Perils of embedding for sampling problems

Advances in techniques for thermal sampling in classical and quantum systems would deepen understanding of the underlying physics. Unfortunately, one often has to rely solely on inexact numerical simulation, due to the intractability of computing the partition function in many systems of interest. Emerging hardware, such as quantum annealers, provide novel tools for such investigations, but it is well known that studying general, non-native systems on such devices requires graph minor embedding, at the expense of introducing additional variables. The effect of embedding for sampling is more pronounced than for optimization; for optimization one is just concerned with the ground state physics, whereas for sampling one needs to consider states at all energies. We argue that as the system size or the embedding size grows, the chance of a sample being in the subspace of interest - the logical subspace - can be exponentially suppressed. Though the severity of this scaling can be lessened through favorable parameter choices, certain physical constraints (such as a fixed temperature and range of couplings) provide hard limits on what is currently feasible. Furthermore, we show that up to some practical and reasonable assumptions, any type of post-processing to project samples back into the logical subspace will bias the resulting statistics. We introduce a new such technique, based on resampling, that substantially outperforms majority vote, which is shown to fail quite dramatically at preserving distribution properties.

[1]  M. Benedetti,et al.  Estimation of effective temperatures in quantum annealers for sampling applications: A case study with possible applications in deep learning , 2015, 1510.07611.

[2]  M. W. Johnson,et al.  Phase transitions in a programmable quantum spin glass simulator , 2018, Science.

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

[4]  Rupak Biswas,et al.  Quantum-Assisted Learning of Hardware-Embedded Probabilistic Graphical Models , 2016, 1609.02542.

[5]  D. Landau,et al.  Efficient, multiple-range random walk algorithm to calculate the density of states. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[6]  Eleanor G. Rieffel,et al.  Thermalization, Freeze-out, and Noise: Deciphering Experimental Quantum Annealers , 2017, 1703.03902.

[7]  D. Landau,et al.  Determining the density of states for classical statistical models: a random walk algorithm to produce a flat histogram. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Quantum-assisted associative adversarial network: applying quantum annealing in deep learning , 2019, Quantum Machine Intelligence.

[9]  M. Amin Searching for quantum speedup in quasistatic quantum annealers , 2015, 1503.04216.

[10]  Vicky Choi,et al.  Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II. Minor-universal graph design , 2010, Quantum Inf. Process..

[11]  Walter Vinci,et al.  Quantum variational autoencoder , 2018, Quantum Science and Technology.

[12]  Yasunobu Nakamura,et al.  Boltzmann sampling from the Ising model using quantum heating of coupled nonlinear oscillators , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Steven H. Adachi,et al.  Application of Quantum Annealing to Training of Deep Neural Networks , 2015, ArXiv.

[14]  Joshua Job,et al.  Restricted Boltzmann Machines for galaxy morphology classification with a quantum annealer , 2019, ArXiv.

[15]  Itay Hen,et al.  Analog errors in Ising machines , 2018, Quantum Science and Technology.

[16]  Jack Raymond,et al.  Global Warming: Temperature Estimation in Annealers , 2016, Front. ICT.

[17]  Yasunobu Nakamura,et al.  Boltzmann sampling from the Ising model using quantum heating of coupled nonlinear oscillators , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[18]  E. Rieffel,et al.  Power of Pausing: Advancing Understanding of Thermalization in Experimental Quantum Annealers , 2018, Physical Review Applied.

[19]  A. Cavagna,et al.  Spin-glass theory for pedestrians , 2005, cond-mat/0505032.

[20]  S. Knysh,et al.  Quantum Optimization of Fully-Connected Spin Glasses , 2014, 1406.7553.

[21]  Vicky Choi,et al.  Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I. The parameter setting problem , 2008, Quantum Inf. Process..

[22]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Limitations of error corrected quantum annealing in improving the performance of Boltzmann machines , 2020, Quantum Science and Technology.

[23]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Analog errors in quantum annealing: doom and hope , 2019, npj Quantum Information.

[24]  Martin Weigel,et al.  Estimating the density of states of frustrated spin systems , 2018, New Journal of Physics.

[25]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Demonstration of a Scaling Advantage for a Quantum Annealer over Simulated Annealing , 2017, Physical Review X.

[26]  Roger Melko,et al.  Quantum Boltzmann Machine , 2016, 1601.02036.