Fidelity-based Deep Adiabatic Scheduling

Adiabatic quantum computation is a form of computation that acts by slowly interpolating a quantum system between an easy to prepare initial state and a final state that represents a solution to a given computational problem. The choice of the interpolation schedule is critical to the performance: if at a certain time point, the evolution is too rapid, the system has a high probability to transfer to a higher energy state, which does not represent a solution to the problem. On the other hand, an evolution that is too slow leads to a loss of computation time and increases the probability of failure due to decoherence. In this work, we train deep neural models to produce optimal schedules that are conditioned on the problem at hand. We consider two types of problem representation: the Hamiltonian form, and the Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) form. A novel loss function that scores schedules according to their approximated success probability is introduced. We benchmark our approach on random QUBO problems, Grover search, 3-SAT, and MAX-CUT problems and show that our approach outperforms, by a sizable margin, the linear schedules as well as alternative approaches that were very recently proposed.

[1]  H. Nishimori,et al.  Exponential Speedup of Quantum Annealing by Inhomogeneous Driving of the Transverse Field , 2018, 1801.02005.

[2]  R. H. Oppermann,et al.  Introductory quantum mechanics , 1939 .

[3]  Marco Lanzagorta,et al.  A QUBO Formulation of Minimum Multicut Problem Instances in Trees for D-Wave Quantum Annealers , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Demis Hassabis,et al.  Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search , 2016, Nature.

[5]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Quantum Bridge Analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models , 2018, 4OR.

[6]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits , 2013, Nature Physics.

[7]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Quantum adiabatic brachistochrone. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[8]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , 2015, ICML.

[9]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

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

[11]  Catherine C. McGeoch Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Quantum Annealing: Theory and Practice , 2014, Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Quantum Annealing: Theory and Practice.

[12]  Marko Znidaric Scaling of the running time of the quantum adiabatic algorithm for propositional satisfiability , 2005 .

[13]  D. McMahon Adiabatic Quantum Computation , 2008 .

[14]  Yu Chen,et al.  Optimizing Quantum Annealing Schedules: From Monte Carlo Tree Search to QuantumZero , 2020 .

[15]  Hayato Goto,et al.  Combinatorial optimization by simulating adiabatic bifurcations in nonlinear Hamiltonian systems , 2019, Science Advances.

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

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

[18]  Demis Hassabis,et al.  A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play , 2018, Science.

[19]  Sepp Hochreiter,et al.  Self-Normalizing Neural Networks , 2017, NIPS.