Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths

We construct a set of instances of 3SAT which are not solved efficiently using the simplestquantum adiabatic algorithm. These instances are obtained by picking randomclauses all consistent with two disparate planted solutions and then penalizing one ofthem with a single additional clause. We argue that by randomly modifying the beginningHamiltonian, one obtains (with substantial probability) an adiabatic path thatremoves this difficulty. This suggests that the quantum adiabatic algorithm should ingeneral be run on each instance with many different random paths leading to the problemHamiltonian. We do not know whether this trick will help for a random instance of3SAT (as opposed to an instance from the particular set we consider), especially if theinstance has an exponential number of disparate assignments that violate few clauses.We use a continuous imaginary time Quantum Monte Carlo algorithm in a novel way tonumerically investigate the ground state as well as the first excited state of our system.Our arguments are supplemented by Quantum Monte Carlo data from simulations withup to 150 spins.

[1]  Fisher,et al.  Critical behavior of random transverse-field Ising spin chains. , 1995, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.

[2]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation? , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing.

[3]  Edward Farhi,et al.  HOW TO MAKE THE QUANTUM ADIABATIC ALGORITHM FAIL , 2005 .

[4]  Vadim N. Smelyanskiy,et al.  On the relevance of avoided crossings away from quantum critical point to the complexity of quantum adiabatic algorithm , 2010, ArXiv.

[5]  I. S. Tupitsyn,et al.  Exact quantum Monte Carlo process for the statistics of discrete systems , 1996, cond-mat/9612091.

[6]  T. Hogg Adiabatic Quantum Computing for Random Satisfiability Problems , 2002, quant-ph/0206059.

[7]  A. Young,et al.  Size dependence of the minimum excitation gap in the quantum adiabatic algorithm. , 2008, Physical review letters.

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

[9]  H. Katzgraber,et al.  Ground-state statistics from annealing algorithms: quantum versus classical approaches , 2009 .

[10]  Daniel S. Fisher,et al.  DISTRIBUTIONS OF GAPS AND END-TO-END CORRELATIONS IN RANDOM TRANSVERSE-FIELD ISING SPIN CHAINS , 1998 .

[11]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation , 2004, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[12]  V. Choi,et al.  First-order quantum phase transition in adiabatic quantum computation , 2009, 0904.1387.

[13]  Hidetoshi Nishimori,et al.  Ground-state statistics from annealing algorithms: quantum versus classical approaches , 2008, 0808.0365.

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

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

[16]  Jérémie Roland,et al.  Adiabatic quantum optimization fails for random instances of NP-complete problems , 2009, ArXiv.

[17]  F. Krzakala,et al.  Path-integral representation for quantum spin models: Application to the quantum cavity method and Monte Carlo simulations , 2008, 0807.2553.

[18]  E. Farhi,et al.  Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithms with Different Paths , 2002, quant-ph/0208135.

[19]  Martin Horvat,et al.  Exponential complexity of an adiabatic algorithm for an NP-complete problem , 2006 .