Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAnalog Errors in Quantum Annealing: Doom and Hope
139
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Quantum annealing has the potential to provide a speedup over classical algorithms in solving optimization problems. Just as for any other quantum device, suppressing Hamiltonian control errors will be necessary before quantum annealers can achieve speedups. Such analog control errors are known to lead to $J$-chaos, wherein the probability of obtaining the optimal solution, encoded as the ground state of the intended Hamiltonian, varies widely depending on the control error. Here, we show that $J$-chaos causes a catastrophic failure of quantum annealing, in that the scaling of the time-to-solution metric becomes worse than that of a deterministic (exhaustive) classical solver. We demonstrate this empirically using random Ising spin glass problems run on the two latest generations of the D-Wave quantum annealers. We then proceed to show that this doomsday scenario can be mitigated using a simple error suppression and correction scheme known as quantum annealing correction (QAC). By using QAC, the time-to-solution scaling of the same D-Wave devices is improved to below that of the classical upper bound, thus restoring hope in the speedup prospects of quantum annealing.
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
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.
Recently, it was demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally on the D-Wave quantum annealer that transverse-field quantum annealing does not find all ground states with equal probability. In particular, it was proposed that more complex driver Hamiltonians beyond transverse fields might mitigate this shortcoming. Here, we investigate the mechanisms of (un)fair sampling in quantum annealing. While higher-order terms can improve the sampling for selected small problems, we present multiple counterexamples where driver Hamiltonians that go beyond transverse fields do not remove the sampling bias. Using perturbation theory we explain why this is the case. In addition, we present large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations for spin glasses with known degeneracy in two space dimensions and demonstrate that the fair-sampling performance of quadratic driver terms is comparable to standard transverse-field drivers. Our results suggest that quantum annealing machines are not well suited for sampling applications, unless post-processing techniques to improve the sampling are applied.
In order to treat all-to-all connected quadratic binary optimization problems (QUBO) with hardware quantum annealers, an embedding of the original problem is required due to the sparsity of the hardwares topology. Embedding fully-connected graphs -- typically found in industrial applications -- incurs a quadratic space overhead and thus a significant overhead in the time to solution. Here we investigate this embedding penalty of established planar embedding schemes such as minor embedding on a square lattice, minor embedding on a Chimera graph, and the Lechner-Hauke-Zoller scheme using simulated quantum annealing on classical hardware. Large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulation suggest a polynomial time-to-solution overhead. Our results demonstrate that standard analog quantum annealing hardware is at a disadvantage in comparison to classical digital annealers, as well as gate-model quantum annealers and could also serve as benchmark for improvements of the standard quantum annealing protocol.
Quantum annealers aim at solving non-convex optimization problems by exploiting cooperative tunneling effects to escape local minima. The underlying idea consists in designing a classical energy function whose ground states are the sought optimal solutions of the original optimization problem and add a controllable quantum transverse field to generate tunneling processes. A key challenge is to identify classes of non-convex optimization problems for which quantum annealing remains efficient while thermal annealing fails. We show that this happens for a wide class of problems which are central to machine learning. Their energy landscapes is dominated by local minima that cause exponential slow down of classical thermal annealers while simulated quantum annealing converges efficiently to rare dense regions of optimal solutions.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
