Simulated Quantum Annealing Can Be Exponentially Faster Than Classical Simulated Annealing

Can quantum computers solve optimization problems much more quickly than classical computers? One major piece of evidence for this proposition has been the fact that Quantum Annealing (QA) finds the minimum of some cost functions exponentially more quickly than classical Simulated Annealing (SA). One such cost function is the simple “Hamming weight with a spike” function in which the input is an n-bit string and the objective function is simply the Hamming weight, plus a tall thin barrier centered around Hamming weight n/4. While the global minimum of this cost function can be found by inspection, it is also a plausible toy model of the sort of local minima that arise in realworld optimization problems. It was shown by Farhi, Goldstone and Gutmann [1] that for this example SA takes exponential time and QA takes polynomial time, and the same result was generalized by Reichardt [2] to include barriers with width nζ and height nα for ζ + α ≤ 1/2. This advantage could be explained in terms of quantummechanical “tunneling.” Our work considers a classical algorithm known as Simulated Quantum Annealing (SQA) which relates certain quantum systems to classical Markov chains. By proving that these chains mix rapidly, we show that SQA runs in polynomial time on the Hamming weight with spike problem in much of the parameter regime where QA achieves an exponential advantage over SA. While our analysis only covers this toy model, it can be seen as evidence against the prospect of exponential quantum speedup using tunneling. Our technical contributions include extending the canonical path method for analyzing Markov chains to cover the case when not all vertices can be connected by low-congestion paths. We also develop methods for taking advantage of warm starts and for relating the quantum state in QA to the probability distribution in SQA. These techniques may be of use in future studies of SQA or of rapidly mixing Markov chains in general.

[1]  Erio Tosatti,et al.  Quantum annealing by the path-integral Monte Carlo method: The two-dimensional random Ising model , 2002 .

[2]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  What is the Computational Value of Finite Range Tunneling , 2015, 1512.02206.

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

[4]  S. Jordan,et al.  Adiabatic optimization versus diffusion Monte Carlo methods , 2016, 1607.03389.

[5]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[6]  Erio Tosatti,et al.  Optimization by quantum annealing: lessons from hard satisfiability problems. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  H. Neven,et al.  Scaling analysis and instantons for thermally assisted tunneling and quantum Monte Carlo simulations , 2016, 1603.01293.

[8]  Allan Sly,et al.  Dynamics of $(2+1)$-dimensional SOS surfaces above a wall: Slow mixing induced by entropic repulsion , 2012, 1205.6884.

[9]  J. Smolin,et al.  Classical signature of quantum annealing , 2013, Front. Phys..

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

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

[12]  H. Neven,et al.  Understanding Quantum Tunneling through Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[13]  Gareth O. Roberts,et al.  Convergence Properties of Perturbed Markov Chains , 1998, Journal of Applied Probability.

[14]  U. Vazirani,et al.  How "Quantum" is the D-Wave Machine? , 2014, 1401.7087.

[15]  L. A. Goldberg,et al.  Markov chain comparison , 2004, math/0410331.

[16]  Eric Vigoda,et al.  A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with nonnegative entries , 2004, JACM.

[17]  Martin E. Dyer,et al.  Mixing in time and space for lattice spin systems: A combinatorial view , 2002, International Workshop Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science.

[18]  Scott Kirkpatrick,et al.  Optimization by Simmulated Annealing , 1983, Sci..

[19]  László Babai,et al.  Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 2004, STOC 2004.

[20]  Sudip Chakravarty,et al.  Monte Carlo Simulation of Quantum Spin Systems , 1982 .

[21]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Tunneling and speedup in quantum optimization for permutation-symmetric problems , 2015, 1511.03910.

[22]  Barbara M. Terhal,et al.  Merlin-Arthur Games and Stoquastic Complexity , 2006, ArXiv.

[23]  Barbara M. Terhal,et al.  Complexity of Stoquastic Frustration-Free Hamiltonians , 2008, SIAM J. Comput..

[24]  E. M. Inack,et al.  Simulated quantum annealing of double-well and multiwell potentials. , 2015, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[26]  Cedric Yen-Yu Lin,et al.  Different Strategies for Optimization Using the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm , 2014, 1401.7320.

[27]  Matthew B. Hastings,et al.  Obstructions to classically simulating the quantum adiabatic algorithm , 2013, Quantum Inf. Comput..

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

[29]  Alistair Sinclair,et al.  Improved Bounds for Mixing Rates of Markov Chains and Multicommodity Flow , 1992, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[30]  E. Crosson,et al.  Tunneling through high energy barriers in simulated quantum annealing , 2014, 1410.8484.

[31]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[32]  H. Nishimori,et al.  Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model , 1998, cond-mat/9804280.

[33]  Seiji Miyashita,et al.  Monte Carlo Simulation of Quantum Spin Systems. I , 1977 .

[34]  David P. DiVincenzo,et al.  The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems , 2006, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[35]  M. Suzuki,et al.  Quantum statistical monte carlo methods and applications to spin systems , 1986 .

[36]  Edward Farhi,et al.  Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths , 2009, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[37]  Sergey Bravyi,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of stoquastic Hamiltonians , 2014, Quantum Inf. Comput..

[38]  Martin E. Dyer,et al.  Mixing in time and space for lattice spin systems: A combinatorial view , 2002, RANDOM.

[39]  Wim van Dam,et al.  Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of tunneling in quantum adiabatic optimization , 2016 .

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

[41]  Elizabeth L. Wilmer,et al.  Markov Chains and Mixing Times , 2008 .