Search for: All records

We compare the performance of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) with state-of-the-art classical solvers Gurobi and MQLib to solve the MaxCut problem on 3-regular graphs. We identify the minimum noiseless sampling frequency and depthprequired for a quantum device to outperform classical algorithms. There is potential for quantum advantage on hundreds of qubits and moderate depth with a sampling frequency of 10 kHz. We observe, however, that classical heuristic solvers are capable of producing high-quality approximate solutions in linear time complexity. In order to match this quality for large graph sizesN, a quantum device must support depthp > 11. Additionally, multi-shot QAOA is not efficient on large graphs, indicating that QAOAp ≤ 11 does not scale withN. These results limit achieving quantum advantage for QAOA MaxCut on 3-regular graphs. Other problems, such as different graphs, weighted MaxCut, and 3-SAT, may be better suited for achieving quantum advantage on near-term quantum devices. 

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 gauge potentials, QAOA is at least counterdiabatic, not just adiabatic, and has better performance than finite time adiabatic evolution. We demonstrate the method on three examples: a 2 level system, an Ising chain, and the MaxCut problem.