The Quantum Approximation Optimization Algorithm for MaxCut: A Fermionic View

Farhi et al. recently proposed a class of quantum algorithms, the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA), for approximately solving combinatorial optimization problems. A level-p QAOA circuit consists of p steps; in each step a classical Hamiltonian, derived from the cost function, is applied followed by a mixing Hamiltonian. The 2p times for which these two Hamiltonians are applied are the parameters of the algorithm, which are to be optimized classically for the best performance. As p increases, parameter optimization becomes inefficient due to the curse of dimensionality. The success of the QAOA approach will depend, in part, on finding effective parameter-setting strategies. Here, we analytically and numerically study parameter setting for QAOA applied to MaxCut. For level-1 QAOA, we derive an analytical expression for a general graph. In principle, expressions for higher p could be derived, but the number of terms quickly becomes prohibitive. For a special case of MaxCut, the ring of disagrees, or the 1D antiferromagnetic ring, we provide an analysis for arbitrarily high level. Using a fermionic representation, the evolution of the system under QAOA translates into quantum control of an ensemble of independent spins. This treatment enables us to obtain analytical expressions for the performance of QAOA for any p. It also greatly simplifies numerical search for the optimal values of the parameters. By exploring symmetries, we identify a lower-dimensional sub-manifold of interest; the search effort can be accordingly reduced. This analysis also explains an observed symmetry in the optimal parameter values. Further, we numerically investigate the parameter landscape and show that it is a simple one in the sense of having no local optima.

[1]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Applied to a Bounded Occurrence Constraint Problem , 2014, 1412.6062.

[2]  Herschel A Rabitz,et al.  Quantum Optimally Controlled Transition Landscapes , 2004, Science.

[3]  H. Rabitz,et al.  Quantum Control Landscapes Are Almost Always Trap Free , 2016, 1608.06198.

[4]  Eleanor G. Rieffel,et al.  A QAOA-inspired circuit for Grover's unstructured search using a transverse field , 2017 .

[5]  H. Neven,et al.  Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices , 2016, Nature Physics.

[6]  John Preskill,et al.  Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier , 2012, 1203.5813.

[7]  E. Lieb,et al.  Two Soluble Models of an Antiferromagnetic Chain , 1961 .

[8]  Hartmut Neven,et al.  Optimizing Variational Quantum Algorithms using Pontryagin's Minimum Principle , 2016, ArXiv.

[9]  H. Rabitz,et al.  Role of controllability in optimizing quantum dynamics , 2009, 0910.4702.

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

[11]  M. Hastings,et al.  Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms , 2015, 1507.08969.

[12]  E. Rieffel,et al.  Near-optimal quantum circuit for Grover's unstructured search using a transverse field , 2017, 1702.02577.

[13]  M. Hastings,et al.  Training A Quantum Optimizer , 2016, 1605.05370.

[14]  Prasad Raghavendra,et al.  Beating the random assignment on constraint satisfaction problems of bounded degree , 2015, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[15]  H. Rabitz,et al.  Singularities of quantum control landscapes , 2009, 0907.2354.

[16]  Eytan Barouch,et al.  Statistical Mechanics of the XY Model. III , 1970 .