Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices

Recent technological developments have focused the interest of the quantum computing community on investigating how near-term devices could outperform classical computers for practical applications. A central question that remains open is whether their noise can be overcome or it fundamentally restricts any potential quantum advantage. We present a transparent way of comparing classical algorithms to quantum ones running on near-term quantum devices for a large family of problems that include optimization problems and approximations to the ground state energy of Hamiltonians. Our approach is based on the combination of entropic inequalities that determine how fast the quantum computation state converges to the fixed point of the noise model, together with established classical methods of Gibbs state sampling. The approach is extremely versatile and allows for its application to a large variety of problems, noise models and quantum computing architectures. We use our result to provide estimates for a variety of problems and architectures that have been the focus of recent experiments, such as quantum annealers, variational quantum eigensolvers, and quantum approximate optimization. The bounds we obtain indicate that substantial quantum advantages are unlikely for classical optimization unless the current noise rates are decreased by orders of magnitude or the topology of the problem matches that of the device. This is the case even if the number of qubits increases substantially. We reach similar but less stringent conclusions for quantum Hamiltonian problems.

[1]  K. Temme,et al.  Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing , 2012, 1207.3261.

[2]  Xiao Yuan,et al.  Variational quantum algorithms for discovering Hamiltonian spectra , 2018, Physical Review A.

[3]  Isaac H. Kim,et al.  Robust entanglement renormalization on a noisy quantum computer , 2017, 1711.07500.

[4]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor , 2013, Nature Communications.

[5]  Akram Youssry,et al.  Efficient online quantum state estimation using a matrix-exponentiated gradient method , 2018, New Journal of Physics.

[6]  Ying Li,et al.  Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[7]  Ashwin Nayak,et al.  Online learning of quantum states , 2018, NeurIPS.

[8]  A. Lucia,et al.  On the modified logarithmic Sobolev inequality for the heat-bath dynamics for 1D systems , 2019, Journal of Mathematical Physics.

[9]  Marcos Rigol,et al.  A short introduction to numerical linked-cluster expansions , 2012, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[10]  Steven R White,et al.  Minimally entangled typical quantum States at finite temperature. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[11]  J. Ignacio Cirac,et al.  Approximating Gibbs states of local Hamiltonians efficiently with projected entangled pair states , 2014, 1406.2973.

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

[13]  Andrew Lucas,et al.  Ising formulations of many NP problems , 2013, Front. Physics.

[14]  Michael M. Wolf,et al.  Quantum Subdivision Capacities and Continuous-Time Quantum Coding , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[15]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Adiabatic quantum computation , 2016, 1611.04471.

[16]  Saeed Mehraban,et al.  Classical algorithms, correlation decay, and complex zeros of partition functions of quantum many-body systems , 2020, STOC.

[17]  Raffaella Carbone,et al.  Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities in non-commutative algebras , 2015 .

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

[19]  Volkan Cevher,et al.  Scalable Semidefinite Programming , 2019, SIAM J. Math. Data Sci..

[20]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices , 2017, Quantum Science and Technology.

[21]  Patrick J. Coles,et al.  Variational quantum state diagonalization , 2018, npj Quantum Information.

[22]  John Napp,et al.  Low-Depth Gradient Measurements Can Improve Convergence in Variational Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms. , 2019, Physical review letters.

[23]  M. W. Johnson,et al.  Quantum annealing with manufactured spins , 2011, Nature.

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

[25]  Sébastien Bubeck,et al.  Convex Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 2014, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[26]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Solving large scale Max Cut problems via tabu search , 2013, J. Heuristics.

[27]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Test-driving 1000 qubits , 2017, Quantum Science and Technology.

[28]  F. Hadlock,et al.  Finding a Maximum Cut of a Planar Graph in Polynomial Time , 1975, SIAM J. Comput..

[29]  Ronen Eldan,et al.  A spectral condition for spectral gap: fast mixing in high-temperature Ising models , 2020, Probability Theory and Related Fields.

[30]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation , 2015, 1503.08767.

[31]  Ashley Montanaro,et al.  Achieving quantum supremacy with sparse and noisy commuting quantum computations , 2016, 1610.01808.

[32]  F. Verstraete,et al.  Matrix product density operators: simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[33]  Daniel Stilck França,et al.  Relative Entropy Convergence for Depolarizing Channels , 2015, 1508.07021.

[34]  S. Brierley,et al.  Accelerated Variational Quantum Eigensolver. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[35]  Fernando G. S. L. Brandão,et al.  Quantum Gibbs Samplers: The Commuting Case , 2014, Communications in Mathematical Physics.

[36]  B. Zegarliński,et al.  Hypercontractivity in Noncommutative LpSpaces , 1999 .

[37]  Scott Aaronson,et al.  Shadow tomography of quantum states , 2017, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[38]  M. B. Plenio,et al.  Upper bounds on fault tolerance thresholds of noisy Clifford-based quantum computers , 2008, 0810.4340.

[39]  P. Zoller,et al.  Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models , 2018, Nature.

[40]  Ronald de Wolf,et al.  Upper bounds on the noise threshold for fault-tolerant quantum computing , 2008, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[41]  Matthias Troyer,et al.  Optimised simulated annealing for Ising spin glasses , 2014, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[42]  R. Needs,et al.  Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids , 2001 .

[43]  Y. Peres,et al.  Markov Chains and Mixing Times: Second Edition , 2017 .

[44]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets , 2017, Nature.

[45]  Salman Beigi,et al.  Quantum Reverse Hypercontractivity: Its Tensorization and Application to Strong Converses , 2018, ArXiv.