Quantum Artificial Life in an IBM Quantum Computer
U. Alvarez-Rodriguez,1, ∗ M. Sanz,1 L. Lamata,1 and E. Solano1, 2, 3

arXiv:1711.09442v1 [quant-ph] 26 Nov 2017

1

Department of Physical Chemistry, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Apartado 644, 48080 Bilbao, Spain
2
IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Maria Diaz de Haro 3, 48013, Bilbao, Spain
3
Department of Physics, Shanghai University, 200444 Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
(Dated: November 28, 2017)
We present the first experimental realization of a quantum artificial life algorithm in a quantum computer. The quantum biomimetic protocol encodes tailored quantum behaviors belonging
to living systems, namely, self-replication, mutation, interaction between individuals, and death,
into the cloud quantum computer IBM ibmqx4. In this experiment, entanglement spreads throughout generations of individuals, where genuine quantum information features are inherited through
genealogical networks. As a pioneering proof-of-principle, experimental data fits the ideal model
with accuracy. Thereafter, these and other models of quantum artificial life, for which no classical
device may predict its quantum supremacy evolution, can be further explored in novel generations
of quantum computers. Quantum biomimetics, quantum machine learning, and quantum artificial
intelligence will move forward hand in hand through more elaborate levels of quantum complexity.

Introduction

As described by Deutsch, a quantum computer is a device that intends to fulfill the Deutsch-Church-Turing principle,
namely, to efficiently simulate a finitely realizable physical system in the framework of quantum mechanics [1]. In this
context, quantum supremacy would be reached when a quantum processor outperforms classical computers realizing
a given task. Along these lines, several proposals to achieve quantum supremacy for a variety of quantum algorithms
and quantum simulations have been proposed [2–7].
The keyword “quantum” has overflowed the limits to which was initially constrained and, currently, incessantly
spreads through the interdisciplinary scientific literature. Indeed, it is a source of inspiration for the breeding extensions of already existing models with their quantum counterparts [8–10]. Besides the appealing intellectual exercise,
this hybridization is often motivated by a plausible improvement in the conditions and enhancement in the efficiency
of the developed protocols. From all possible ramifications, including quantum machine learning and quantum artificial intelligence, our research in quantum biomimetics is concerned with the design of a framework for quantum
algorithms based on the imitation of biological processes, belonging to the macroscopic classical complexity, and
brought down by design to the microscopic quantum realm [11–17]. There may not always be a neat analogy between
the physical models underlying our protocols and those used to describe real biological systems, but our proposed
effective dynamics only partially aims at emulating core aspects of the mimicked process. From a wide perspective in
the history of arts and science, close imitation is a natural first layer and wish in the aesthetic process. In this sense,
plain simulation is a valid and fruitful engineering playground, where analogies abound and serve as communicating
vessels between unconnected fields. Our central goal in quantum simulations and quantum computing is to go beyond
it, through a higher creativity challenge, in the search of a second layer of a major art.
In the particular scenario of artificial life, simple models of organisms are able to undergo most common stages
of life in a controlled virtual environment [18–20]. When extending this to the quantum realm, particularities of
quantum physics, such as its limitation to linear dynamics, the no-cloning theorem, or the exponentially growing
dimensionality of Hilbert spaces, play a relevant role. The quantum artificial life protocol we have engineered and
implemented goes beyond the straightforward quantization of existing classical models. In this sense, and with similar
spirit of other contributions [21–24], it is noteworthy to mention that we leave open the question whether the origin
of life is genuinely quantum mechanical. What we prove here is that microscopic quantum systems can efficiently
encode quantum features and biological behaviours, usually associated with living systems and natural selection.
In this article, we report the first experimental implementation of a model for quantum artificial life [13] into a
quantum computer. To this end, we make use of the facilities provided by the IBM ibmqx4 quantum computing
chip [25]. This work should be aligned with the ramping developments in classical and quantum machine learning
and artificial intelligence: the development of algorithms and devices with the capacity to interpret and mimic human
behaviors in order to solve useful problems and improve the interaction with human beings. Along these lines, we may

∗ Electronic

address: unaialvarezr@gmail.com

2
foresee a future in which these idealized machines hybridize the knowledge in machine learning, artificial intelligence,
and artificial life, with an internal structure and dynamics following the laws of quantum physics, as is already
happening in the classical domain [26].
Results

We begin with a brief description of the model for quantum artificial life [13], whose most important elements are
the quantum living units or individuals. Each of them is expressed in terms of two qubits that we call genotype
and phenotype. The genotype contains the information describing the type of living unit, an information that
is transmitted from generation to generation. The state of the phenotype is determined by two factors: the genetic
information and the interaction between the individual and its environment. This state, together with the information
it encodes, is degraded during the lifetime of the individual.
The goal of the proposed model is to reproduce the characteristic processes of Darwinian evolution, adapted to the
language of quantum algorithms and quantum computing. The self-replication mechanism is based on two partial
quantum cloning events, an operation that entangles either the genotype or the phenotype with a blank state and
copies a certain expectation value of the original qubit in both of the outcome qubits. In this set of experiments,
the self-replication consists in duplicating the expectation value of σz in the genotype, in a blank state that will be
transformed in the genotype of the individual in the next generation [12]. The process is completed by copying again
σz of the new genotype in another blank state that will be transformed in the phenotype of the new individual. The
next subprotocol in the algorithm is the interaction between the individuals and the environment, which emulates the
aging of living units until an asymptotic state that represents its death. This evolution is encoded in a dissipative
dynamics that couples a bath with each of the phenotype qubits, with σ = |0ih1| as Lindblad operator. The effective
lifetime, i.e., the time the phenotype needs to arrive to the dark state of the Lindbladian up to a given error, depends
implicitly on the genotype. The protocol also accounts for mutations, performed via random single qubit rotations in
the genotype qubits or via errors in the self-replication process [13]. The final ingredient is the interaction between
individuals, which conditionally exchange the phenotypes depending on the genotypes [13]. This behavior is achieved
via a four-qubit unitary operation, where genotypes and phenotypes play the role of control and target qubits,
respectively. The conjunction of these components leads to a minimal but consistent Darwinian quantum scenario.
The protocol may be enriched when including spatial information, either quantum or classical, or increasing the model
complexity by considering a larger set of observables.
The first step for this implementation is to express each of the building blocks of the previous paragraph in terms
of the quantum gates available in the superconducting circuit architecture of IBM cloud quantum computer [25].
Since we have selected σz as the observable to clone, every partial quantum cloning event requires the realization of
a UCNOT gate, that can be directly performed in the experiment. Regarding the interaction with the environment,
we have adapted our protocol, because the experimental device does not allow to realize a conditional projection of
the quantum state to the |0i in the phenotypes. The alternative we propose is to implement the transition between
the basis states as a sequence of small rotations in σy for the phenotype qubits, e−iσy θ , with θ tuned according to the
duration of each simulated time step. This type of rotation can be realized in the experiment via the u3 (θ, φ, λ) gate,


cos θ2
−eiλ sin θ2
u3 (θ, φ, λ) =
,
eiφ sin θ2 ei(φ+λ) cos θ2
with u3 (θ, 0, 0). The same gate acting on genotype qubits can be used for the mutation events. Ideally, and in order
to emulate their randomness both in the phase θ and in the presence or absence of the event, we could design the
experimental runs following a classical program. For making the procedure tractable, we could discretize the range of
θ in n values, and divide the total experimental runs in n + 1 groups to account for each of the different possibilities.
The weight, or number of runs for each group, would depend on our selection for the mutation rate as well as on the
random parameters obtained with the external program. However, constrained by the flexibility of the experimental
device, we propose a less realistic but pragmatic procedure: assume that the mutations will only be of a specific θ,
and therefore eliminate a source of randomness and diversity in the protocol. The single-qubit gate accounting for
the mutations will be σx . Regarding the randomness in the presence or absence of mutation events, we will have to
adapt our algorithm to perform the mutations in groups of 1024 experimental runs, and achieve the mutation rate
accordingly. The last subprotocol, the inter-individual interactions, requires the implementation of the interaction
gate UI , whose effect is to exchange two pairs of quantum levels, while leaving the rest unaltered, as UI |xxyyi = |xyyxi
and UI |xyyxi = |xxyyi, for {x, y} ∈ {0, 1}. The challenge is to decompose UI in terms of the gates offered by the
†
experimental setup. Our solution is given by UI = S23 U12 (1 ⊗ F )U12 S23 , with F = U43 C34 C24 U23 C34
U43 U23 . Here,
the first and second subindices denote the control and target qubit respectively, U is the controlled-not gate, S is the

3
SWAP gate and C is the controlled square root of not gate. These can be rewritten in terms of the controlled-not √
gate
√
as Sij = Uij Uji Uij and C12 = (T ⊗ P u3 (−π/4, 0, 0))U12 (1 ⊗ u3 (π/4, 0, 0))U12 (1 ⊗ P † ), with P = σz and T = P .
An additional relation to point out is that the control target behavior in the controlled-not gate can be exchanged by
introducing Hadamard gates, U21 = (H ⊗ H)U12 (H ⊗ H). This is a useful formula for designing the quantum circuit
in an experimental platform that only allows a single direction for the implementation of the UCNOT .
A.

Experiments

Interaction between two individuals. We start with a quantum circuit designed for reproducing the dynamics
of two interacting individuals. Two precursor genotypes are initialized in |ψig1 = cos π8 |0i + sin π8 |1i and |ψig2 =
3π
cos 3π
8 |0i + sin 8 |1i with u3 . Afterwards, both individuals are completed by copying the genotype qubits in blank
3π
states via UCNOT gate, |ψi1 = cos π8 |00i + sin π8 |11i and |ψi2 = cos 3π
8 |00i + sin 8 |11i. In terms of θ1 = π/8 and
θ2 = 3π/8, the complete state, |ψ1 i ⊗ |ψ2 i, reads
|ψi = cos θ1 cos θ2 |0000i + cos θ1 sin θ2 |0011i + sin θ1 cos θ2 |1100i + sin θ1 sin θ2 |1111i.
We now apply the interaction gate UI to conclude this building block,
UI |ψi = cos θ1 cos θ2 |0000i + cos θ1 sin θ2 |0110i + sin θ1 cos θ2 |1001i + sin θ1 sin θ2 |1111i.
Notice that the interaction fully exchanges the phenotypes, hσz i2 and hσz i4 , that are now equal to the opposite
genotype, hσz i1 = cos2 θ1 − sin2 θ1 = hσz i4 and hσz i3 = cos2 θ2 − sin2 θ2 = hσz i2 .
The experiment is planned to reduce the total errors induced by the use of two-qubit gates. Consequently, we have
reordered the initial Hilbert space |g1 p1 g2 p2 i, where gi is genotype and pi is phenotype, as |p2 g2 p1 g1 i and assigned
each of these qubits to the experimental ones |Q0 Q1 Q2 Q3 i. See Fig. 1 for the remaining quantum circuit diagram.

|0i0

|0i1 3/4
|0i2

H

H

H

H

H

H S

H

H

1/4

1/4,0,1

1/4

-1/4

T+
T

1/4

-1/4 0,-1/2

H

0,3/4

H

H

H

H

H

|0i3 1/4
FIG. 1: Quantum circuit diagram for the protocol of two interacting individuals. The solid and dashed line in the gates denote
u2 (φ, λ) and u3 (θ, φ, λ), where the phase is indicated in units of π.

p√
√
The results, in Table I, agree with the ideal case with a 71.58% fidelity according to F (ρ1 , ρ2 ) = Tr
ρ1 ρ2 ρ1 [27],
computed with the data provided by the experiment when measuring in the computational basis. Therefore, this result
is valid, but not equivalent to the one that is expected when the complete wave function is considered, which is hindered
by the use of full tomography. The expectation values extracted from the data show a reasonable overlap between p1
and g2 , as expected, and a considerable distance between g1 and p2 .
Basis Element 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
Measured events 1104 338 647 542 693 355 2687 519 104 144 114 1
99 132 261 353
Predicted events 1012 0
0
0
0
0 5896 0
0 174 0
0
0
0
0 1012
TABLE I: Interaction between two individuals. Number of measurements for every element of the four-qubit basis. The
experimental values for hσz i are (0.70,-0.26,-0.27,0.41) while the ideal values are (0.71,-0.71,-0.71,0.71). Notice that the mapping
of reordering the qubits has been inverted to achieve the results in the |g1 p1 g2 p2 i basis.

Interaction with the environment. In this round of experiments we test the combination of partial quantum cloning
events and dissipation. A precursor genotype is initialized in |ψig1 = cos π3 |0i + sin π3 |1i, and the individual completed
with a first partial quantum cloning event via UCNOT and a blank state, |ψi1 = cos π3 |00i + sin π3 |11i. Then, a
single qubit rotation, u3 (π/8, 0, 0), is applied in the phenotype, that substitutes the dissipation in a discrete manner,

4
losing its exponential character. The course of time is simulated by this gate, by implementing one of them for every
simulated time step. Subsequently, a second individual is created in a complete self-replication event with two partial
quantum cloning operations. To conclude, u3 (π/8, 0, 0) is implemented again on both genotypes associated with a
next time step. We assign the Hilbert space of the simulating device as |Q0 Q1 Q2 Q4 i → |p2 g2 g1 p1 i to maximize the
efficiency of the protocol. See Fig. 2 for the quantum circuit diagram. The results, shown in Table II, account for
similar probability distributions between the ideal and the real data with a fidelity of 91.18%, as before computed
only for the computational basis.

|0i0

1/8

|0i1
|0i2
|0i4

2/3
1/4

FIG. 2: The initialization of a genotype before three partial quantum cloning events. The first of these will produce an initial
individual and the remaining two will replicate it into a second one. The protocol continues with single-qubit gates that emulate
the dissipation. The squares denote U3 (θ, φ, λ) gates where the number indicates the value of θ.

Basis element 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
Measured events 1491 103 42 224 387 46 31 249 67 91 108 916 149 354 439 3495
Predicted events 1682 66
0
0 288 11
0
0
0
0
34 866 0
0 200 5045
TABLE II: Self-replication and interaction with the environment in the σz basis. Number of measurements for every
element of the four-qubit basis. The experimental values for hσz i are (-0.37,-0.26,-0.34,-0.34) while the ideal values are (-0.5,0.35,-0.5,-0.46). Notice that the mapping of reordering the qubits has been inverted to achieve the results in the |g1 p1 g2 p2 i
basis.

For the self-replication instance, there is an additional property of the model that only arises when measuring some
purely quantum correlations of the system. The partial quantum cloning operation entangles the qubits which are
involved on it, transmitting hσx i of the original state into hσx ⊗ σx i. Note that this data can be extracted from the
experiment when measuring on the σx basis, which is done by introducing a Hadamard gate in every entry before
projecting. Therefore, one has to compute hσz ⊗ σz ⊗ σz ⊗ σz i in the new basis, to retrieve hσx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx i. This
technique is based on the equality Tr[σx ρ] = Tr[σz HρH], since σx = Hσz H. Even if the calculation for the fidelity
yields a satisfactory 93.45%, the value of hσx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx i still shows a sizable error with respect to the ideal one,
as we show in Table III.
Basis element 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
Measured events 753 246 277 52 448 747 569 513 343 493 616 177 717 679 345 749
Predicted events 624 1
77 547 157 1150 704 603 77 547 624 1 704 603 157 1150
TABLE III: Self-replication and interaction with the environment in the σx basis. Number of measurements for every
element of the four-qubit basis rotated to σx . The experimental value for hσx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx ⊗ σx i is 0.22 while the ideal value is
0.56. Again, the qubits have been reordered to coincide with the ideal results in the |g1 p1 g2 p2 i basis.

The implementation of mutations requires to combine the outcome of different designs of quantum circuit diagrams
and, therefore, experimental runs. In this case, we consider that a mutation event, which can affect both individuals,
is simulated with a σx . The complete result is achieved when gathering data from 4 different groups of experiments,
that correspond to the cases of mutation on the first genotype, mutation on the second genotype, mutation on both
genotypes, and no mutation. We have performed 1024 experimental runs for each of the three cases with mutations
and 8192 runs for the no-mutation rate. These results have been combined with the ones shown in Table II, that
coincide with the no-mutation case, with the goal of reducing the mutation rate for each individual, which takes a

5
final value of 2/19. See Table IV for the measured data with a fidelity of 94.86% with respect to the ideal case in the
σz basis.
Basis element 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
Measured events 3201 282 385 447 1344 217 541 494 235 608 297 2026 464 1509 946 6325
Predicted events 3466 137 309 12 1174 46 622 25 12 303 76 1930 26 659 401 10123
TABLE IV: Self-replication, interaction with the environment and mutations. Number of measurements for every
element of the four-qubit basis rotated to σx . The experimental values for hσz i are (-0.28,-0.23,-0.19,-0.23) while the ideal
values are (-0.40,-0.35,-0.40,-0.37). The experimental basis is also permuted to coincide with the ideal results in the |g1 p1 g2 p2 i
basis.

I

IV

a

b

c

-1

1

d

FIG. 3: Visualization of the ideal processes in experiments I and IV. We depict the individuals as combinations of two diamonds
that represent the genotype and phenotype qubits. The color in the genotype qubit, the upper diamond of each pair, depends
on the value of σz as indicated in the color bar. The color in the phenotype qubit is the same as in the genotype one, as the color
is meant to be showing the genetic information. Moreover, the opacity of this color is modified according to the expectation
value of σz being limited by the value of 1 that corresponds to the blank qubits. In both cases the right arrow separates
two consecutive time steps. Following these clarifications, we can see the exchange of phenotypes in I, and the self-replication
followed by different mutation possibilities in IV.

Realization of the complete model of quantum artificial life. The last round of experiments is devoted to the
reproduction of the aggregate of properties in the quantum artificial life algorithm. In order to maintain the fidelity
in values that allow us to claim that the experiment is indeed behaving according to the protocol, we restrict our
analysis to the case of two interacting individuals, which undergo mutations and dissipation. Then, the quantum
circuit diagram, shown in Fig. 4, is an upgraded version of the one shown in Fig. 1 that includes u3 (π/8, 0, 0) for
simulating the dissipation in the phenotypes. For the mutations, we follow the same strategy as in the previous
subsection, combining the data generated with different quantum circuit diagrams each of them emulating a specific
case of the presence or absence of mutation instances. In particular, 3 rounds of 8192 runs emulating the no-mutation
case and 1024 runs for each of the mutation cases determine a mutation rate of 2/27. The post-processing of the data,
in Table V, matches the ideal probability distribution in the computational basis with a fidelity of 93.94%.

6

|0i0

1/8

|0i1 3/4
|0i2

1/8

H

H

H

H

H

H S

H

H

1/4

1/4

1/4,0,1

-1/4

1/4

T+

-1/4 0,-1/2

H

0,3/4

H

T

1/8
H

H

H

H

1/8

|0i4 1/4
FIG. 4: Quantum circuit diagram for the complete quantum artificial life protocol. The squares with dashed and solid lines
represent u2 (φ, λ) and u3 (θ, φ, λ) single-qubit gates, respectively. The rotation angles are expressed in radians.

Basis element 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111
Measured events 3449 1598 2656 2053 2361 298 6369 2166 521 500 629 529 594 692 656 1146
Predicted events 2221 924 2221 410 410 251 12401 2207 237 410 237 838 584 251 410 2207
TABLE V: Complete model. Number of measurements for every element of the four-qubit basis rotated to σx . The
experimental values for hσz i are (0.60,-0.09,-0.24,0.31) while the ideal values are (0.60,-0.43,-0.60,0.43). The experimental basis
is also permuted to coincide with the ideal results in the |g1 p1 g2 p2 i basis.

0.8

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.6

0.4
0.2

IV

0.5

0.05

0

Basis element

V

0.4

Probability

Probability

III

0.1

Basis element

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1
0

0.15

0.6

0

Basis element

II

Probability

I

Probability

Probability

0.8

0

Basis element

Basis element

FIG. 5: Experimental and ideal probability distributions for all the cases analyzed. In each pair of columns the blue one in the
left denotes the experimental value while the yellow one in the right denotes the ideal estimation. The labels in the subplots
correspond to the tables for the different quantum artificial life instances.

Discussion

Regarding errors in the experimental protocol, even if the fidelities achieved are satisfactory, they do not correspond
to the fidelities of the complete quantum state. In this sense, the prediction for the number of events to measure is
done by simply multiplying the probability distribution by the number of events. These do not exactly match the
experimental data (see Table VI for all experimental outcomes). Indeed, the distances have to be properly weighed,

7
since the probability distribution is the key quantity to be extracted (see Fig. 5). Moreover, the overlap between
expectation values of observables in the measurement basis is lower than the fidelity of the probability distribution
for all cases analyzed here.

I
II
III
IVa
IVb
IVc
IVd
Va
Vb
Vc
Vd
Ve
Vf

0000
1104
1491
753
1511
136
39
24
1032
1087
1046
7
219
58

0001
338
103
246
121
14
28
16
422
414
445
6
269
42

0010
647
42
277
46
3
149
145
756
863
871
48
62
56

0011
542
224
52
201
14
7
1
594
696
631
45
63
24

0100
693
387
448
395
542
13
7
737
697
723
47
74
83

0101
355
46
747
86
32
34
19
51
44
46
5
87
65

0110
2687
31
569
27
9
46
428
2121
2076
2056
24
44
48

0111
519
249
513
213
6
3
23
731
692
634
61
27
21

1000
104
67
343
102
12
22
32
88
107
111
99
27
89

1001
144
91
493
192
29
137
159
109
107
114
89
15
66

1010
114
108
616
162
16
6
5
132
134
154
119
15
75

1011
1
916
177
984
122
2
2
113
97
148
122
7
42

1100
99
149
717
215
17
68
15
99
99
97
39
28
232

1101
132
354
679
635
12
444
64
179
191
162
48
57
55

1110
261
439
345
478
1
16
12
186
188
192
35
12
43

1111
353
3495
749
2824
5
1
0
383
304
348
68
18
25

TABLE VI: Experimental data. The rows denote the number of events in each of the elements of the computational basis for
all the instances considered. For the composite experiments, in order to retrieve the measurements shown in previous tables,
one has to add all the events in each of the individual runs. In the particular case of IV, the data in II also contributes to the
final result.

In parallel, the assignment between the simulated and the simulating Hilbert spaces is designed to maximize the
fidelity according to the calibration parameters provided by IBM. Nevertheless, the recalibration of the circuit changes
the gate and readout errors, so we reevaluate our circuit according to the new parameters and adapt it when the
fidelity outcome can be improved with a different labeling of qubits. Consequently, the performance of the different
experiments is not directly comparable, since they have been implemented under unequal conditions.
Despite the different factors degrading the implementation, the performed experiments reproduce the characteristic
properties of the sought quantum natural selection scenario. We have observed how the partial quantum cloning events
allow us to inherit the information of hσz i from qubit to qubit, and use this property to encode the self-replication
process. We have also seen how nonzero quantum correlations assure that both individuals have been part of a same
event in their timelines, in this case self-replication. Another relevant characteristic of the analysis is the inclusion
of mutations as a source of randomness that, counterintuitively, significantly improved the fidelity of the quantum
algorithm outcome. Our explanation is that mutations tend to homogenize the probability distribution, which is the
same effect as the one produced by the errors naturally present in the experimental platform. Surprisingly, in the
classical realm, mutations also help the species to adapt to changing environments.
This experimental realization of the proposed quantum algorithm represents the consolidation of the theoretical
framework of quantum artificial life. The improvement in scalable quantum computers will soon allow us for more
accurate quantum emulations with growing complexity towards quantum supremacy, even considering spatial variables
for the individuals and a mechanism for tracing out death living units. These future developments should lead towards
an autonomous character of the set of individuals, i.e., the evolution will be an intrinsic property of the system, and
the desired behavior will emerge without following the instructions of a previously designed quantum algorithm. In
this context, the system would be transformed into an intelligent source of quantum complexity whose evolutionary
plot for a large number of individuals may not be predicted classically and, consequently, has the capacity to produce
unexpected results when scaled up. An interesting question to address is to establish the relation existing between
the parameters defining the fundamental processes of the model, and the emergent multiqubit quantum state. Along
these lines, and following the frame of artificial life oriented genetic algorithms [28], we speculate about the idea of
channeling this complexity to encode optimization problems by tuning the self-replication, mutation and dissipation
rates that define the evolution. Furthermore, recent advances in quantum machine learning constitute a promising
material to work with in the study of algorithms combining the properties of both fields, pursuing the design of
intelligent and replicating quantum agents. Therefore, the creation of these quantum living units and their possible
applications are expected to have deep implications in the community of quantum simulation and quantum computing
in a variety of quantum platforms.
All in all, the experiments presented here entail the validation of quantum artificial life in the lab and, in particular,
in cloud quantum computers as that of IBM. Still another interesting step would be the development of autonomous

8
quantum devices following the theoretical and experimental results in quantum cellular automata [29, 30]. Our
quantum individuals are driven by an adaptation effort along the lines of a quantum Darwinian evolution, which
effectively transfer the quantum information through generations of larger multiqubit entangled states. We believe
that the presented results and vision, both in theory and experiments, should hoist this innovative research line as
one of the leading banners in the future of quantum technologies.

[1] D. Deutsch, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. Roy. Soc. London
A 400, 97 (1985).
[2] R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
[3] D. Deutsch and R. Josza, Rapid solutions of problems by quantum computation, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 439, 553
(1992).
[4] L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, Proceedings, 28th Annual ACM Symposium on
the Theory of Computing (STOC) 212 (1996).
[5] S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
[6] P. W. Shor, Polynomial time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J.
Sci. Statist. Comput. 26, 1484 (1997).
[7] S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics, Proceedings, 43rd Annual AMC Symposium
on the Theory of Computing (STOC) 333 (2011).
[8] S. Wiesner, Conjugate coding, SIGACT News 15 78, (1983); C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography:
Public key distribution and coin tossing. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and
Signal Processing, volume 175, page 8. New York, 1984; A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bells theorem,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
[9] Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, Quantum random walks, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1687 (1993); N. Shenvi, J. Kempe,
and K. B. Whaley, Quantum random-walk search algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052307 (2003).
[10] J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature 549, 195
(2017); V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain, arXiv:1709.02779
(2017); M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, An introduction to quantum machine learning, Contemporary Phys. 56,
172 (2014); U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, L. Lamata, P. Escandell-Montero, J. D. Martı́n-Guerrero, and E. Solano, Supervised
Quantum Learning without Measurements, Scientific Reports 7, 13645 (2017); L. Lamata, Basic protocols in quantum
reinforcement learning with superconducting circuits, Scientific Reports 7, 1609 (2017).
[11] E. Schrödinger, What is life? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1944).
[12] U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, M. Sanz, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Biomimetic Cloning of Quantum Observables, Scientific Reports
4, 4910 (2014).
[13] U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, M. Sanz, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Artificial Life in Quantum Technologies, Scientific Reports 6,
20956 (2016).
[14] U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, R. Di Candia, J. Casanova, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Algorithmic quantum simulation of memory
effects, Phys. Rev. A 95, 020301 (2017) ; U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, A. Perez-Leija, I. L. Egusquiza, M. Gräfe, M. Sanz, L.
Lamata, A. Szameit, and E. Solano, Advanced-Retarded Differential Equations in Quantum Photonic Systems, Scientific
Reports 7, 42933 (2017).
[15] U. Las Heras, U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, E. Solano, and M. Sanz, Genetic Algorithms for Digital Quantum Simulations, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 116, 230504 (2016).
[16] P. Pfeiffer, I. L. Egusquiza, M. Di Ventra, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Quantum Memristors, Scientific Reports 6, 29507
(2016).
[17] J. Salmilehto, F. Deppe, M. Di Ventra, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Quantum Memristors with Superconducting Circuits,
Scientific Reports 7, 42044 (2017); M. Sanz, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Quantum Memristors in Quantum Photonics.
arXiv:1709.07808 (2017).
[18] C. G. Langton, Artificial Life: An overview (MIT Press, Cambridge USA, 1997).
[19] M. Gardner, The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game life, Sci. Am. 223, 120 (1970).
[20] T. S. Ray, Ecology and Optimization of Digital Organisms. Santa Fe Institute (1992). Available at:
http://samoa.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/92-08-042.pdf (Accessed: 10th October 2017).
[21] M. A. Martin-Delgado, On Quantum Effects in a Theory of Biological Evolution, Sci. Rep. 2, 302 (2012).
[22] D. Abbott, P. C. W. Davies, and A. K. Pati, Quantum Aspects of Life (Imperial College Press, London, 2008).
[23] P. Arrighi and J. Grattage, A Quantum Game of Life. Paper presented at Journées Automates Cellulaires, Turku, Finland
(2010, December 15).
[24] D. Bleh, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Quantum Game of Life. EPL 97, 20012 (2012).
[25] IBM Quantum Experience, https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/ (last accessed 10 October 2017).
[26] L. Steels, The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence, Artif. Life 1, 75 (1994).
[27] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
[28] M. Mitchell and S. Forrest, Genetic Algorithms and Artificial Life, Artif. Life 1, 267 (1994).

9
[29] C. S. Lent, P. D. Tougaw, W. Porod, and G. H. Bernstein, Quantum cellular automata, Nanotechnology, 4, 1 (1993).
[30] A. O. Orlov, I. Amlani, G. H. Bernstein, C. S. Lent, and G. L. Snider, Realization of a Functional Cell for Quantum-Dot
Cellular Automata, Science 277, 928 (1997); I. Amlani, A. O. Orlov, G. Toth, G. H. Bernstein, C. S. Lent, and G. L.
Snider, Digital Logic Gate Using Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata, Science 284, 289 (1999); R. P. Cowburn and M. E.
Welland, Room Temperature Magnetic Quantum Cellular Automata, Science 287, 1466 (2000); A. Imre, G. Csaba, L. Ji,
A. Orlov, G. H. Bernstein, and W. Porod, Majority Logic Gate for Magnetic Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata, Science
311, 205 (2006).

Acknowledgements

We thank Armando Pérez-Leija and Alexander Szameit for enthusiastic and enlightening discussions. We acknowledge the use of IBM Quantum Experience for this work. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect
the official policy or position of IBM or the IBM Quantum Experience team. We acknowledge support from Spanish
MINECO/FEDER FIS2015-69983-P, UPV/EHU new PhD program, Basque Government IT986-16, and Ramón y
Cajal Grant RYC-2012-11391.
Author Contributions

U. A.-R. performed the experiments on the IBM Quantum Experience. U. A.-R., M. S., L. L., and E. S. developed
the model and analyzed the data. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.
Additional Information

Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

