austen.uk/slides/new-rules-tum

Austen Lamacraft and Pieter Claeys

Each site either dead (0) or alive (1)

Fate of cell determined by eight neighbors

- Any live cell with two or three live neighbours survives
- Any dead cell with three live neighbours becomes a live cell
- All other live cells die in the next generation

Complex behavior!

Dynamical systems with discrete

*space*,*time*, and*degrees of freedom*Interesting for statistical physics:

- What kinds of dynamics may occur?
- How does dynamics determine thermodynamic behavior?

A quantum analog of CAs

Basis of “quantum supremacy” work by Google and others

What are the similarities and differences? Can we try the same tricks?

When is quantum dynamics harder?

What about measurements?

“Space” is one dimension with cells $x_n=0,1$ $n\in\mathbb{Z}$

Update cells every time step depending on cells in

**neighborhood**- Neighborhood is cell and two neighbors for elementary CA

- Update specified by function

$$ f:\{0,1\}^3\longrightarrow \{0,1\}. $$

$$ x^{t+1}_{n} = f(x^{t}_{n-1},x^{t}_{n},x^{t}_{n+1}) $$

- How many possible functions?

Domain of $f$ is $2^3=8$ possible values for three cells

$2^8=256$ possible choices for the function $f$

List outputs corresponding to inputs: 111, 110, … 000

111 | 110 | 101 | 100 | 011 | 010 | 001 | 000 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |

- Interpret as binary number: this one is Rule 110

- Many behaviors, from ordered (Rule 18) to chaotic (Rule 30)

- Rule 110 is capable of universal computation!

give each pixel a random Pokemon type, and then battle pixels against their neighbors, updating each pixel with the winning type (using the Pokemon type chart)

— Matt Henderson (@matthen2) July 2, 2022

we quickly see areas of fire > water > grass > fire, electric sweeping over, ground frontiers taking over etc etc pic.twitter.com/BHgQuKRApR

Notion of a causal “light cone” (45 degree lines)

Variety of possible behaviors: chaos, periodicity, …

- Rapid growth of small differences between two trajectories

- Smallest change: flip one site and monitor $z^t\equiv x^t\oplus y^t$

No exponential growth (c.f. Lyapunov exponent in continuous systems)

Track number of differences (Hamming distance) between trajectories

Propagating “front” cannot exceed “speed of light”: generally slower

No chance of solving the dynamics of any one CA

Looking for

*generic*properties: natural to consider*ensembles*- of initial conditions
- of rules

- Choose rules iid for each site and instant

Cell values are now white noise, but $z_t=x_t\oplus y_t$ revealing

Fluctuations of front are larger and average speed $<$ maximum

No elementary CAs are reversible (bijective)! Requires size 4 neighborhood

Reversibility is undecidable above one spatial dimension

$∃$ reversible constructions

- Fredkin construction

`$$ x^{t+1}_{n} = f(x^{t}_{n-1},x^{t}_{n},x^{t}_{n+1}) + x^{t-1}_{n},\, \mod 2 $$`

`$$ x^{t+1}_{n} = x^{t}_{n-1} x^{t-1}_{n} + x^{t}_{n+1} + x^{t}_{n-1}x^{t}_{n+1}\, \mod 2 $$`

- Interpret as “tiling rules”

- Random tilings consistent with constraint have entropy $\propto L$

- Partition cells into blocks (Margolus neighborhoods)
- Apply invertible mapping to block
- Alternate overlapping partitions

- Blue squares: invertible mapping on states of two sites: 00, 01, 10, 11

given these four jigsaw pieces, there is only one way to fill in the rest of the puzzle. The solution ends up drawing a Sierpinski triangle. Can you see why? pic.twitter.com/OvxVz2oehy

— Matt Henderson (@matthen2) May 25, 2022

Each block a permutation of 00, 01, 10, 11

$4!=24$ blocks

Order:

- (1234)
- (1243)
- (1324), and so on

Block 2 is the map $(00, 01, 10, 11) ⟶ (00, 10, 01, 11)$

Exchange, or SWAP gate in quantum information

- Ensemble of block CAs similar to PCA

Can we find an ensemble where front propagates at maximal speed?

Yes!

**Dual reversible**blocks are bijections in both time*and space*There are 12 such blocks (out of 24)

Ensemble is Markov in time

*and space*: must have maximal velocity!

For $N=2$ dynamics of $z_t=x_t\oplus y_t$ independent of $x_t$ (or $y_t$)

Recurrence time always $\propto L$ (instead of double exponential)

Edge corresponds to the stationary state of a Markov process (c.f. Claeys and Lamacraft (2020) for quantum case)

- Borsi and Pozsgay (2022) find 227 inequivalent dual reversible models

$$ (c,d) = f(a,b) = (a + b, a - b), \mod 3 $$

- Original dual unitary circuit from Hosur
*et al.* - Unusual behavior of recurrence time
- For $L = 2\times 3^m$ have $T_\text{recur}=2L$
- Borsi and Pozsgay prove using Fourier analysis over finite fields

Disjoint regions $A$ and $\bar A$: how much does one tell about the other?

Use mutual information: measure of dependence of random variables

Suggested in this context by Pizzi

*et al.*(2022)

MI defined as $$ I(X;Y) \equiv S(X) + S(Y) - S(X,Y) $$

- $S(X)$ is entropy of $p_X(x)$; marginal distribution of $X$
- $S(Y)$ is entropy of $p_Y(y)$; marginal distribution of $Y$
- $S(X,Y)$ is entropy of joint distribution $p_{(X,Y)}(x,y)$

Vanishes if $p_{(X,Y)}(x,y)=p_X(x)p_Y(y)$

- Suppose either $X=Y=1$ or $X=Y=0$, with equal probability

`$$ \begin{align} p_{(X,Y)}(0,0)&=p_{(X,Y)}(1,1)=1/2\\ p_{(X,Y)}(1,0)&=p_{(X,Y)}(0,1)=0 \end{align} $$`

$$ I(X;Y)=S(X) + S(Y) - S(X,Y)= 1+1-1=1 \text{ bit} $$

- Initial distribution factorizes over correlated pairs
- Apply SWAPs
- 1 bit MI for every pair with one member in $A$ and one in $\bar A$

$$ I(A;\bar A) = \min(4\lfloor t/2\rfloor, |A|) \text{ bits} $$

- $|A|$ is (even) number of sites in $A$

Total entropy conserved (c.f Liouville’s theorem)

Entropy of initial distribution is half max, but entropy $S(A)$ saturates at maximal value (thermalization in time $\sim |A|/2$)

This model is

*not so special!*Any of the dual reversible blocks CAs behaves*exactly the same!*

For reversibility and dual reversibility

- 8 sites share 4 bits of entropy

- After four steps increases to (maximum) 8 bits!

- 8 sites share 4 bits of entropy

- After two steps increases to 6 bits!

- Entropies of $A$ and $\bar A$ subsystems behave just as in the toy model

$$ I(A;\bar A) = \min(4\lfloor t/2\rfloor, |A|) \text{ bits} $$

- … for all dual reversible models!

`$$ \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Phi_{\tau}\left(\mathbf{S}_{1}, \mathbf{S}_{2}\right) &=\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}+\tau^{2}}\left(\sigma^{2} \mathbf{S}_{1}+\tau^{2} \mathbf{S}_{2}+\tau \mathbf{S}_{1} \times \mathbf{S}_{2}, \sigma^{2} \mathbf{S}_{2}+\tau^{2} \mathbf{S}_{1}+\tau \mathbf{S}_{2} \times \mathbf{S}_{1}\right) \\ \sigma^{2} &:=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathbf{S}_{1} \cdot \mathbf{S}_{2}\right) \end{aligned} \end{equation} $$`

- MI has exactly the same behavior!

CAs as dynamical systems: chaotic fronts and information dynamics

Dynamical ensembles as a theoretical tool

**How can we extend these ideas to quantum systems?**

Block CA | Quantum Circuit | |
---|---|---|

Basic unit | Invertible map | Unitary operator (gate) |

Local variable | $z_n \in \{0, 1\}$ | $\ket{\psi_n}\in \mathbb{C}^2$ |

Global state | $z \in \{0,1\}^N $ | $\ket{\Psi(t)}\in \mathbb{C}^{2^N}$ |

Simulation | Easy | Hard |

Model of universal quantum computation

Example of discrete time, many body quantum dynamics

**Everyone's doing it!**

$n$-qubit unitary has matrix elements $U_{x_1\ldots x_n,x’_1,\ldots, x’_n}$ in

*computational basis*$\ket{0}$, $\ket{1}$Unitarity means

$$ \sum_{x_1’\ldots x_N’}U_{x_1\ldots x_n,x’_1,\ldots, x’_n} U^\dagger_{x’_1\ldots x’_n,x’’_1,\ldots, x’’_n}=\delta_{x_1,x_1’’}\ldots \delta_{x_N,x_N’’}, $$

- But we’d like to avoid such awful looking expressions

- General state of $N$ qubits is

`$$ \ket{\Psi} = \sum_{x_{1:N}\in \{0,1\}^N} \Psi_{x_1\ldots x_N}\ket{x_1}_1\ket{x_2}_2\cdots \ket{x_N}_N $$`

Write $\ket{x_1}_1\ket{x_2}_2\cdots \ket{x_N}_N =\ket{x_1\cdots x_N}=\ket{x_{1:N}}$ for brevity

Operator on $N$ qubits has matrix elements

`$$ \mathcal{O}_{x_{1:N},x'_{1:N}} = \bra{x_{1:N}}\mathcal{O}\ket{x'_{1:N}} $$`

- Have
**causality**built in - Quantum analog of (block) CAs

Work in the basis $\ket{00}$, $\ket{01}$, $\ket{10}$, $\ket{11}$

Simplest example: SWAP gate

$$ \operatorname{SWAP}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} $$

- Switches states. Takes product state to product state

$$ \operatorname{SWAP}\ket{10} = \ket{01} $$

$$ \sqrt{\operatorname{SWAP}}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2}(1+i) & \frac{1}{2}(1-i) & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{2}(1-i) & \frac{1}{2}(1+i) & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}. $$

- Generates
*entanglement*(non product state)

$$ \sqrt{\operatorname{SWAP}}\ket{10} = \frac{1}{2}\left[(1+i)\ket{10}+(1-i)\ket{01}\right] $$

- $\sqrt{\operatorname{SWAP}}$ and single qubit unitaries are
**universal gate set**

- We need both $U$s and $U^\dagger$s (e.g. for $\mathcal{O}(t)=U^\dagger(t)\mathcal{O}U(t)$)

- Much better!

- Sampling from circuits basis of Google’s “quantum supremacy”

Normally matrix-vector multiplication is $O(\operatorname{dim}^2)=2^{2N}$

Gates are

*sparse*so $O(\operatorname{dim})=2^{N}$, but*still exponentially hard*For low depth $T<N$ move

*horizontally*instead

- Evaluate $\bra{\Psi}\mathcal{O}\ket{\Psi}=\bra{\Psi_0}\mathcal{U}^\dagger\mathcal{O}\mathcal{U}\ket{\Psi_0}$ for local $\mathcal{O}$

- After folding, lines correspond to two indices / 4 dimensions

- Circle denotes $\delta_{ab}$

- Emergence of “light cone”

- Expectation values in region $A$ evaluated using
*reduced density matrix*

$$ \rho_A = \operatorname{tr}_{\bar A}\left[\ket{\Psi}\bra{\Psi}\right]=\operatorname{tr}_{\bar A}\left[\mathcal{U}\ket{\Psi_0}\bra{\Psi_0}\mathcal{U}^\dagger\right] $$

$\rho_A$ very useful for quantifying

*entanglement*If

`$\ket{\Psi} = \ket{\psi}_A \otimes \ket{\phi}_{\bar A}$`

then $\rho_A = \ket{\psi}_A\bra{\psi}_A$`Any deviation from product state leads to

*mixed*density matrixQuantify by entropy of $\rho_A$ (the

**entanglement entropy**)

$$ S_A \equiv -\operatorname{tr}\left[\rho_A\log \rho_A\right]. $$

Each pair in Bell state

`$ \ket{\Phi^+}_{2n, 2n+1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\ket{0}_{2n}\ket{0}_{2n+1}+ \ket{1}_{2n}\ket{1}_{2n+1}\right] $`

Reduced density matrix for one member:

`$\operatorname{tr}_{2}\left[\ket{\Phi^+}_{12}\bra{\Phi^+}_{12}\right] = \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}_1$`

Entanglement entropy of 1 bit

For a Bell pair consisting of qubits at sites $m$ and $n$:

If $n\in A$, $m\in\bar A$, $\rho_A$ has factor $\mathbb{1}_n$.

If $m, n\in A$ they contribute a factor $\ket{\Phi^+}_{nm}\bra{\Phi^+}_{nm}$ (pure)

Only first case contributes to

`$ S_A = \min(4\lfloor t/2\rfloor, |A|) \text{ bits} $`

Just like mutual information in classical version!

- Exactly the same behavior for all unitaries satisfying

- c.f. dual reversible CAs

$4\times 4$ unitaries are 16-dimensional

Family of dual unitaries is 14-dimensional

Includes

*kicked Ising model*at particular values of couplingsDual unitaries not “integrable” but have enough structure to allow many calculations

- 8 sites; 4 layers

- $\rho_A$ is unitary transformation of

$$ \mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1} $$

- $\rho_A$ is unitary transformation of

$$ \mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1}\ket{\Phi^+}\bra{\Phi^+}\otimes\ket{\Phi^+}\bra{\Phi^+}\otimes\mathbb{1}\otimes\mathbb{1} $$

- RDM is unitary transformation of

$$ \rho_0=\overbrace{\frac{\mathbb{1}}{2}\otimes \frac{\mathbb{1}}{2} \cdots }^{t-1} \otimes\overbrace{\ket{\Phi^+}\bra{\Phi^+} \cdots }^{N_A/2-t+1 } \otimes \overbrace{\frac{\mathbb{1}}{2}\otimes \frac{\mathbb{1}}{2} \cdots }^{t-1} $$

RDM has $2^{\min(2t-2,N_A)}$ non-zero eigenvalues all equal to $\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\min(2t-2,N_A)}$

Converse – maximal entanglement growth implies dual unitary gates – recently proved by Zhou and Harrow (2022)

After $N_A/2 + 1$ steps, reduced density matrix is $\propto \mathbb{1}$

All expectations (with $A$) take on infinite temperature value

- Time dependent Hamiltonian with kicks at $t=0,1,2,\ldots$.

`$$ \begin{aligned} H_{\text{KIM}}(t) = H_\text{I}[\mathbf{h}] + \sum_{m}\delta(t-n)H_\text{K}\\ H_\text{I}[\mathbf{h}]=\sum_{j=1}^L\left[J Z_j Z_{j+1} + h_j Z_j\right],\qquad H_\text{K} &= b\sum_{j=1}^L X_j, \end{aligned} $$`

- “Stroboscopic” form of $U(t)=\mathcal{T}\exp\left[-i\int^t H_{\text{KIM}}(t’) dt’\right]$

`$$ \begin{aligned} U(n_+) &= \left[U(1_+)\right]^n,\qquad U(1_-) = K I_\mathbf{h}\\ I_\mathbf{h} &= e^{-iH_\text{I}[\mathbf{h}]}, \qquad K = e^{-iH_\text{K}} \end{aligned} $$`

`$$ \begin{aligned} \mathcal{K} &= \exp\left[-i b X\right]\\ \mathcal{I} &= \exp\left[-iJ Z_1 Z_2 -i \left(h_1 Z_1 + h_2 Z_2\right)/2\right]. \end{aligned} $$`

- Bertini, Kos, Prosen (2019) found that when $|J|=|b|=\pi/4$

$$ \lim_{L\to\infty} S_A =\min(2t-2,N_A)\log 2, $$

**Any $h_j$**; initial $Z_j$ product state

- Recall KIM has circuit representation

`$$ \begin{aligned} \mathcal{K} &= \exp\left[-i b X\right]\\ \mathcal{I} &= \exp\left[-iJ Z_1 Z_2 -i \left(h_1 Z_1 + h_2 Z_2\right)/2\right]. \end{aligned} $$`

- At $|J|=|b|=\pi/4$ model is dual unitary

($q=2$ here) Not satisfied by e.g. $\operatorname{SWAP}$

Maps product states to maximally entangled (Bell) states

Product initial states also work for KIM!

Heisenberg picture: $Z_n(t)=\mathcal{U}^\dagger(t)Z_n \mathcal{U}(t)$

Might use $Z_n(t)$ to evaluate correlation $\langle Z_n(t)Z_m(0) \rangle$

How does $Z_n(t)$

*look*?

Expand $Z_n(t)$ in products of local operators $X_m$, $Y_m$, $Z_m$, $\mathbb{1}_m$

Typical term

`$\sim \mathbb{1}_1\otimes \cdots X_{8}\otimes Y_{9} \otimes Z_{10}\cdots \otimes\mathbb{1}_N$`

$$ Z_n(t)= \sum_{\mu_{1:N}=\{0,1,2,3\}^N} \mathcal{C}_{\mu_{1:N}}(t) \sigma_1^{\mu_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes \sigma_N^{\mu_N},\qquad \sigma^\mu = (\mathbb{1},X,Y,Z) $$

As time progresses two things (tend to) increase:

- The number of sites $\neq\mathbb{1}$ (known as
**operator spreading**) - The number of different contributions (or
**operator entanglement**)

Operator spreading closely analogous to chaotic fronts in CAs

Introduce ensemble of random circuits. $\mathcal{C}_{\mu_{1:N}}(t)$ become random

Fluctuating signs mean $\langle Z_n(t)Z_m(0) \rangle$ will tend to average to zero

c.f. a single PCA trajectory appears as white noise

$$ \operatorname{OTOC}_{nm}(t) \equiv \langle Z_n(t)Z_m(0)Z_n(t)Z_m(0)\rangle. $$

- In terms of operator expansion

`$$ \operatorname{OTOC}_{nm}(t)\propto \sum_{\mu_{1:N}}\mathcal{C}_{\mu_{1:N}}^2(t)\left[\delta_{\mu_m,0}+\delta_{\mu_m,3}-\delta_{\mu_m,1}-\delta_{\mu_m,2}\right]. $$`

$\operatorname{OTOC}_{nm}(t)\neq 1$ when operator $Z_n(t)$ spreads from site $n$ to $m$

Characteristic speed of propagation is “butterfly velocity” $v_\text{B}$

OTOC quantum analog of bitstring differences $z_t=x_t\oplus y_t$ in CAs.

$\overline{\operatorname{OTOC}}$ can be expressed as a Markov process

Efficiently calculate using Monte Carlo simulations

**Aren't quantum computers supposed to do things that classical computers find hard?**

*Averaging*is what enables efficient classical algorithmsFor a

*given*circuit (no averaging),**no probabilistic interpretation**

Unitary evolution not the only game in town!

We can also

*measure*, which we expect to*reduce entanglement*Consider measurements with certain rate and density in space

$∃$ phase transition where entanglement vanishes at finite measurement rate (Y Li, X Chen, MPA Fisher (2019), B Skinner, J Ruhman, A Nahum (2019))

Alternative viewpoint: an initially mixed state is

*purified*by (strong enough) measurements (MJ Gullans, DA Huse (2020))

- All states purify, but on exponentially long times below transition

Interesting variation on PCA: choose output $1$ with probability $p$

$p\neq 1/2$ makes dynamics less

*one-to-one*. What happens?

For $0.25\lesssim p\lesssim 0.75$ front propagates to infinity

Outside this region, front dies out

In finite system two copies

*always*merge after exponentially long time (“bad luck”)

- If inputs differ, $z^{t+1}_n=1$ with probability $2p(1-p)$ (Derrida and Stauffer (1986))

- $z^{t+1}_{n}=1$ only if at least one of $z^t_{n\pm 1}=1$

Seek connected cluster of sites occupied with probability $x=2p(1-p)$

This is (site) directed percolation

$x\leq 1/2< x_\text{crit}\sim 0.706$ on square lattice: require NN neighbors

Similar phenomenon in coupled map lattices: “synchronization of extended chaotic systems”

Measurements purify state; analogous to non-injective rules in CA

It was a surprise that a mixed state survives finite measurement rate

But… a chaotic front survives non-injective rules (up to a point)

Analogous to

*forced*version of transition (Nahum*et al.*(2021))

Cellular Automata | Quantum Circuits | |
---|---|---|

Chaos diagonistic | Difference $z^t=x^t\oplus y^t$ | OTOC $\langle Z_n(t)Z_m(0)Z_n(t)Z_m(0)\rangle$ |

Spread of | Mutual information | Entanglement entropy |

Transition via | Non-injectivity | Measurements |

Ensemble | Random maps | Random unitaries |

[Links at austen.uk/slides/new-rules-tum]

Review on random circuits Andrew Potter, Romain Vasseur (2021)

Transition to chaos in CA closely linked to synchronization of extended chaotic systems