Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCustomized quantum annealing schedules
73
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In a typical quantum annealing protocol, the system starts with a transverse field Hamiltonian which is gradually turned off and replaced by a longitudinal Ising Hamiltonian. The ground state of the Ising Hamiltonian encodes the solution to the computational problem of interest, and the state overlap with this ground state gives the success probability of the annealing protocol. The form of the annealing schedule can have a significant impact on the ground state overlap at the end of the anneal, so precise control over these annealing schedules can be a powerful tool for increasing success probabilities of annealing protocols. Here we show how superconducting circuits, in particular capacitively shunted flux qubits (CSFQs), can be used to construct quantum annealing systems by providing tools for mapping circuit flux biases to Pauli coefficients. We use this mapping to find customized annealing schedules: appropriate circuit control biases that yield a desired annealing schedule, while accounting for the physical limitations of the circuitry. We then provide examples and proposals that utilize this capability to improve quantum annealing performance.
rate research
Read More
New annealing schedules for quantum annealing are proposed based on the adiabatic theorem. These schedules exhibit faster decrease of the excitation probability than a linear schedule. To derive this conclusion, the asymptotic form of the excitation probability for quantum annealing is explicitly obtained in the limit of long annealing time. Its first-order term, which is inversely proportional to the square of the annealing time, is shown to be determined only by the information at the initial and final times. Our annealing schedules make it possible to drop this term, thus leading to a higher order (smaller) excitation probability. We verify these results by solving numerically the time-dependent Schrodinger equation for small size systems
Classical and quantum annealing are two heuristic optimization methods that search for an optimal solution by slowly decreasing thermal or quantum fluctuations. Optimizing annealing schedules is important both for performance and fair comparisons between classical annealing, quantum annealing, and other algorithms. Here we present a heuristic approach for the optimization of annealing schedules for quantum annealing and apply it to 3D Ising spin glass problems. We find that if both classical and quantum annealing schedules are similarly optimized, classical annealing outperforms quantum annealing for these problems when considering the residual energy obtained in slow annealing. However, when performing many repetitions of fast annealing, simulated quantum annealing is seen to outperform classical annealing for our benchmark problems.
Quantum annealing is a practical approach to execute the native instruction set of the adiabatic quantum computation model. The key of running adiabatic algorithms is to maintain a high success probability of evolving the system into the ground state of a problem-encoded Hamiltonian at the end of an annealing schedule. This is typically done by executing the adiabatic algorithm slowly to enforce adiabacity. However, properly optimized annealing schedule can accelerate the computational process. Inspired by the recent success of DeepMinds AlphaZero algorithm that can efficiently explore and find a good winning strategy from a large combinatorial search with a neural-network-assisted Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), we adopt MCTS and propose a neural-network-enabled version, termed QuantumZero (QZero), to automate the design of an optimal annealing schedule in a hybrid quantum-classical framework. The flexibility of having neural networks allows us to apply transfer-learning technique to boost QZeros performance. We find both MCTS and QZero to perform very well in finding excellent annealing schedules even when the annealing time is short in the 3-SAT examples we consider in this study. We also find MCTS and QZero to be more efficient than many other leading reinforcement leanring algorithms for the task of desining annealing schedules. In particular, if there is a need to solve a large set of similar problems using a quantum annealer, QZero is the method of choice when the neural networks are first pre-trained with examples solved in the past.
We present a general error-correcting scheme for quantum annealing that allows for the encoding of a logical qubit into an arbitrarily large number of physical qubits. Given any Ising model optimization problem, the encoding replaces each logical qubit by a complete graph of degree $C$, representing the distance of the error-correcting code. A subsequent minor-embedding step then implements the encoding on the underlying hardware graph of the quantum annealer. We demonstrate experimentally that the performance of a D-Wave Two quantum annealing device improves as $C$ grows. We show that the performance improvement can be interpreted as arising from an effective increase in the energy scale of the problem Hamiltonian, or equivalently, an effective reduction in the temperature at which the device operates. The number $C$ thus allows us to control the amount of protection against thermal and control errors, and in particular, to trade qubits for a lower effective temperature that scales as $C^{-eta}$, with $eta leq 2$. This effective temperature reduction is an important step towards scalable quantum annealing.
Quantum annealing is a generic name of quantum algorithms to use quantum-mechanical fluctuations to search for the solution of optimization problem. It shares the basic idea with quantum adiabatic evolution studied actively in quantum computation. The present paper reviews the mathematical and theoretical foundation of quantum annealing. In particular, theorems are presented for convergence conditions of quantum annealing to the target optimal state after an infinite-time evolution following the Schroedinger or stochastic (Monte Carlo) dynamics. It is proved that the same asymptotic behavior of the control parameter guarantees convergence both for the Schroedinger dynamics and the stochastic dynamics in spite of the essential difference of these two types of dynamics. Also described are the prescriptions to reduce errors in the final approximate solution obtained after a long but finite dynamical evolution of quantum annealing. It is shown there that we can reduce errors significantly by an ingenious choice of annealing schedule (time dependence of the control parameter) without compromising computational complexity qualitatively. A review is given on the derivation of the convergence condition for classical simulated annealing from the view point of quantum adiabaticity using a classical-quantum mapping.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
