On Post-Processing the Results of Quantum Optimizers

The use of quantum computing for applications involving optimization has been regarded as one of the areas it may prove to be advantageous (against classical computation). To further improve the quality of the solutions, post-processing techniques are often used on the results of quantum optimization. One such recent approach is the Multi Qubit Correction (MQC) algorithm by Dorband. In this paper, we will discuss and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this technique. Then based on our discussion, we perform an experiment on how pairing heuristics on the input of MQC can affect the results of a quantum optimizer and a comparison between MQC and the built-in optimization method that D-wave Systems offers. Among our results, we are able to show that the built-in post-processing rarely beats MQC in our tests. We hope that by using the ideas and insights presented in this paper, researchers and developers will be able to make a more informed decision on what kind of post-processing methods to use for their quantum optimization needs.

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

[2]  Velimir V. Vesselinov,et al.  Nonnegative/Binary matrix factorization with a D-Wave quantum annealer , 2017, PloS one.

[3]  Nicholas Chancellor,et al.  Modernizing quantum annealing using local searches , 2016, 1606.06833.

[4]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring , 1994, Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  J. Houdayer,et al.  A cluster Monte Carlo algorithm for 2-dimensional spin glasses , 2001 .

[6]  John E. Dorband,et al.  A Method of Finding a Lower Energy Solution to a QUBO/Ising Objective Function , 2018, ArXiv.

[7]  Bikas K. Chakrabarti,et al.  Quantum Spin Glasses, Annealing and Computation , 2017 .

[8]  van Aernout Enter.  Statistical Mechanics, A Short Treatise , 2000 .

[9]  Thierry Paul,et al.  Quantum computation and quantum information , 2007, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[10]  Óscar Promio Muñoz.  Quantum Annealing in the transverse Ising Model , 2018 .

[11]  Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi,et al.  A coherent Ising machine for 2000-node optimization problems , 2016, Science.

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

[13]  Steffen L. Lauritzen,et al.  Bayesian updating in causal probabilistic networks by local computations , 1990 .

[14]  Toshiyuki Miyazawa,et al.  Physics-Inspired Optimization for Quadratic Unconstrained Problems Using a Digital Annealer , 2018, Front. Phys..

[15]  Lov K. Grover.  Quantum Mechanics Helps in Searching for a Needle in a Haystack , 1997, quant-ph/9706033.

[16]  H. Markowitz.  The Elimination form of the Inverse and its Application to Linear Programming , 1957 .

[17]  Gili Rosenberg,et al.  Boosting quantum annealer performance via sample persistence , 2016, Quantum Inf. Process..

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

[19]  G. W. Greenwood,et al.  Finding solutions to NP problems: philosophical differences between quantum and evolutionary search algorithms , 2000, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[20]  Firas Hamze,et al.  Erratum: Glassy Chimeras could be blind to quantum speedup: Designing better benchmarks for quantum annealing machines (Phys. Rev. X 4, 021008 (2014)) , 2015 .

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

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

[23]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  A study of heuristic guesses for adiabatic quantum computation , 2008, Quantum Inf. Process..

[24]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Dynamics of reverse annealing for the fully connected p -spin model , 2018, Physical Review A.

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

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

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

[28]  Helmut G. Katzgraber,et al.  Effective optimization using sample persistence: A case study on quantum annealers and various Monte Carlo optimization methods , 2017, Physical review. E.

[29]  Andrew J. Ochoa,et al.  Feeding the multitude: A polynomial-time algorithm to improve sampling. , 2018, Physical review. E.

[30]  David Von Dollen,et al.  Traffic Flow Optimization Using a Quantum Annealer , 2017, Front. ICT.

[31]  Toshiyuki Miyazawa,et al.  Physics-inspired optimization for constraint-satisfaction problems using a digital annealer , 2018, ArXiv.

[32]  Firas Hamze,et al.  Glassy Chimeras could be blind to quantum speedup: Designing better benchmarks for quantum annealing machines , 2014, 1401.1546.

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

[34]  John E. Dorband.  Stochastic Characteristics of Qubits and Qubit chains on the D-Wave 2X , 2016, ArXiv.

[35]  John E. Dorband,et al.  Extending the D-Wave with support for Higher Precision Coefficients , 2018, ArXiv.

[36]  Daniel O'Malley.  An approach to quantum-computational hydrologic inverse analysis , 2018, Scientific Reports.