Quantum computers and simulators may offer significant advantages over their classical counterparts, providing insights into quantum many-body systems and possibly improving performance for solving exponentially hard problems, such as optimization and satisfiability. Here, we report the implementation of a low-depth Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) using an analog quantum simulator. We estimate the ground-state energy of the Transverse Field Ising Model with long-range interactions with tunable range, and we optimize the corresponding combinatorial classical problem by sampling the QAOA output with high-fidelity, single-shot, individual qubit measurements. We execute the algorithm with both an exhaustive search and closed-loop optimization of the variational parameters, approximating the ground-state energy with up to 40 trapped-ion qubits. We benchmark the experiment with bootstrapping heuristic methods scaling polynomially with the system size. We observe, in agreement with numerics, that the QAOA performance does not degrade significantly as we scale up the system size and that the runtime is approximately independent from the number of qubits. We finally give a comprehensive analysis of the errors occurring in our system, a crucial step in the path forward toward the application of the QAOA to more general problem instances.
Quantum computational phase transition in combinatorial problems
Quantum Approximate Optimization algorithm (QAOA) aims to search for approximate solutions to discrete optimization problems with near-term quantum computers. As there are no algorithmic guarantee possible for QAOA to outperform classical computers, without a proof that bounded-error quantum polynomial time (BQP) ≠ nondeterministic polynomial time (NP), it is necessary to investigate the empirical advantages of QAOA. We identify a computational phase transition of QAOA when solving hard problems such as SAT—random instances are most difficult to train at a critical problem density. We connect the transition to the controllability and the complexity of QAOA circuits. Moreover, we find that the critical problem density in general deviates from the SAT-UNSAT phase transition, where the hardest instances for classical algorithms lies. Then, we show that the high problem density region, which limits QAOA’s performance in hard optimization problems (reachability deficits), is actually a good place to utilize QAOA: its approximation ratio has a much slower decay with the problem density, compared to classical approximate algorithms. Indeed, it is exactly in this region that quantum advantages of QAOA over classical approximate algorithms can be identified.
- Publication Date:
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10381676
- Journal Name:
- npj Quantum Information
- Volume:
- 8
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2056-6387
- Publisher:
- Nature Publishing Group
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c nmore »
-
Abstract Realizing the potential of near-term quantum computers to solve industry-relevant constrained-optimization problems is a promising path to quantum advantage. In this work, we consider the extractive summarization constrained-optimization problem and demonstrate the largest-to-date execution of a quantum optimization algorithm that natively preserves constraints on quantum hardware. We report results with the Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz algorithm with a Hamming-weight-preserving XY mixer (XY-QAOA) on trapped-ion quantum computer. We successfully execute XY-QAOA circuits that restrict the quantum evolution to the in-constraint subspace, using up to 20 qubits and a two-qubit gate depth of up to 159. We demonstrate the necessity of directly encoding the constraints into the quantum circuit by showing the trade-off between the in-constraint probability and the quality of the solution that is implicit if unconstrained quantum optimization methods are used. We show that this trade-off makes choosing good parameters difficult in general. We compare XY-QAOA to the Layer Variational Quantum Eigensolver algorithm, which has a highly expressive constant-depth circuit, and the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. We discuss the respective trade-offs of the algorithms and implications for their execution on near-term quantum hardware.
-
We introduce a notion of \emph{generic local algorithm} which strictly generalizes existing frameworks of local algorithms such as \emph{factors of i.i.d.} by capturing local \emph{quantum} algorithms such as the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). Motivated by a question of Farhi et al. [arXiv:1910.08187, 2019] we then show limitations of generic local algorithms including QAOA on random instances of constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Specifically, we show that any generic local algorithm whose assignment to a vertex depends only on a local neighborhood with o(n) other vertices (such as the QAOA at depth less than ϵlog(n)) cannot arbitrarily-well approximate boolean CSPs if the problem satisfies a geometric property from statistical physics called the coupled overlap-gap property (OGP) [Chen et al., Annals of Probability, 47(3), 2019]. We show that the random MAX-k-XOR problem has this property when k≥4 is even by extending the corresponding result for diluted k-spin glasses. Our concentration lemmas confirm a conjecture of Brandao et al. [arXiv:1812.04170, 2018] asserting that the landscape independence of QAOA extends to logarithmic depth -- in other words, for every fixed choice of QAOA angle parameters, the algorithm at logarithmic depth performs almost equally well on almost all instances. One of these concentration lemmas ismore »
-
The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) is a near-term hybrid algorithm intended to solve combinatorial optimization problems, such as MaxCut. QAOA can be made to mimic an adiabatic schedule, and in the p → ∞ limit the final state is an exact maximal eigenstate in accordance with the adiabatic theorem. In this work, the connection between QAOA and adiabaticity is made explicit by inspecting the regime of p large but finite. By connecting QAOA to counterdiabatic (CD) evolution, we construct CD-QAOA angles which mimic a counterdiabatic schedule by matching Trotter "error" terms to approximate adiabatic gauge potentials which suppress diabatic excitations arising from finite ramp speed. In our construction, these "error" terms are helpful, not detrimental, to QAOA. Using this matching to link QAOA with quantum adiabatic algorithms (QAA), we show that the approximation ratio converges to one at least as 1 − C ( p ) ∼ 1 / p μ . We show that transfer of parameters between graphs, and interpolating angles for p + 1 given p are both natural byproducts of CD-QAOA matching. Optimization of CD-QAOA angles is equivalent to optimizing a continuous adiabatic schedule. Finally, we show that, using a property of variational adiabatic gaugemore »
