Classical algorithms and quantum limitations for maximum cut on high-girth graphs

We study the performance of local quantum algorithms such as the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) for the maximum cut problem, and their relationship to that of classical algorithms. 1. We prove that every (quantum or classical) one-local algorithm (where the value of a vertex only depends on its and its neighbors’ state) achieves on D-regular graphs of girth > 5 a maximum cut of at most 1/2+C/ √ D for C = 1/ √ 2 ≈ 0.7071. This is the first such result showing that one-local algorithms achieve a value that is bounded away from the true optimum for random graphs, which is 1/2 + P∗/ √ D + o(1/ √ D) for P∗ ≈ 0.7632 (Dembo, Montanari, and Sen, 2017). 2. We show that there is a classical k-local algorithm that achieves a value of 1/2 +C/ √ D− O(1/ √ k) for D-regular graphs of girth > 2k + 1, where C = 2/π ≈ 0.6366. This is an algorithmic version of the existential bound of Lyons (2017) and is related to the algorithm of Aizenman, Lebowitz, and Ruelle (1987) (ALR) for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. This bound is better than that achieved by the one-local and two-local versions of QAOA on high-girth graphs (Hastings, 2019; Marwaha, 2021). 3. Through computational experiments, we give evidence that the ALR algorithm achieves better performance than constant-locality QAOA for random D-regular graphs, as well as other natural instances, including graphs that do have short cycles. While our theoretical bounds require the locality and girth assumptions, our experimental work suggests that it could be possible to extend them beyond these constraints. This points at the tantalizing possibility that O(1)-local quantum maximum-cut algorithms might be pointwise dominated by polynomial-time classical algorithms, in the sense that there is a classical algorithm outputting cuts of equal or better quality on every possible instance. This is in contrast to the evidence that polynomial-time algorithms cannot simulate the probability distributions induced by local quantum algorithms. Harvard University, b@boazbarak.org. Supported by NSF award CCF 1565264, a Simons Investigator Fellowship, and DARPA grant W911NF2010021. Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation, marwahaha@berkeley.edu ar X iv :2 10 6. 05 90 0v 1 [ qu an tph ] 1 0 Ju n 20 21

[1]  D. W. Robinson,et al.  The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems , 1972 .

[2]  Adam Bouland,et al.  Noise and the frontier of quantum supremacy , 2021, ArXiv.

[3]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2014, 1411.4028.

[4]  P. Zhang,et al.  Simulating the Sycamore quantum supremacy circuits , 2021, 2103.03074.

[5]  D. Panchenko The Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model , 2013 .

[6]  I. Klich,et al.  Lieb-Robinson bounds for commutator-bounded operators , 2009, 0912.4544.

[7]  F. Brandão,et al.  Efficient classical simulation of random shallow 2D quantum circuits , 2019, ArXiv.

[8]  Subhash Khot,et al.  On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games , 2002, Proceedings 17th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity.

[9]  Johan Håstad,et al.  Some optimal inapproximability results , 2001, JACM.

[10]  Leo Zhou,et al.  Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices , 2018, Physical Review X.

[11]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations , 2015, Physical review letters.

[12]  David Steurer,et al.  Sum-of-squares proofs and the quest toward optimal algorithms , 2014, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[13]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  The computational complexity of linear optics , 2010, STOC '11.

[14]  D. Bacon,et al.  Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor , 2020, Nature Physics.

[15]  Andrea Montanari,et al.  Extremal Cuts of Sparse Random Graphs , 2015, ArXiv.

[16]  David Gamarnik,et al.  The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case , 2020, ArXiv.

[17]  Balázs Szegedy,et al.  Ramanujan graphings and correlation decay in local algorithms , 2013, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[18]  Igor L. Markov,et al.  Simulating Quantum Computation by Contracting Tensor Networks , 2008, SIAM J. Comput..

[19]  Nathan Linial,et al.  Locality in Distributed Graph Algorithms , 1992, SIAM J. Comput..

[20]  Andrea Montanari,et al.  Optimization of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Hamiltonian , 2018, 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[21]  M. Lukin,et al.  Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using Rydberg atom arrays , 2018, Science.

[22]  A. Harrow,et al.  Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2016, 1602.07674.

[23]  Dorit Aharonov,et al.  Fault-tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Error Rate * , 1999 .

[24]  Guy Kindler,et al.  Optimal inapproximability results for MAX-CUT and other 2-variable CSPs? , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[25]  L. Landau Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons , 2003 .

[26]  Howard J. Karloff,et al.  How good is the Goemans-Williamson MAX CUT algorithm? , 1996, STOC '96.

[27]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

[28]  U. Vazirani,et al.  On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling , 2018, Nature Physics.

[29]  Ryan O'Donnell,et al.  Noise stability of functions with low influences: Invariance and optimality , 2005, 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'05).

[30]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments , 2016, CCC.

[31]  D. Ruelle,et al.  Some rigorous results on the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass model , 1987 .

[32]  David Gamarnik,et al.  The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: Worst Case Examples , 2020, 2005.08747.

[33]  M. B. Hastings,et al.  Classical and quantum bounded depth approximation algorithms , 2019, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[34]  E. Knill,et al.  Resilient Quantum Computation , 1998 .

[35]  R. Jozsa,et al.  Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[36]  David P. DiVincenzo,et al.  Adaptive quantum computation, constant depth quantum circuits and arthur-merlin games , 2002, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[37]  Kunal Marwaha Local classical MAX-CUT algorithm outperforms p=2 QAOA on high-girth regular graphs , 2021, Quantum.

[38]  Dmitry Panchenko,et al.  Suboptimality of local algorithms for a class of max-cut problems , 2017, The Annals of Probability.

[39]  The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size. , 2019, 1910.08187.

[40]  J. Eisert,et al.  Architectures for quantum simulation showing a quantum speedup , 2017, 1703.00466.

[41]  Yiqing Zhou,et al.  What limits the simulation of quantum computers , 2020 .

[42]  Y. Peres,et al.  Broadcasting on trees and the Ising model , 2000 .

[43]  Jean B. Lasserre,et al.  Global Optimization with Polynomials and the Problem of Moments , 2000, SIAM J. Optim..

[44]  Boaz Barak,et al.  Spoofing Linear Cross-Entropy Benchmarking in Shallow Quantum Circuits , 2020, ITCS.

[45]  P. Parrilo Structured semidefinite programs and semialgebraic geometry methods in robustness and optimization , 2000 .

[46]  James B. Shearer,et al.  A Note on Bipartite Subgraphs of Triangle-Free Graphs , 1992, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[47]  Russell Lyons,et al.  Factors of IID on Trees , 2014, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[48]  Endre Csóka,et al.  Invariant Gaussian processes and independent sets on regular graphs of large girth , 2013, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[49]  Robert König,et al.  Quantum advantage with shallow circuits , 2017, Science.

[50]  David P. Williamson,et al.  Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming , 1995, JACM.

[51]  P. Franses,et al.  Form factors of baryons within the framework of light‐cone sum rules , 2007, 0708.0633.

[52]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer , 1995, SIAM Rev..

[53]  Stefan Schmid,et al.  Large Cuts with Local Algorithms on Triangle-Free Graphs , 2014, Electron. J. Comb..

[54]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond , 2018, Quantum.