Path-integral quantum Monte Carlo simulation with open-boundary conditions

The tunneling decay event of a metastable state in a fully connected quantum spin model can be simulated efficiently by path integral quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) [Isakov $et~al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 117}$, 180402 (2016).]. This is because the exponential scaling with the number of spins of the thermally-assisted quantum tunneling rate and the Kramers escape rate of QMC are identical [Jiang $et~al.$, Phys. Rev. A ${\bf 95}$, 012322 (2017).], a result of a dominant instantonic tunneling path. In Ref. [1], it was also conjectured that the escape rate in open-boundary QMC is quadratically larger than that of conventional periodic-boundary QMC, therefore, open-boundary QMC might be used as a powerful tool to solve combinatorial optimization problems. The intuition behind this conjecture is that the action of the instanton in open-boundary QMC is a half of that in periodic-boundary QMC. Here, we show that this simple intuition---although very useful in interpreting some numerical results---deviates from the actual situation in several ways. Using a fully connected quantum spin model, we derive a set of conditions on the positions and momenta of the endpoints of the instanton, which remove the extra degrees of freedom due to open boundaries. In comparison, the half-instanton conjecture incorrectly sets the momenta at the endpoints to zero. We also found that the instantons in open-boundary QMC correspond to quantum tunneling events in the symmetric subspace (maximum total angular momentum) at all temperatures, whereas the instantons in periodic-boundary QMC typically lie in subspaces with lower total angular momenta at finite temperatures. This leads to a lesser than quadratic speedup at finite temperatures. We also outline the generalization of the instantonic tunneling method to many-qubit systems without permutation symmetry using spin-coherent-state path integrals.

[1]  Jérémie Roland,et al.  Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Erio Tosatti,et al.  Optimization by quantum annealing: lessons from hard satisfiability problems. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits , 2013, Nature Physics.

[4]  H. Nishimori,et al.  Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model , 1998, cond-mat/9804280.

[5]  Masoud Mohseni,et al.  Computational Role of Collective Tunneling in a Quantum Annealer , 2014 .

[6]  Evgeny Andriyash,et al.  Can quantum Monte Carlo simulate quantum annealing , 2017, 1703.09277.

[7]  Ian Affleck,et al.  Quantum Statistical Metastability , 1981 .

[8]  Rosenbaum,et al.  Quantum annealing of a disordered magnet , 1999, Science.

[9]  H. Evertz,et al.  The loop algorithm , 2003 .

[10]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Defining and detecting quantum speedup , 2014, Science.

[11]  R. Car,et al.  Theory of Quantum Annealing of an Ising Spin Glass , 2002, Science.

[12]  M. W. Johnson,et al.  Thermally assisted quantum annealing of a 16-qubit problem , 2013, Nature Communications.

[13]  Matthew B. Hastings,et al.  Obstructions to classically simulating the quantum adiabatic algorithm , 2013, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[14]  E. Tosatti,et al.  Optimization using quantum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution , 2006 .

[15]  M. Troyer,et al.  Quantum versus classical annealing of Ising spin glasses , 2014, Science.

[16]  P. Anderson,et al.  Application of statistical mechanics to NP-complete problems in combinatorial optimisation , 1986 .

[17]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem , 2001, Science.

[18]  Aram Wettroth Harrow,et al.  Simulated Quantum Annealing Can Be Exponentially Faster Than Classical Simulated Annealing , 2016, 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[19]  V. Bapst,et al.  On quantum mean-field models and their quantum annealing , 2012, 1203.6003.

[20]  H. Neven,et al.  Understanding Quantum Tunneling through Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[21]  Kostyantyn Kechedzhi,et al.  Open system quantum annealing in mean field models with exponential degeneracy , 2015, 1505.05878.

[22]  A. Young,et al.  First-order phase transition in the quantum adiabatic algorithm. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[23]  Itay Hen,et al.  Exponential Complexity of the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm for certain Satisfiability Problems , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  E. Tosatti,et al.  Quantum annealing of the traveling-salesman problem. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  H. Neven,et al.  Scaling analysis and instantons for thermally assisted tunneling and quantum Monte Carlo simulations , 2016, 1603.01293.

[26]  A. Larkin,et al.  Quantum tunneling with dissipation , 1983 .

[27]  D. Averin,et al.  Macroscopic resonant tunneling in the presence of low frequency noise. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[28]  Catherine C. McGeoch,et al.  Benchmarking a quantum annealing processor with the time-to-target metric , 2015, 1508.05087.