Qubit-efficient encoding schemes for binary optimisation problems

We propose and analyze a set of variational quantum algorithms for solving quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems where a problem consisting of $n_c$ classical variables can be implemented on $\mathcal O(\log n_c)$ number of qubits. The underlying encoding scheme allows for a systematic increase in correlations among the classical variables captured by a variational quantum state by progressively increasing the number of qubits involved. We first examine the simplest limit where all correlations are neglected, i.e. when the quantum state can only describe statistically independent classical variables. We apply this minimal encoding to find approximate solutions of a general problem instance comprised of 64 classical variables using 7 qubits. Next, we show how two-body correlations between the classical variables can be incorporated in the variational quantum state and how it can improve the quality of the approximate solutions. We give an example by solving a 42-variable Max-Cut problem using only 8 qubits where we exploit the specific topology of the problem. We analyze whether these cases can be optimized efficiently given the limited resources available in state-of-the-art quantum platforms. Lastly, we present the general framework for extending the expressibility of the probability distribution to any multi-body correlations.

[1]  Costin Iancu,et al.  Classical Optimizers for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Devices , 2020, 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE).

[2]  Blake R. Johnson,et al.  Implementation of XY entangling gates with a single calibrated pulse , 2020, Nature Electronics.

[3]  F. Jin,et al.  Benchmarking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm , 2019, Quantum Inf. Process..

[4]  Zhang Jiang,et al.  An Exploration of Practical Optimizers for Variational Quantum Algorithms on Superconducting Qubit Processors , 2020, 2005.11011.

[5]  Anton Frisk Kockum,et al.  Quantum approximate optimization of the exact-cover problem on a superconducting quantum processor , 2019, 1912.10495.

[6]  Stephen J. Wright Continuous Optimization ( Nonlinear and Linear Programming ) , 2012 .

[7]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: a survey , 2014, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization.

[8]  M. Powell A View of Algorithms for Optimization without Derivatives 1 , 2007 .

[9]  T. Koopmans,et al.  Assignment Problems and the Location of Economic Activities , 1957 .

[10]  M. Saffman Quantum computing with atomic qubits and Rydberg interactions: progress and challenges , 2016, 1605.05207.

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

[12]  Peter W. Shor,et al.  Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer , 1995, SIAM Rev..

[13]  J. Gambetta,et al.  Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets , 2017, Nature.

[14]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor , 2019, Nature.

[15]  Lee Braine,et al.  Quantum Algorithms for Mixed Binary Optimization Applied to Transaction Settlement , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering.

[16]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Defining and detecting quantum speedup , 2014, Science.

[17]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[18]  P. Zoller,et al.  A quantum annealing architecture with all-to-all connectivity from local interactions , 2015, Science Advances.

[19]  Andrew W. Cross,et al.  Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices , 2017, Quantum Science and Technology.

[20]  José Ignacio Latorre,et al.  Image compression and entanglement , 2005, ArXiv.

[21]  今井 浩 20世紀の名著名論:Peter Shor : Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer , 2004 .

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

[23]  Christopher N. Warren,et al.  Improved Success Probability with Greater Circuit Depth for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , 2019, Physical Review Applied.

[24]  Graham D. Marshall,et al.  Large-scale silicon quantum photonics implementing arbitrary two-qubit processing , 2018, Nature Photonics.

[25]  Leo Zhou,et al.  Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices , 2018, Physical Review X.

[26]  Blake R. Johnson,et al.  Unsupervised Machine Learning on a Hybrid Quantum Computer , 2017, 1712.05771.

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

[28]  Elham Kashefi,et al.  The Born supremacy: quantum advantage and training of an Ising Born machine , 2019, npj Quantum Information.

[29]  Xiao Yuan,et al.  Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation , 2020, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan.

[30]  Dacheng Tao,et al.  The Expressive Power of Parameterized Quantum Circuits , 2018, ArXiv.

[31]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes , 2018, Nature Communications.

[32]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  Quantum computational chemistry , 2018, Reviews of Modern Physics.

[33]  Akira Sone,et al.  Cost-Function-Dependent Barren Plateaus in Shallow Quantum Neural Networks , 2020, ArXiv.

[34]  Fabio Sciarrino,et al.  Integrated photonic quantum technologies , 2019, Nature Photonics.

[35]  John Chiaverini,et al.  Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges , 2019, Applied Physics Reviews.

[36]  G. Wendin Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: a review , 2016, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[37]  Marco Pistoia,et al.  A Domain-agnostic, Noise-resistant, Hardware-efficient Evolutionary Variational Quantum Eigensolver , 2019 .

[38]  Patrick J. Coles,et al.  Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits , 2021, Nature Communications.

[39]  Telecommunications Board,et al.  Quantum computing , 2019, Mathematics and Computation.

[40]  F. Brandão,et al.  Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs: numerical results , 2012, 1208.0692.

[41]  The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size. , 2019, 1910.08187.

[42]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Continuous-variable quantum neural networks , 2018, Physical Review Research.

[43]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Adiabatic quantum computation , 2016, 1611.04471.

[44]  B. Bauer,et al.  Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science. , 2020, Chemical reviews.

[45]  D. Bacon,et al.  Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor , 2020, Nature Physics.

[46]  D. Draper,et al.  Stochastic Optimization: a Review , 2002 .

[47]  Christoph Hellings,et al.  Improving the Performance of Deep Quantum Optimization Algorithms with Continuous Gate Sets , 2020 .

[48]  Ryan Babbush,et al.  The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms , 2015, 1509.04279.

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

[50]  Zhang Jiang,et al.  Using models to improve optimizers for variational quantum algorithms , 2020, Quantum Science and Technology.

[51]  Colm A. Ryan,et al.  Implementation of the XY interaction family with calibration of a single pulse , 2019, 1912.04424.

[52]  C. Monroe,et al.  Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range Ising model with a trapped-ion quantum simulator , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  E. Farhi,et al.  A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Applied to a Bounded Occurrence Constraint Problem , 2014, 1412.6062.