skip to main content
10.1145/3489517.3530402acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A fast and scalable qubit-mapping method for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an efficient qubit-mapping method that redesigns a quantum circuit to overcome the limitations of qubit connectivity. We propose a recursive graph-isomorphism search to generate the scalable initial mapping. In the main mapping, we use an adaptive look-ahead window search to resolve the connectivity constraint within a short runtime. Compared with the state-of-the-art method [15], our proposed method reduced the number of additional gates by 23% on average and the runtime by 68% for the three largest benchmark circuits. Furthermore, our method improved circuit stability by reducing the circuit depth and thus can be a step forward towards fault tolerance.

References

  1. Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. 2002. Quantum computation and quantum information. (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Peter W Shor. 1999. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM review, 41, 2, 303--332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lov K Grover. 1996. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proc. of STOC, 212--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Benjamin P Lanyon, James D Whitfield, Geoff G Gillett, Michael E Goggin, Marcelo P Almeida, Ivan Kassal, Jacob D Biamonte, Masoud Mohseni, Ben J Powell, Marco Barbieri, et al. 2010. Towards quantum chemistry on a quantum computer. Nature chemistry, 2, 2, 106--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlos A Pérez-Delgado and Pieter Kok. 2011. Quantum computers: definition and implementations. Physical Review A, 83, 1, 012303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chris Lomont. 2004. The hidden subgroup problem-review and open problems. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0411037.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. IBM. 2019. IBM Q Experience Device. https://www.reasearch.ibm.com/ibm-q/technology/experience/ [Online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. 2019. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574, 7779, 505--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. IBM. 2019. Cramming more power into a quantum device. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/03/power-quantum-device/ [Online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2, 79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Marcos Yukio Siraichi, Vinícius Fernandes dos Santos, Caroline Collange, and Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira. 2018. Qubit allocation. In Proc. CGO, 113--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Robert Wille, Lukas Burgholzer, and Alwin Zulehner. 2019. Mapping quantum circuits to ibm qx architectures using the minimal number of swap and h operations. In Proc. DAC. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Toshinari Itoko, Rudy Raymond, Takashi Imamichi, and Atsushi Matsuo. 2020. Optimization of quantum circuit mapping using gate transformation and commutation. Integration, 70, 43--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2019. Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices. In Proc. ASPLOS, 1001--1014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Pengcheng Zhu, Zhijin Guan, and Xueyun Cheng. 2020. A dynamic look-ahead heuristic for the qubit mapping problem of nisq computers. IEEE TCAD, 39, 12, 4721--4735.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Alireza Shafaei, Mehdi Saeedi, and Massoud Pedram. 2014. Qubit placement to minimize communication overhead in 2d quantum architectures. In Proc. ASPDAC. IEEE, 495--500.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Siyuan Niu, Adrien Suau, Gabriel Staffelbach, and Aida Todri-Sanial. 2020. A hardware-aware heuristic for the qubit mapping problem in the nisq era. IEEE TQE, 1, 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Chi Zhang, Yanhao Chen, Yuwei Jin, Wonsun Ahn, Youtao Zhang, and Eddy Z Zhang. 2020. A depth-aware swap insertion scheme for the qubit mapping problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alwin Zulehner, Alexandru Paler, and Robert Wille. 2018. An efficient methodology for mapping quantum circuits to the ibm qx architectures. IEEE TCAD, 38, 7, 1226--1236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. James A McHugh. 1990. Algorithmic graph theory. Volume 68056. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. László Babai. 2016. Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time. In Proc. STOC, 684--697.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    DAC '22: Proceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
    July 2022
    1462 pages
    ISBN:9781450391429
    DOI:10.1145/3489517

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 August 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,770of5,499submissions,32%

    Upcoming Conference

    DAC '24
    61st ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
    June 23 - 27, 2024
    San Francisco , CA , USA

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader