Bang-bang control as a design principle for classical and quantum optimization algorithms

Physically motivated classical heuristic optimization algorithms such as simulated annealing (SA) treat the objective function as an energy landscape, and allow walkers to escape local minima. It has been argued that quantum properties such as tunneling may give quantum algorithms advantage in finding ground states of vast, rugged cost landscapes. Indeed, the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm (QAO) and the recent Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) have shown promising results on various problem instances that are considered classically hard. Here, we argue that the type of control strategy used by the optimization algorithm may be crucial to its success. Along with SA, QAO and QAOA, we define a new, bang-bang version of simulated annealing, BBSA, and study the performance of these algorithms on two well-studied problem instances from the literature. Both classically and quantumly, the successful control strategy is found to be bang-bang, exponentially outperforming the quasistatic analogues on the same instances. Lastly, we construct O(1)-depth QAOA protocols for a class of symmetric cost functions, and provide an accompanying physical picture.

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

[2]  Hartmut Neven,et al.  Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors , 2018, 1802.06002.

[3]  Alan Mink,et al.  Diffusion Monte Carlo Versus Adiabatic Computation for Local Hamiltonians , 2017 .

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

[5]  M. Ruskai,et al.  Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation , 2006, quant-ph/0603175.

[6]  D. Mitra,et al.  Convergence and finite-time behavior of simulated annealing , 1985, 1985 24th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[7]  E. Farhi,et al.  Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithms versus Simulated Annealing , 2002, quant-ph/0201031.

[8]  W. V. Dam,et al.  Spectral-gap analysis for efficient tunneling in quantum adiabatic optimization , 2016, 1601.01720.

[9]  Claudio Chamon,et al.  Optimal control for unitary preparation of many-body states: application to Luttinger liquids. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[10]  Stochastic Relaxation , 2014, Computer Vision, A Reference Guide.

[11]  George A. Hagedorn,et al.  A note on the switching adiabatic theorem , 2012, 1204.2318.

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

[13]  N. Cerf,et al.  Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution , 2001, quant-ph/0107015.

[14]  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).

[15]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[16]  B. Gidas Nonstationary Markov chains and convergence of the annealing algorithm , 1985 .

[17]  Miss A.O. Penney (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[18]  M. Sipser,et al.  Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution , 2000, quant-ph/0001106.

[19]  Dominique Sugny,et al.  Towards the time-optimal control of dissipative spin-1/2 particles in nuclear magnetic resonance , 2011 .

[20]  M. L. Chambers The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes , 1965 .

[21]  Alan Mink,et al.  Diffusion Monte Carlo approach versus adiabatic computation for local Hamiltonians , 2017, 1709.03971.

[22]  E. Crosson,et al.  The performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm on spike Hamiltonians , 2015, 1511.06991.

[23]  Bruce E. Hajek,et al.  Cooling Schedules for Optimal Annealing , 1988, Math. Oper. Res..

[24]  Daniel Nagaj,et al.  Quantum speedup by quantum annealing. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[25]  Rupak Biswas,et al.  From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz , 2017, Algorithms.

[26]  Bernard Bonnard,et al.  A Review of Geometric Optimal Control for Quantum Systems in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance , 2012 .

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

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

[29]  Michael Broughton,et al.  A Universal Training Algorithm for Quantum Deep Learning , 2018, 1806.09729.

[30]  Ben Reichardt,et al.  The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima , 2004, STOC '04.

[31]  Herschel Rabitz,et al.  Quantum control landscapes , 2007, 0710.0684.

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

[33]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms , 2015, 1509.04279.

[34]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Quantum optimization , 2000, Inf. Sci..