengurangkan kedalaman litar dan bilangan gate dengan ketara, yang secara langsung mempengaruhi kualiti keputusan pada peranti kuantum jangka pendek.
Tutorial ini menanda aras tiga kaedah kompilasi pada litar simulasi Hamiltonian yang dibina dengan PauliEvolutionGate. Litar ini memodelkan interaksi berpasangan qubit (seperti sebutan , , dan ) dan lazim digunakan dalam kimia kuantum, fizik jirim pekat, dan sains bahan.
Litar penanda aras diambil daripada koleksi Hamlib, yang diakses melalui repositori Benchpress. Hamlib menyediakan set Hamiltonian perwakilan yang distandardkan, memungkinkan perbandingan strategi kompilasi pada beban kerja simulasi yang realistik.
Gambaran keseluruhan kaedah kompilasi
Qiskit transpiler dengan SABRE
Qiskit transpiler menggunakan algoritma SABRE (SWAP-based BidiREctional heuristic search) untuk mengoptimumkan susunan dan penghalaan litar. SABRE menumpukan pada meminimumkan gate SWAP dan kesannya terhadap kedalaman litar sambil mematuhi kekangan kesambungan perkakasan. Ini adalah kaedah tujuan umum yang memberikan keseimbangan yang baik antara prestasi dan masa kompilasi. Untuk maklumat lanjut, lihat [1]. Kelebihan dan penerokaan parameter SABRE dibincangkan secara mendalam dalam tutorial berasingan.
Transpiler berkuasa AI
Transpiler berkuasa AI menggunakan pembelajaran mesin untuk meramalkan strategi transpilasi optimum dengan menganalisis corak dalam struktur litar dan kekangan perkakasan. Ia juga boleh menggunakan laluan AIPauliNetworkSynthesis, yang mensasar litar rangkaian Pauli menggunakan pendekatan sintesis berasaskan pembelajaran pengukuhan. Untuk maklumat lanjut, lihat [2] dan [3].
Plugin Rustiq
Plugin Rustiq menyediakan teknik sintesis lanjutan khusus untuk operasi PauliEvolutionGate, yang mewakili putaran Pauli yang biasa digunakan dalam dinamik Trotterisasi. Ia direka untuk menghasilkan penguraian litar berkedalaman rendah bagi beban kerja simulasi Hamiltonian. Untuk maklumat lanjut, lihat [4].
Metrik utama
Kami membandingkan ketiga-tiga kaedah berdasarkan metrik berikut:
- Kedalaman dua-Qubit: Kedalaman litar yang mengira hanya gate dua-Qubit. Ini sering menjadi kesesakan bagi ketepatan pada perkakasan sebenar.
- Saiz litar (jumlah bilangan gate): Jumlah bilangan gate dalam litar yang ditranspilasi.
- Masa jalan: Masa jam dinding untuk transpilasi.
Keperluan
Sebelum memulakan tutorial ini, pastikan anda telah memasang yang berikut:
- Qiskit SDK v2.0 atau lebih baharu, dengan sokongan visualisasi
- Qiskit Runtime v0.22 atau lebih baharu (
pip install qiskit-ibm-runtime) - Qiskit Aer (
pip install qiskit-aer) - Qiskit IBM Transpiler (
pip install qiskit-ibm-transpiler) - Mod tempatan Transpiler AI Qiskit (
pip install qiskit_ibm_ai_local_transpiler) - Networkx (
pip install networkx)
Persediaan
# Added by doQumentation — required packages for this notebook
!pip install -q matplotlib numpy qiskit qiskit-aer qiskit-ibm-runtime qiskit-ibm-transpiler requests scipy
from qiskit.circuit import QuantumCircuit
from qiskit_ibm_runtime import QiskitRuntimeService, SamplerV2
from qiskit.circuit.library import PauliEvolutionGate
from qiskit_ibm_transpiler import generate_ai_pass_manager
from qiskit.quantum_info import SparsePauliOp
from qiskit.transpiler.preset_passmanagers import generate_preset_pass_manager
from qiskit.transpiler.passes.synthesis.high_level_synthesis import HLSConfig
from qiskit_aer import AerSimulator
from qiskit_aer.noise import NoiseModel, depolarizing_error
from collections import Counter
from statistics import mean, stdev
from scipy.sparse import SparseEfficiencyWarning
import time
import warnings
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib.ticker as ticker
import numpy as np
import json
import requests
import logging
# Suppress noisy loggers and warnings
logging.getLogger(
"qiskit_ibm_transpiler.wrappers.ai_local_synthesis"
).setLevel(logging.ERROR)
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore", category=FutureWarning)
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore", category=SparseEfficiencyWarning)
seed = 42 # Seed for reproducibility
Sambung ke backend
Pilih backend yang akan digunakan untuk kedua-dua contoh kecil dan besar. Backend menentukan peta gandingan dan gate asas yang disasarkan oleh transpiler.
# QiskitRuntimeService.save_account(channel="ibm_quantum_platform",
# token="<YOUR-API-KEY>", overwrite=True, set_as_default=True)
service = QiskitRuntimeService(channel="ibm_quantum_platform")
backend = service.least_busy(operational=True, simulator=False)
print(f"Using backend: {backend.name}")
Using backend: ibm_pittsburgh
Tentukan pengurus laluan
Sediakan ketiga-tiga kaedah kompilasi.
# SABRE pass manager (Qiskit default at optimization level 3)
pm_sabre = generate_preset_pass_manager(
optimization_level=3, backend=backend, seed_transpiler=seed
)
# AI transpiler pass manager (local mode)
pm_ai = generate_ai_pass_manager(
backend=backend, optimization_level=3, ai_optimization_level=3
)
Fetching 127 files: 0%| | 0/127 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
# Rustiq pass manager for PauliEvolutionGate synthesis
hls_config = HLSConfig(
PauliEvolution=[
(
"rustiq",
{
"nshuffles": 400,
"upto_phase": True,
"fix_clifford": True,
"preserve_order": False,
"metric": "depth",
},
)
]
)
pm_rustiq = generate_preset_pass_manager(
optimization_level=3,
backend=backend,
hls_config=hls_config,
seed_transpiler=seed,
)
Tentukan fungsi pembantu
Fungsi berikut mentranspilasi senarai litar menggunakan pengurus laluan yang diberikan, dan merekod metrik utama (kedalaman dua-Qubit, saiz litar, dan masa jalan) untuk setiap litar.
def capture_transpilation_metrics(
results, pass_manager, circuits, method_name
):
"""
Transpile circuits and append one metrics record per circuit to
``results``.
Args:
results (list): List of dicts to append the metrics records to.
pass_manager: Pass manager used for transpilation.
circuits (list): List of quantum circuits to transpile.
method_name (str): Name of the transpilation method.
Returns:
list: List of transpiled circuits.
"""
transpiled_circuits = []
for i, qc in enumerate(circuits):
start_time = time.time()
transpiled_qc = pass_manager.run(qc)
end_time = time.time()
# Decompose swaps for consistency across methods
transpiled_qc = transpiled_qc.decompose(gates_to_decompose=["swap"])
transpilation_time = end_time - start_time
two_qubit_depth = transpiled_qc.depth(
lambda x: x.operation.num_qubits == 2
)
circuit_size = transpiled_qc.size()
results.append(
{
"method": method_name,
"qc_name": qc.name,
"qc_index": i,
"num_qubits": qc.num_qubits,
"two_qubit_depth": two_qubit_depth,
"size": circuit_size,
"runtime": transpilation_time,
}
)
transpiled_circuits.append(transpiled_qc)
print(
f"[{method_name}] Circuit {i} ({qc.name}): "
f"2Q depth={two_qubit_depth}, size={circuit_size}, "
f"time={transpilation_time:.2f}s"
)
return transpiled_circuits
def _method_order(results):
"""Return the distinct method names in their first-seen order."""
order = []
for r in results:
if r["method"] not in order:
order.append(r["method"])
return order
def print_summary_table(results):
"""
Print the mean and standard deviation of each metric per compilation
method, followed by the mean percent improvement relative to SABRE.
"""
metrics = [
("two_qubit_depth", "2Q Depth"),
("size", "Gate Count"),
("runtime", "Runtime (s)"),
]
methods = _method_order(results)
by_method = {m: [r for r in results if r["method"] == m] for m in methods}
sabre_by_index = {r["qc_index"]: r for r in by_method.get("SABRE", [])}
col_w = 22
name_w = max(len(m) for m in methods)
header = f"{'Method':<{name_w}}" + "".join(
f" {label:>{col_w}}" for _, label in metrics
)
print("Mean +/- std per compilation method")
print(header)
print("-" * len(header))
for method in methods:
cells = []
for key, _ in metrics:
values = [r[key] for r in by_method[method]]
std = stdev(values) if len(values) > 1 else 0.0
cells.append(f"{mean(values):,.1f} +/- {std:,.1f}")
print(
f"{method:<{name_w}}" + "".join(f" {c:>{col_w}}" for c in cells)
)
others = [m for m in methods if m != "SABRE"]
if others and sabre_by_index:
print()
print("Mean % improvement vs SABRE (positive = better than SABRE)")
print(header)
print("-" * len(header))
for method in others:
cells = []
for key, _ in metrics:
pct = [
(sabre_by_index[r["qc_index"]][key] - r[key])
/ sabre_by_index[r["qc_index"]][key]
* 100
for r in by_method[method]
if sabre_by_index.get(r["qc_index"])
and sabre_by_index[r["qc_index"]][key]
]
if pct:
std = stdev(pct) if len(pct) > 1 else 0.0
cells.append(f"{mean(pct):+.1f}% +/- {std:.1f}%")
else:
cells.append("n/a")
print(
f"{method:<{name_w}}"
+ "".join(f" {c:>{col_w}}" for c in cells)
)
def print_per_circuit_comparison(results, num_rows=5):
"""
Print a per-metric comparison of the compilation methods for the
first ``num_rows`` circuits (sorted by qubit count). The best
(lowest) value for each metric is marked with an asterisk.
"""
metrics = [
("two_qubit_depth", "2Q Depth"),
("size", "Gate Count"),
("runtime", "Runtime (s)"),
]
methods = _method_order(results)
by_index = {}
for r in results:
by_index.setdefault(r["qc_index"], {})[r["method"]] = r
ordered = sorted(
by_index.items(),
key=lambda kv: (next(iter(kv[1].values()))["num_qubits"], kv[0]),
)[:num_rows]
for key, label in metrics:
print(f"{label} (first {num_rows} circuits by qubit count); * = best")
header = f"{'Idx':>3} {'Circuit':<16} {'Q':>3}" + "".join(
f"{m:>9}" for m in methods
)
print(header)
print("-" * len(header))
for idx, method_map in ordered:
any_record = next(iter(method_map.values()))
present = {
m: method_map[m][key] for m in methods if m in method_map
}
best = min(present.values())
line = (
f"{idx:>3} {any_record['qc_name'][:16]:<16} "
f"{any_record['num_qubits']:>3}"
)
for m in methods:
value = method_map[m][key]
text = f"{value:.2f}" if key == "runtime" else f"{int(value)}"
if value == best:
text += "*"
line += f"{text:>9}"
print(line)
print()
Muatkan litar Hamiltonian daripada Hamlib
Kami memuatkan set Hamiltonian perwakilan daripada repositori Benchpress dan membina litar PauliEvolutionGate. Litar yang melebihi bilangan Qubit backend dibuang, bersama litar yang saiz terurai melebihi 1,500 gate (untuk memastikan masa transpilasi yang munasabah).
# Obtain the Hamiltonian JSON from the benchpress repository
url = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Qiskit/benchpress/e7b29ef7be4cc0d70237b8fdc03edbd698908eff/benchpress/hamiltonian/hamlib/100_representative.json"
response = requests.get(url)
response.raise_for_status()
ham_records = json.loads(response.text)
# Remove circuits that are too large for the backend
ham_records = [
h for h in ham_records if h["ham_qubits"] <= backend.num_qubits
]
# Build PauliEvolutionGate circuits
qc_ham_list = []
for h in ham_records:
terms = h["ham_hamlib_hamiltonian_terms"]
coeff = h["ham_hamlib_hamiltonian_coefficients"]
num_qubits = h["ham_qubits"]
name = h["ham_problem"]
evo_gate = PauliEvolutionGate(SparsePauliOp(terms, coeff))
qc = QuantumCircuit(num_qubits)
qc.name = name
qc.append(evo_gate, range(num_qubits))
qc_ham_list.append(qc)
# Remove circuits whose decomposed size exceeds 1500 gates so that transpilation completes in a reasonable time frame
qc_ham_list = [qc for qc in qc_ham_list if qc.decompose().size() <= 1500]
print(f"Total Hamiltonian circuits loaded: {len(qc_ham_list)}")
print(
f"Qubit range: {min(qc.num_qubits for qc in qc_ham_list)} to {max(qc.num_qubits for qc in qc_ham_list)}"
)
Total Hamiltonian circuits loaded: 42
Qubit range: 2 to 112
Pisahkan litar kepada kumpulan berskala kecil (kurang daripada 20 Qubit) dan berskala besar (20 atau lebih Qubit).
qc_small = [qc for qc in qc_ham_list if qc.num_qubits < 20]
qc_large = [qc for qc in qc_ham_list if qc.num_qubits >= 20]
print(f"Small-scale circuits (<20 qubits): {len(qc_small)}")
print(f"Large-scale circuits (>=20 qubits): {len(qc_large)}")
Small-scale circuits (<20 qubits): 20
Large-scale circuits (>=20 qubits): 22
Pratonton salah satu litar Hamiltonian berskala kecil sebelum transpilasi.
# We decompose the circuit here, otherwise it would just be a PauliEvolutionGate box,
# which isn't very informative to look at!
qc_small[0].decompose().draw("mpl", fold=-1)
Contoh berskala kecil
Dalam bahagian ini, kami menanda aras ketiga-tiga kaedah kompilasi pada litar Hamiltonian dengan kurang daripada 20 Qubit. Litar ini ditranspilasi dengan cepat dan memberikan gambaran jelas tentang bagaimana setiap kaedah mengendalikan litar dengan kerumitan sederhana.
Langkah 1: Petakan input klasikal kepada masalah kuantum
Setiap Hamiltonian dikodkan sebagai litar PauliEvolutionGate. Litar-litar ini telah dibina dalam bahagian persediaan daripada data penanda aras Hamlib.
Langkah 2: Optimumkan masalah untuk pelaksanaan perkakasan kuantum
Kami mentranspilasi semua litar berskala kecil menggunakan setiap daripada tiga pengurus laluan, kemudian mengumpul metrik.
results_small = []
tqc_sabre_small = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_small, pm_sabre, qc_small, "SABRE"
)
tqc_ai_small = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_small, pm_ai, qc_small, "AI"
)
tqc_rustiq_small = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_small, pm_rustiq, qc_small, "Rustiq"
)
[SABRE] Circuit 0 (all-vib-bh): 2Q depth=3, size=30, time=2.09s
[SABRE] Circuit 1 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=18, size=111, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 2 (all-vib-o3): 2Q depth=6, size=58, time=0.00s
[SABRE] Circuit 3 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=2, size=37, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 4 (graph-gnp_k-2): 2Q depth=24, size=126, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 5 (LiH): 2Q depth=66, size=285, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 6 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=66, size=339, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 7 (all-vib-ch2): 2Q depth=88, size=413, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 8 (all-vib-f2): 2Q depth=180, size=1000, time=0.02s
[SABRE] Circuit 9 (all-vib-bhf2): 2Q depth=18, size=223, time=0.03s
[SABRE] Circuit 10 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=122, size=675, time=0.02s
[SABRE] Circuit 11 (Be2): 2Q depth=343, size=1628, time=0.03s
[SABRE] Circuit 12 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=14, size=134, time=0.00s
[SABRE] Circuit 13 (uf20-ham): 2Q depth=50, size=341, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 14 (TSP_Ncity-4): 2Q depth=118, size=615, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 15 (graph-complete_bipart): 2Q depth=232, size=1420, time=0.03s
[SABRE] Circuit 16 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=18, size=354, time=0.93s
[SABRE] Circuit 17 (all-vib-hno): 2Q depth=6, size=174, time=0.14s
[SABRE] Circuit 18 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=30, size=286, time=0.01s
[SABRE] Circuit 19 (tfim): 2Q depth=31, size=232, time=0.03s
[AI] Circuit 0 (all-vib-bh): 2Q depth=3, size=30, time=0.01s
Fetching 4 files: 0%| | 0/4 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
[AI] Circuit 1 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=18, size=101, time=0.18s
[AI] Circuit 2 (all-vib-o3): 2Q depth=6, size=58, time=0.01s
[AI] Circuit 3 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=2, size=37, time=0.01s
[AI] Circuit 4 (graph-gnp_k-2): 2Q depth=24, size=133, time=0.07s
[AI] Circuit 5 (LiH): 2Q depth=62, size=267, time=8.00s
[AI] Circuit 6 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=65, size=300, time=0.18s
[AI] Circuit 7 (all-vib-ch2): 2Q depth=79, size=353, time=0.16s
[AI] Circuit 8 (all-vib-f2): 2Q depth=176, size=998, time=0.43s
[AI] Circuit 9 (all-vib-bhf2): 2Q depth=18, size=194, time=0.11s
[AI] Circuit 10 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=114, size=668, time=0.18s
[AI] Circuit 11 (Be2): 2Q depth=292, size=1382, time=0.88s
[AI] Circuit 12 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=14, size=134, time=0.01s
[AI] Circuit 13 (uf20-ham): 2Q depth=40, size=330, time=0.16s
[AI] Circuit 14 (TSP_Ncity-4): 2Q depth=96, size=600, time=0.29s
[AI] Circuit 15 (graph-complete_bipart): 2Q depth=231, size=1531, time=0.46s
[AI] Circuit 16 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=18, size=309, time=0.25s
[AI] Circuit 17 (all-vib-hno): 2Q depth=10, size=198, time=0.15s
[AI] Circuit 18 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=34, size=402, time=0.02s
[AI] Circuit 19 (tfim): 2Q depth=44, size=311, time=0.15s
[Rustiq] Circuit 0 (all-vib-bh): 2Q depth=3, size=30, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 1 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=13, size=69, time=0.00s
[Rustiq] Circuit 2 (all-vib-o3): 2Q depth=13, size=82, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 3 (all-vib-c2h): 2Q depth=2, size=40, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 4 (graph-gnp_k-2): 2Q depth=31, size=132, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 5 (LiH): 2Q depth=59, size=285, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 6 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=34, size=193, time=0.00s
[Rustiq] Circuit 7 (all-vib-ch2): 2Q depth=49, size=302, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 8 (all-vib-f2): 2Q depth=141, size=807, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 9 (all-vib-bhf2): 2Q depth=13, size=146, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 10 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=129, size=683, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 11 (Be2): 2Q depth=220, size=1101, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 12 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=53, size=333, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 13 (uf20-ham): 2Q depth=63, size=425, time=0.01s
[Rustiq] Circuit 14 (TSP_Ncity-4): 2Q depth=123, size=767, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 15 (graph-complete_bipart): 2Q depth=309, size=2107, time=0.05s
[Rustiq] Circuit 16 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=16, size=283, time=0.32s
[Rustiq] Circuit 17 (all-vib-hno): 2Q depth=19, size=291, time=0.32s
[Rustiq] Circuit 18 (all-vib-fccf): 2Q depth=44, size=546, time=0.02s
[Rustiq] Circuit 19 (tfim): 2Q depth=24, size=416, time=0.01s
Jadual di bawah merumuskan purata dan sisihan piawai setiap metrik merentasi semua litar berskala kecil, bersama peratusan penambahbaikan berbanding SABRE. Oleh kerana saiz litar berbeza-beza dengan ketara, sisihan piawai memberikan konteks penting untuk mentafsir purata.
print_summary_table(results_small)
Mean +/- std per compilation method
Method 2Q Depth Gate Count Runtime (s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SABRE 71.8 +/- 89.6 424.1 +/- 446.0 0.2 +/- 0.5
AI 67.3 +/- 80.2 416.8 +/- 426.7 0.6 +/- 1.8
Rustiq 67.9 +/- 80.0 451.9 +/- 484.7 0.0 +/- 0.1
Mean % improvement vs SABRE (positive = better than SABRE)
Method 2Q Depth Gate Count Runtime (s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI -2.1% +/- 19.8% -0.6% +/- 14.7% -5635.1% +/- 20725.2%
Rustiq -25.3% +/- 85.4% -16.3% +/- 50.4% -7.0% +/- 60.6%
Jadual per-litar menunjukkan bagaimana setiap kaedah dibandingkan pada litar individu. Nilai terbaik untuk setiap metrik ditandai dengan asterisk. Perhatikan bahawa untuk litar yang paling mudah, ketiga-tiga kaedah sering menumpu kepada hasil yang sama.
print_per_circuit_comparison(results_small, num_rows=8)
2Q Depth (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-bh 2 3* 3* 3*
1 all-vib-c2h 3 18 18 13*
2 all-vib-o3 4 6* 6* 13
3 all-vib-c2h 4 2* 2* 2*
4 graph-gnp_k-2 4 24* 24* 31
5 LiH 4 66 62 59*
6 all-vib-fccf 4 66 65 34*
7 all-vib-ch2 4 88 79 49*
Gate Count (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-bh 2 30* 30* 30*
1 all-vib-c2h 3 111 101 69*
2 all-vib-o3 4 58* 58* 82
3 all-vib-c2h 4 37* 37* 40
4 graph-gnp_k-2 4 126* 133 132
5 LiH 4 285 267* 285
6 all-vib-fccf 4 339 300 193*
7 all-vib-ch2 4 413 353 302*
Runtime (s) (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-bh 2 2.09 0.01 0.01*
1 all-vib-c2h 3 0.01 0.18 0.00*
2 all-vib-o3 4 0.00* 0.01 0.01
3 all-vib-c2h 4 0.01 0.01 0.01*
4 graph-gnp_k-2 4 0.01* 0.07 0.01
5 LiH 4 0.01* 8.00 0.01
6 all-vib-fccf 4 0.01 0.18 0.00*
7 all-vib-ch2 4 0.01 0.16 0.01*
Visualisasi keputusan
Plot di bawah membandingkan ketiga-tiga kaedah merentasi setiap metrik berdasarkan per-litar. Litar disusun mengikut bilangan Qubit dan dilabelkan mengikut indeks pada paksi-x, kerana beberapa litar boleh mempunyai bilangan Qubit yang sama.
def plot_transpilation_comparison(results, title_prefix):
"""
Create a three-panel figure comparing compilation methods on
two-qubit depth, circuit size, and runtime.
Circuits are sorted by qubit count and plotted by circuit index.
"""
methods = _method_order(results)
palette = {"SABRE": "#1f77b4", "AI": "#ff7f0e", "Rustiq": "#2ca02c"}
markers = {"SABRE": "o", "AI": "^", "Rustiq": "s"}
# Order circuits by qubit count (then index) and map to plot positions
ref = sorted(
[r for r in results if r["method"] == methods[0]],
key=lambda r: (r["num_qubits"], r["qc_index"]),
)
pos_map = {r["qc_index"]: pos for pos, r in enumerate(ref)}
tick_positions = [pos_map[r["qc_index"]] for r in ref]
tick_labels = [
f"{pos_map[r['qc_index']]} ({r['num_qubits']}q)" for r in ref
]
metrics = [
("two_qubit_depth", "Two-Qubit Depth"),
("size", "Total Gate Count (Circuit Size)"),
("runtime", "Transpilation Runtime (s)"),
]
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(20, 5.5))
fig.suptitle(title_prefix, fontsize=15, fontweight="bold", y=1.02)
for ax, (metric, ylabel) in zip(axes, metrics):
for method in methods:
subset = sorted(
[r for r in results if r["method"] == method],
key=lambda r: pos_map[r["qc_index"]],
)
ax.plot(
[pos_map[r["qc_index"]] for r in subset],
[r[metric] for r in subset],
marker=markers.get(method, "o"),
label=method,
color=palette.get(method, None),
linewidth=1.5,
markersize=6,
alpha=0.85,
)
ax.set_xlabel("Circuit Index (num qubits)", fontsize=11)
ax.set_ylabel(ylabel, fontsize=11)
ax.legend(frameon=True, fontsize=9)
ax.grid(True, linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
step = max(1, len(tick_positions) // 15)
ax.set_xticks(tick_positions[::step])
ax.set_xticklabels(
[tick_labels[i] for i in range(0, len(tick_labels), step)],
fontsize=7,
rotation=45,
ha="right",
)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
def plot_pct_improvement_vs_sabre(results, title_prefix):
"""
Plot the per-circuit percent improvement of each non-SABRE method
relative to SABRE, for each metric. A positive value means the
method improved on SABRE; negative means SABRE was better.
"""
metrics = [
("two_qubit_depth", "2Q Depth"),
("size", "Gate Count"),
("runtime", "Runtime"),
]
palette = {"AI": "#ff7f0e", "Rustiq": "#2ca02c"}
markers = {"AI": "^", "Rustiq": "s"}
methods = _method_order(results)
sabre = sorted(
[r for r in results if r["method"] == "SABRE"],
key=lambda r: (r["num_qubits"], r["qc_index"]),
)
other_methods = [m for m in methods if m != "SABRE"]
tick_positions = list(range(len(sabre)))
tick_labels = [
f"{i} ({sabre[i]['num_qubits']}q)" for i in range(len(sabre))
]
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(20, 5.5))
fig.suptitle(
f"{title_prefix}: % Improvement over SABRE",
fontsize=15,
fontweight="bold",
y=1.02,
)
for ax, (metric, label) in zip(axes, metrics):
ax.axhline(0, color="#1f77b4", linewidth=2, label="SABRE (baseline)")
for method in other_methods:
data = sorted(
[r for r in results if r["method"] == method],
key=lambda r: (r["num_qubits"], r["qc_index"]),
)
pct = [
(sabre[i][metric] - data[i][metric]) / sabre[i][metric] * 100
for i in range(len(sabre))
]
ax.plot(
tick_positions,
pct,
marker=markers.get(method, "o"),
label=method,
color=palette.get(method, None),
linewidth=1.5,
markersize=6,
alpha=0.85,
)
ax.set_xlabel("Circuit Index (num qubits)", fontsize=11)
ax.set_ylabel(f"% Improvement ({label})", fontsize=11)
ax.legend(frameon=True, fontsize=9)
ax.grid(True, linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
step = max(1, len(tick_positions) // 15)
ax.set_xticks(tick_positions[::step])
ax.set_xticklabels(
[tick_labels[i] for i in range(0, len(tick_labels), step)],
fontsize=7,
rotation=45,
ha="right",
)
ylims = ax.get_ylim()
ax.axhspan(0, max(ylims[1], 1), alpha=0.04, color="green")
ax.axhspan(min(ylims[0], -1), 0, alpha=0.04, color="red")
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
plot_transpilation_comparison(
results_small,
"Small-Scale Hamiltonian Circuits: Compilation Comparison",
)
plot_pct_improvement_vs_sabre(
results_small,
"Small-Scale Hamiltonian Circuits",
)
Pada skala ini, ketiga-tiga pengurus laluan berprestasi baik, dan purata keputusan mereka hampir sama. Ini sebahagian besarnya kerana litar kecil meninggalkan ruang terhad untuk pengoptimuman lanjut, jadi kaedah-kaedah cenderung menumpu kepada penyelesaian yang serupa.
Dalam contoh ini, Rustiq menghasilkan keputusan yang paling pelbagai, dengan pencilan terbesar dalam kedalaman dua-Qubit dan bilangan gate. Walaupun kepelbagaian ini bermakna ia kadangkala ketinggalan, ia juga bermakna Rustiq kadangkala menemui penyelesaian yang lebih baik daripada dua kaedah lain. Transpiler AI lebih stabil dalam keputusannya berbanding SABRE dan Rustiq, mengikuti rapat pada kebanyakan litar tanpa banyak pencilan.
Untuk masa jalan, SABRE dan Rustiq kedua-duanya pantas, manakala transpiler berkuasa AI jauh lebih perlahan pada litar tertentu.
Kaedah berprestasi terbaik mengikut metrik
Carta di bawah menunjukkan seberapa kerap setiap kaedah mencapai nilai terbaik (terendah) untuk setiap metrik. Seri adalah mungkin: untuk litar yang lebih mudah, beberapa kaedah boleh mencapai kedalaman dua-Qubit atau bilangan gate optimum yang sama. Apabila seri berlaku, semua kaedah yang seri menerima kredit, jadi peratusan untuk metrik tertentu mungkin berjumlah lebih daripada 100%.
def plot_best_method_bars(results, metrics_list=None):
"""
Plot a grouped bar chart showing the percentage of circuits
where each method achieved the best (lowest) value for each metric.
Ties are counted for all tied methods, so percentages per metric
can sum to more than 100%.
"""
if metrics_list is None:
metrics_list = ["two_qubit_depth", "size", "runtime"]
labels = {
"two_qubit_depth": "2Q Depth",
"size": "Gate Count",
"runtime": "Runtime",
}
methods = _method_order(results)
palette = {"SABRE": "#1f77b4", "AI": "#ff7f0e", "Rustiq": "#2ca02c"}
by_index = {}
for r in results:
by_index.setdefault(r["qc_index"], []).append(r)
n_circuits = len(by_index)
win_data = {m: [] for m in methods}
tie_counts = []
metric_labels = []
for metric in metrics_list:
metric_labels.append(
labels.get(metric, metric.replace("_", " ").title())
)
counts = Counter()
ties = 0
for group in by_index.values():
min_val = min(r[metric] for r in group)
best = [r["method"] for r in group if r[metric] == min_val]
if len(best) > 1:
ties += 1
counts.update(best)
tie_counts.append(ties)
for m in methods:
win_data[m].append(counts.get(m, 0) / n_circuits * 100)
x = np.arange(len(metric_labels))
width = 0.22
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 5))
for i, method in enumerate(methods):
bars = ax.bar(
x + i * width,
win_data[method],
width,
label=method,
color=palette.get(method, None),
edgecolor="black",
linewidth=0.5,
)
for bar in bars:
height = bar.get_height()
if height > 0:
ax.text(
bar.get_x() + bar.get_width() / 2,
height + 1.5,
f"{height:.0f}%",
ha="center",
va="bottom",
fontsize=9,
)
# Annotate tie counts below each metric label
for j, ties in enumerate(tie_counts):
if ties > 0:
ax.text(
x[j] + width,
-8,
f"({ties} tie{'s' if ties != 1 else ''})",
ha="center",
va="top",
fontsize=8,
color="gray",
)
ax.set_xticks(x + width)
ax.set_xticklabels(metric_labels, fontsize=11)
ax.set_ylabel("Circuits with best value (%)", fontsize=11)
ax.set_title(
"Best-Performing Method by Metric (ties counted for all tied methods)",
fontsize=12,
fontweight="bold",
)
ax.legend(frameon=True, fontsize=10)
ax.set_ylim(-12, 120)
ax.yaxis.set_major_formatter(ticker.PercentFormatter())
ax.grid(axis="y", linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
plot_best_method_bars(results_small)
Dalam contoh ini, ketiga-tiga kaedah berprestasi sangat serupa pada litar berskala kecil. Pada kedalaman dua-Qubit dan bilangan gate, bahagian litar di mana setiap kaedah adalah terbaik hampir sama (lebih kurang 35–55%), dan banyak litar berakhir dengan seri kerana litar yang paling mudah sering mempunyai satu penyelesaian optimum yang ditemui oleh beberapa kaedah. Perbezaan yang paling jelas adalah masa jalan: SABRE dan Rustiq masing-masing adalah yang terpantas pada lebih kurang separuh litar, manakala transpiler berkuasa AI jarang menjadi yang tercepat. Mempertimbangkan ketiga-tiga metrik bersama, Rustiq mempunyai kelebihan keseluruhan yang sedikit ia adalah pemenang paling kerap pada kedalaman dua-Qubit dan kekal berdaya saing pada bilangan gate dan masa jalan.
Langkah 3: Laksanakan menggunakan primitif Qiskit
Untuk menilai bagaimana kualiti transpilasi mempengaruhi pelaksanaan di bawah hingar, kami menggunakan teknik litar cermin. Untuk setiap litar yang ditranspilasi , kami menambahkan inversnya supaya litar gabungan adalah identiti secara teori. Bermula dari keadaan , pelaksanaan sempurna (tanpa hingar) akan mengembalikan bitstring semua-sifar dengan kebarangkalian 1.
Dalam praktik, ralat gate terkumpul sepanjang litar, jadi kebarangkalian memulihkan menurun. Kaedah kompilasi yang menghasilkan litar yang lebih cetek dengan gate yang lebih sedikit akan mengumpul lebih sedikit hingar.
Pendekatan litar cermin ini mudah dan berskala kepada mana-mana saiz litar, kerana output yang dijangka sentiasa dan tiada simulasi klasikal keadaan ideal diperlukan. Walau bagaimanapun, perhatikan kaveat berikut: litar cermin adalah proksi untuk litar sebenar (bukan litar itu sendiri), ia menggandakan bilangan gate (yang membesar-besarkan kesan hingar), dan ia boleh meremehkan ralat tertentu apabila hingar membatal secara simetri merentasi sempadan cermin.
Kami memilih litar indeks 6 daripada set berskala kecil dan menjalankan litar cermin pada simulator Aer dengan model hingar depolarisasi mudah.
# Select circuit index 6 from the small-scale transpiled circuits
test_idx = 6
test_circuit = qc_small[test_idx]
print(f"Test circuit: {test_circuit.name}, {test_circuit.num_qubits} qubits")
# Get the transpiled versions
tqc_methods_small = {
"SABRE": tqc_sabre_small[test_idx],
"AI": tqc_ai_small[test_idx],
"Rustiq": tqc_rustiq_small[test_idx],
}
# Show transpilation metrics for this circuit
print(f"\nTranspilation metrics for circuit index {test_idx}:")
for method, tqc in tqc_methods_small.items():
depth_2q = tqc.depth(lambda x: x.operation.num_qubits == 2)
size = tqc.size()
print(f" {method:8s} 2Q depth={depth_2q:5d} size={size:6d}")
Test circuit: all-vib-fccf, 4 qubits
Transpilation metrics for circuit index 6:
SABRE 2Q depth= 66 size= 339
AI 2Q depth= 65 size= 300
Rustiq 2Q depth= 34 size= 193
Bina litar cermin (tambahkan ), petakan semula kepada indeks Qubit berterusan supaya simulator hanya mengendalikan Qubit aktif, dan jalankan pada simulator Aer yang berising.
def remap_to_contiguous(tqc):
"""Remap a transpiled circuit to use contiguous qubit indices.
Transpiled circuits target specific physical qubits (e.g., qubit 45, 67)
on a large backend. This remaps them to 0, 1, 2, ... so Aer only
simulates the active qubits.
"""
active = sorted(
{tqc.find_bit(q).index for inst in tqc.data for q in inst.qubits}
)
qubit_map = {old: new for new, old in enumerate(active)}
new_qc = QuantumCircuit(len(active))
for inst in tqc.data:
old_indices = [tqc.find_bit(q).index for q in inst.qubits]
new_qc.append(inst.operation, [qubit_map[i] for i in old_indices])
return new_qc
def build_mirror_circuit(tqc):
"""Build a mirror circuit: U followed by U-dagger, with measurements.
The combined circuit U-dagger @ U should be the identity, so measuring
all zeros indicates a noise-free execution.
"""
tqc_compact = remap_to_contiguous(tqc)
mirror = tqc_compact.compose(tqc_compact.inverse())
mirror.measure_all()
return mirror
# Build a simple depolarizing noise model
noise_model = NoiseModel()
noise_model.add_all_qubit_quantum_error(
depolarizing_error(0.001, 1),
["sx", "x", "rz"], # ~0.1% per 1Q gate
)
noise_model.add_all_qubit_quantum_error(
depolarizing_error(0.01, 2),
["cx", "ecr"], # ~1% per 2Q gate
)
aer_sim = AerSimulator(noise_model=noise_model)
shots = 10000
fidelities = {}
for method, tqc in tqc_methods_small.items():
mirror = build_mirror_circuit(tqc)
sampler = SamplerV2(mode=aer_sim)
job = sampler.run([mirror], shots=shots)
result = job.result()
counts = result[0].data.meas.get_counts()
# Fidelity = fraction of all-zeros (error-free) outcomes
n_qubits = mirror.num_qubits - mirror.num_clbits # active qubits
all_zeros = "0" * mirror.num_qubits
fidelity = counts.get(all_zeros, 0) / shots
fidelities[method] = fidelity
print(
f"{method:8s} P(|00...0>) = {fidelity:.4f} ({counts.get(all_zeros, 0)}/{shots})"
)
SABRE P(|00...0>) = 0.7796 (7796/10000)
AI P(|00...0>) = 0.8073 (8073/10000)
Rustiq P(|00...0>) = 0.8923 (8923/10000)
def plot_mirror_results(tqc_methods, fidelities, circuit_name):
"""
Plot a three-panel comparison: fidelity, 2Q depth,
and gate count for each compilation method.
"""
methods = list(tqc_methods.keys())
palette = {"SABRE": "#1f77b4", "AI": "#ff7f0e", "Rustiq": "#2ca02c"}
colors = [palette.get(m, "gray") for m in methods]
fidelity_vals = [fidelities[m] for m in methods]
depth_vals = [
tqc_methods[m].depth(lambda x: x.operation.num_qubits == 2)
for m in methods
]
size_vals = [tqc_methods[m].size() for m in methods]
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(16, 5))
fig.suptitle(
f"Mirror Circuit Results: {circuit_name}",
fontsize=14,
fontweight="bold",
y=1.02,
)
def _annotate_bars(ax, bars, values, fmt="{}"):
ymax = ax.get_ylim()[1]
for bar, val in zip(bars, values):
label = fmt.format(val)
y = val + ymax * 0.03
ax.text(
bar.get_x() + bar.get_width() / 2,
y,
label,
ha="center",
va="bottom",
fontsize=10,
fontweight="bold",
)
# Panel 1: Survival Probability
bars = axes[0].bar(
methods, fidelity_vals, color=colors, edgecolor="black", linewidth=0.5
)
axes[0].set_ylabel("Fidelity P(|00...0>)", fontsize=11)
axes[0].set_title("Fidelity (higher is better)", fontsize=12)
axes[0].set_ylim(
0, max(fidelity_vals) * 1.18 if max(fidelity_vals) > 0 else 1.0
)
axes[0].grid(axis="y", linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
_annotate_bars(axes[0], bars, fidelity_vals, fmt="{:.4f}")
# Panel 2: Two-Qubit Depth
bars = axes[1].bar(
methods, depth_vals, color=colors, edgecolor="black", linewidth=0.5
)
axes[1].set_ylabel("Two-Qubit Depth", fontsize=11)
axes[1].set_title("2Q Depth (lower is better)", fontsize=12)
axes[1].set_ylim(0, max(depth_vals) * 1.18)
axes[1].grid(axis="y", linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
_annotate_bars(axes[1], bars, depth_vals)
# Panel 3: Gate Count
bars = axes[2].bar(
methods, size_vals, color=colors, edgecolor="black", linewidth=0.5
)
axes[2].set_ylabel("Total Gate Count", fontsize=11)
axes[2].set_title("Gate Count (lower is better)", fontsize=12)
axes[2].set_ylim(0, max(size_vals) * 1.18)
axes[2].grid(axis="y", linestyle="--", alpha=0.4)
_annotate_bars(axes[2], bars, size_vals)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
plot_mirror_results(tqc_methods_small, fidelities, test_circuit.name)
Pemerhatian
Kaedah dengan kedalaman dua-Qubit paling rendah dan gate paling sedikit mencapai ketepatan paling tinggi, selaras dengan jangkaan bahawa litar yang lebih pendek mengumpul lebih sedikit hingar. Walaupun perbezaan kecil dalam kedalaman dan bilangan gate menghasilkan perbezaan ketepatan yang boleh diukur di bawah model hingar depolarisasi.
Ingat bahawa keputusan ini adalah untuk satu litar. Kedudukan relatif kaedah boleh berubah dari litar ke litar bergantung pada struktur Hamiltonian.
Contoh perkakasan berskala besar
Dalam bahagian ini, kami menanda aras tiga kaedah kompilasi yang sama pada litar Hamiltonian dengan 20 atau lebih Qubit. Litar ini lebih mewakili beban kerja simulasi Hamiltonian praktikal dan menguji bagaimana setiap kaedah berskala dari segi kualiti litar dan masa kompilasi.
Langkah 1-4 digabungkan
Aliran kerja mengikut struktur yang sama seperti contoh berskala kecil. Kami mentranspilasi semua litar berskala besar dengan setiap kaedah, mengumpul metrik, dan menghantar litar cermin ke perkakasan kuantum sebenar.
results_large = []
tqc_sabre_large = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_large, pm_sabre, qc_large, "SABRE"
)
tqc_ai_large = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_large, pm_ai, qc_large, "AI"
)
tqc_rustiq_large = capture_transpilation_metrics(
results_large, pm_rustiq, qc_large, "Rustiq"
)
[SABRE] Circuit 0 (all-vib-hc3h2cn): 2Q depth=2, size=258, time=0.16s
[SABRE] Circuit 1 (ham-graph-gnp_k-5): 2Q depth=345, size=4036, time=0.08s
[SABRE] Circuit 2 (TSP_Ncity-5): 2Q depth=187, size=2045, time=0.04s
[SABRE] Circuit 3 (tfim): 2Q depth=100, size=489, time=0.21s
[SABRE] Circuit 4 (all-vib-h2co): 2Q depth=30, size=570, time=0.18s
[SABRE] Circuit 5 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=414, size=4779, time=0.09s
[SABRE] Circuit 6 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=523, size=5667, time=0.11s
[SABRE] Circuit 7 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=3028, size=24885, time=0.39s
[SABRE] Circuit 8 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=700, size=8271, time=0.15s
[SABRE] Circuit 9 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=698, size=8957, time=0.15s
[SABRE] Circuit 10 (TSP_Ncity-7): 2Q depth=432, size=6353, time=0.12s
[SABRE] Circuit 11 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=30, size=1144, time=0.20s
[SABRE] Circuit 12 (TSP_Ncity-8): 2Q depth=704, size=10287, time=0.18s
[SABRE] Circuit 13 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=2454, size=30195, time=0.46s
[SABRE] Circuit 14 (tfim): 2Q depth=245, size=3670, time=0.08s
[SABRE] Circuit 15 (flat100-ham): 2Q depth=154, size=3836, time=0.12s
[SABRE] Circuit 16 (graph-regular_reg-4): 2Q depth=863, size=14063, time=0.22s
[SABRE] Circuit 17 (tfim): 2Q depth=581, size=8810, time=0.15s
[SABRE] Circuit 18 (FH_D-1): 2Q depth=1704, size=9528, time=0.35s
[SABRE] Circuit 19 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=1091, size=22041, time=0.38s
[SABRE] Circuit 20 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=1091, size=22005, time=0.38s
[SABRE] Circuit 21 (ham-unary-color02-queen13_13_k-4): 2Q depth=224, size=8321, time=0.17s
[AI] Circuit 0 (all-vib-hc3h2cn): 2Q depth=2, size=258, time=0.17s
[AI] Circuit 1 (ham-graph-gnp_k-5): 2Q depth=323, size=4418, time=3.13s
[AI] Circuit 2 (TSP_Ncity-5): 2Q depth=161, size=2229, time=1.47s
[AI] Circuit 3 (tfim): 2Q depth=20, size=402, time=0.34s
[AI] Circuit 4 (all-vib-h2co): 2Q depth=38, size=661, time=0.19s
[AI] Circuit 5 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=391, size=5130, time=3.27s
[AI] Circuit 6 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=463, size=6095, time=4.23s
[AI] Circuit 7 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=3207, size=25641, time=15.15s
[AI] Circuit 8 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=637, size=8267, time=5.87s
[AI] Circuit 9 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=632, size=9330, time=7.29s
[AI] Circuit 10 (TSP_Ncity-7): 2Q depth=452, size=7418, time=6.02s
[AI] Circuit 11 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=38, size=1323, time=0.27s
[AI] Circuit 12 (TSP_Ncity-8): 2Q depth=609, size=11131, time=10.07s
[AI] Circuit 13 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=2251, size=31128, time=38.77s
[AI] Circuit 14 (tfim): 2Q depth=165, size=3460, time=1.64s
[AI] Circuit 15 (flat100-ham): 2Q depth=91, size=3497, time=2.49s
[AI] Circuit 16 (graph-regular_reg-4): 2Q depth=664, size=15256, time=12.35s
[AI] Circuit 17 (tfim): 2Q depth=583, size=9157, time=6.28s
[AI] Circuit 18 (FH_D-1): 2Q depth=1193, size=7754, time=4.54s
[AI] Circuit 19 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=1134, size=22577, time=25.64s
[AI] Circuit 20 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=1172, size=23851, time=28.97s
[AI] Circuit 21 (ham-unary-color02-queen13_13_k-4): 2Q depth=219, size=8600, time=8.85s
[Rustiq] Circuit 0 (all-vib-hc3h2cn): 2Q depth=2, size=257, time=0.16s
[Rustiq] Circuit 1 (ham-graph-gnp_k-5): 2Q depth=640, size=5831, time=0.13s
[Rustiq] Circuit 2 (TSP_Ncity-5): 2Q depth=408, size=3985, time=0.08s
[Rustiq] Circuit 3 (tfim): 2Q depth=31, size=688, time=0.07s
[Rustiq] Circuit 4 (all-vib-h2co): 2Q depth=65, size=1058, time=2.91s
[Rustiq] Circuit 5 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=633, size=6757, time=0.14s
[Rustiq] Circuit 6 (uuf100-ham): 2Q depth=795, size=8495, time=0.17s
[Rustiq] Circuit 7 (graph-gnp_k-4): 2Q depth=13768, size=139793, time=2.92s
[Rustiq] Circuit 8 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=1099, size=11878, time=0.25s
[Rustiq] Circuit 9 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=911, size=11111, time=0.22s
[Rustiq] Circuit 10 (TSP_Ncity-7): 2Q depth=1183, size=13197, time=0.27s
[Rustiq] Circuit 11 (all-vib-cyclo_propene): 2Q depth=67, size=2491, time=13.56s
[Rustiq] Circuit 12 (TSP_Ncity-8): 2Q depth=1615, size=21358, time=0.48s
[Rustiq] Circuit 13 (uf100-ham): 2Q depth=2920, size=40465, time=0.91s
[Rustiq] Circuit 14 (tfim): 2Q depth=489, size=6552, time=0.15s
[Rustiq] Circuit 15 (flat100-ham): 2Q depth=378, size=5906, time=0.14s
[Rustiq] Circuit 16 (graph-regular_reg-4): 2Q depth=12163, size=168679, time=2.94s
[Rustiq] Circuit 17 (tfim): 2Q depth=1208, size=17042, time=0.36s
[Rustiq] Circuit 18 (FH_D-1): 2Q depth=1061, size=24000, time=0.47s
[Rustiq] Circuit 19 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=2565, size=41340, time=1.38s
[Rustiq] Circuit 20 (TSP_Ncity-10): 2Q depth=2565, size=41275, time=1.38s
[Rustiq] Circuit 21 (ham-unary-color02-queen13_13_k-4): 2Q depth=808, size=17548, time=0.42s
print_summary_table(results_large)
Mean +/- std per compilation method
Method 2Q Depth Gate Count Runtime (s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SABRE 709.1 +/- 783.8 9,100.5 +/- 8,493.1 0.2 +/- 0.1
AI 656.6 +/- 777.5 9,435.6 +/- 8,853.0 8.5 +/- 10.2
Rustiq 2,062.5 +/- 3,631.1 26,804.8 +/- 43,403.1 1.3 +/- 2.9
Mean % improvement vs SABRE (positive = better than SABRE)
Method 2Q Depth Gate Count Runtime (s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI +9.6% +/- 22.8% -3.4% +/- 9.4% -3620.0% +/- 2405.5%
Rustiq -154.5% +/- 273.9% -137.1% +/- 233.2% -527.0% +/- 1405.5%
print_per_circuit_comparison(results_large, num_rows=8)
2Q Depth (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-hc3h2cn 24 2* 2* 2*
1 ham-graph-gnp_k- 24 345 323* 640
2 TSP_Ncity-5 25 187 161* 408
3 tfim 26 100 20* 31
4 all-vib-h2co 32 30* 38 65
5 uuf100-ham 40 414 391* 633
6 uuf100-ham 40 523 463* 795
7 graph-gnp_k-4 40 3028* 3207 13768
Gate Count (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-hc3h2cn 24 258 258 257*
1 ham-graph-gnp_k- 24 4036* 4418 5831
2 TSP_Ncity-5 25 2045* 2229 3985
3 tfim 26 489 402* 688
4 all-vib-h2co 32 570* 661 1058
5 uuf100-ham 40 4779* 5130 6757
6 uuf100-ham 40 5667* 6095 8495
7 graph-gnp_k-4 40 24885* 25641 139793
Runtime (s) (first 8 circuits by qubit count); * = best
Idx Circuit Q SABRE AI Rustiq
----------------------------------------------------
0 all-vib-hc3h2cn 24 0.16 0.17 0.16*
1 ham-graph-gnp_k- 24 0.08* 3.13 0.13
2 TSP_Ncity-5 25 0.04* 1.47 0.08
3 tfim 26 0.21 0.34 0.07*
4 all-vib-h2co 32 0.18* 0.19 2.91
5 uuf100-ham 40 0.09* 3.27 0.14
6 uuf100-ham 40 0.11* 4.23 0.17
7 graph-gnp_k-4 40 0.39* 15.15 2.92
plot_transpilation_comparison(
results_large,
"Large-Scale Hamiltonian Circuits: Compilation Comparison",
)
plot_pct_improvement_vs_sabre(
results_large,
"Large-Scale Hamiltonian Circuits",
)
plot_best_method_bars(results_large)
# Select circuit index 3 from the large-scale transpiled circuits
test_idx_large = 3
test_circuit_large = qc_large[test_idx_large]
print(
f"Test circuit: {test_circuit_large.name}, {test_circuit_large.num_qubits} qubits"
)
tqc_methods_large = {
"SABRE": tqc_sabre_large[test_idx_large],
"AI": tqc_ai_large[test_idx_large],
"Rustiq": tqc_rustiq_large[test_idx_large],
}
print(f"\nTranspilation metrics for circuit index {test_idx_large}:")
for method, tqc in tqc_methods_large.items():
depth_2q = tqc.depth(lambda x: x.operation.num_qubits == 2)
size = tqc.size()
print(f" {method:8s} 2Q depth={depth_2q:5d} size={size:6d}")
Test circuit: tfim, 26 qubits
Transpilation metrics for circuit index 3:
SABRE 2Q depth= 100 size= 489
AI 2Q depth= 20 size= 402
Rustiq 2Q depth= 31 size= 688
pm_mirror = generate_preset_pass_manager(
optimization_level=0, backend=backend
)
for method, tqc in tqc_methods_large.items():
# print the count ops for each circuit
mirror = tqc.copy()
mirror.compose(tqc.inverse(), inplace=True)
mirror.measure_all()
mirror = pm_mirror.run(mirror)
print(f"\n{method} transpiled circuit:")
print(tqc.count_ops())
print(f"{method} mirror circuit count ops:")
print(mirror.count_ops())
SABRE transpiled circuit:
OrderedDict({'sx': 211, 'rz': 163, 'cz': 104, 'x': 11})
SABRE mirror circuit count ops:
OrderedDict({'rz': 1170, 'sx': 422, 'cz': 208, 'measure': 156, 'x': 22, 'barrier': 1})
AI transpiled circuit:
OrderedDict({'sx': 165, 'rz': 162, 'cz': 68, 'x': 7})
AI mirror circuit count ops:
OrderedDict({'rz': 984, 'sx': 330, 'measure': 156, 'cz': 136, 'x': 14, 'barrier': 1})
Rustiq transpiled circuit:
OrderedDict({'sx': 316, 'rz': 225, 'cz': 140, 'x': 7})
Rustiq mirror circuit count ops:
OrderedDict({'rz': 1714, 'sx': 632, 'cz': 280, 'measure': 156, 'x': 14, 'barrier': 1})
# Build mirror circuits and submit to real hardware
# The inverse may introduce gates (e.g., sxdg) not in the backend's
# basis gate set, so we re-transpile the mirror circuit.
pm_mirror = generate_preset_pass_manager(
optimization_level=0, backend=backend
)
shots_hw = 10000
hw_jobs = {}
for method, tqc in tqc_methods_large.items():
mirror = tqc.copy()
mirror.compose(tqc.inverse(), inplace=True)
mirror.measure_all()
# Re-transpile at opt level 0 to decompose into basis gates
# without changing the layout or routing
mirror = pm_mirror.run(mirror)
sampler = SamplerV2(mode=backend)
sampler.options.environment.job_tags = ["TUT_CMHSC"]
job = sampler.run([mirror], shots=shots_hw)
hw_jobs[method] = job
print(f"{method}: submitted job {job.job_id()}")
SABRE: submitted job d8gvgq66983c73dqe5og
AI: submitted job d8gvgqe6983c73dqe5pg
Rustiq: submitted job d8gvgqm6983c73dqe5q0
# Retrieve results and compute fidelities
fidelities_large = {}
for method, job in hw_jobs.items():
result = job.result()
counts = result[0].data.meas.get_counts()
n_qubits = backend.num_qubits
all_zeros = "0" * n_qubits
fidelity = counts.get(all_zeros, 0) / shots_hw
fidelities_large[method] = fidelity
print(
f"{method:8s} P(|00...0>) = {fidelity:.4f} ({counts.get(all_zeros, 0)}/{shots_hw})"
)
SABRE P(|00...0>) = 0.0005 (5/10000)
AI P(|00...0>) = 0.3267 (3267/10000)
Rustiq P(|00...0>) = 0.1845 (1845/10000)
plot_mirror_results(
tqc_methods_large, fidelities_large, test_circuit_large.name
)
Analisis keputusan kompilasi
Penanda aras di atas membandingkan SABRE, transpiler berkuasa AI, dan Rustiq pada litar simulasi Hamiltonian daripada koleksi Hamlib pada skala kecil dan besar.
Kedalaman dua-Qubit dan bilangan gate
Pada skala besar, SABRE dan transpiler berkuasa AI adalah dua prestasi terkuat, dan masing-masing memimpin pada metrik yang berbeza. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh carta kaedah berprestasi terbaik mengikut metrik, SABRE menghasilkan bilangan gate terendah pada majoriti besar litar dan merupakan kaedah yang paling pantas pada hampir semua litar, selaras dengan heuristik yang direka untuk meminimumkan gate SWAP yang disisipkan, dan dengan pengoptimuman terkini pada susunan dan penghalannya. Transpiler berkuasa AI menghasilkan kedalaman dua-Qubit terendah pada kebanyakan litar, selaras dengan bahagian objektif pembelajaran pengukuhannya yang mensasar kedalaman litar. Jadual ringkasan mencerminkan pembahagian yang sama: SABRE mempunyai purata bilangan gate yang lebih rendah, manakala transpiler AI mempunyai purata kedalaman dua-Qubit yang lebih rendah. Kedua-dua kaedah adalah konsisten dan boleh dipercayai merentasi keseluruhan julat litar.
Rustiq, yang dibina khas untuk sintesis PauliEvolutionGate, menghasilkan hasil tunggal terbaik hanya pada sebahagian kecil litar berskala besar. Purata metriknya sangat dipengaruhi oleh beberapa pencilan yang ketara, kelihatan sebagai lonjakan besar dalam plot perbandingan kompilasi, di mana Rustiq menghasilkan kedalaman dan bilangan gate yang jauh lebih tinggi daripada kaedah lain. Tanpa pencilan ini, prestasi puratanya akan jauh lebih hampir dengan SABRE dan transpiler berkuasa AI.
Pemerhatian utama ialah tiada satu kaedah yang mendominasi setiap litar. Setiap kaedah mengatasi yang lain dalam kes tertentu, yang menjadikannya berbaloi untuk mencuba semua alat yang tersedia dan memilih hasil terbaik untuk setiap litar.
Masa jalan
SABRE secara konsisten adalah kaedah yang paling pantas. Rustiq umumnya berjalan pada kelajuan yang serupa, tetapi boleh menghasilkan pencilan di mana kompilasi mengambil masa yang jauh lebih lama. Ini amat ketara dalam keputusan berskala besar, di mana beberapa litar menyebabkan masa jalan Rustiq melonjak. Pencilan ini sangat mempengaruhi purata masa jalan, jadi median mungkin merupakan ringkasan yang lebih mewakili untuk Rustiq. Transpiler berkuasa AI adalah yang paling perlahan daripada tiga kaedah, dengan masa jalan yang berkembang dengan ketara pada litar yang lebih besar dan lebih kompleks.
Keputusan litar cermin
Eksperimen litar cermin mengesahkan trend yang dijangka: kaedah yang menghasilkan kedalaman dua-Qubit yang lebih rendah dan gate yang lebih sedikit mencapai ketepatan yang lebih tinggi di bawah hingar. Ini berlaku pada kedua-dua simulator berising (berskala kecil) dan perkakasan sebenar (berskala besar).
Ingat bahawa setiap plot litar cermin mencerminkan satu litar, bukan agregat. Contoh perkakasan di atas menggunakan satu litar tfim 26-Qubit, yang kebetulan merupakan kes di mana SABRE menghasilkan kedalaman dua-Qubit yang jauh lebih tinggi daripada transpiler berkuasa AI dan Rustiq, jadi ketepatannya jauh lebih rendah. Ini tidak mewakili keputusan keseluruhan: merentasi set penuh litar berskala besar, kedalaman dua-Qubit SABRE biasanya hampir dengan transpiler berkuasa AI, dan kedua-dua kaedah masing-masing memimpin pada metrik yang berbeza (transpiler berkuasa AI pada kedalaman dua-Qubit, SABRE pada bilangan gate dan masa jalan). Satu keputusan cermin menguji versi berganda satu litar dan bukannya beban kerja penuh, jadi ia tidak boleh dibaca sebagai keputusan tentang kualiti keseluruhan kaedah.
Cadangan
Tiada satu strategi transpilasi terbaik untuk semua litar. Pilihan terbaik bergantung pada struktur litar, matlamat pengoptimuman, dan belanjawan masa kompilasi yang tersedia:
- SABRE adalah lalai yang disyorkan. Ia pantas dan boleh dipercayai, dan menghasilkan keputusan yang kukuh merentasi pelbagai jenis litar. Untuk penalaan lanjut, pengguna boleh meningkatkan percubaan susunan dan penghalaan (lihat tutorial pengoptimuman SABRE).
- Transpiler berkuasa AI patut dicuba apabila masa kompilasi bukan kekangan, terutamanya apabila meminimumkan kedalaman dua-Qubit adalah keutamaan: ia menghasilkan kedalaman dua-Qubit terendah pada kebanyakan litar berskala besar dalam penanda aras ini.
- Rustiq dibina khas untuk litar
PauliEvolutionGatedan boleh menemui penyelesaian berkedalaman rendah dan bilangan gate rendah, terutamanya pada litar yang lebih kecil. Pada litar yang lebih besar ia kadangkala boleh menghasilkan keputusan yang jauh lebih besar, jadi penggunaannya adalah terbaik sebagai salah satu daripada beberapa kaedah untuk dicuba dan bukannya sebagai lalai.
Dalam praktik, pendekatan terbaik adalah menjalankan semua kaedah yang tersedia dan memilih hasil terbaik untuk setiap litar. Overhed kompilasi daripada mencuba beberapa kaedah adalah kecil berbanding potensi peningkatan dalam kualiti pelaksanaan pada perkakasan sebenar.
Langkah seterusnya
Jika anda mendapati tutorial ini berguna, anda mungkin berminat dengan yang berikut:
Rujukan
[1] "LightSABRE: A Lightweight and Enhanced SABRE Algorithm". H. Zou, M. Treinish, K. Hartman, A. Ivrii, J. Lishman et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08368
[2] "Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with Reinforcement Learning". D. Kremer, V. Villar, H. Paik, I. Duran, I. Faro, J. Cruz-Benito et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13196
[3] "Pauli Network Circuit Synthesis with Reinforcement Learning". A. Dubal, D. Kremer, S. Martiel, V. Villar, D. Wang, J. Cruz-Benito et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14448
[4] "Faster and shorter synthesis of Hamiltonian simulation circuits". T. Goubault de Brugiere, S. Martiel et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03280