Prospects for Quantum Enhancement with Diabatic Quantum Annealing

We assess the prospects for algorithms within the general framework of quantum annealing (QA) to achieve a quantum speedup relative to classical state of the art methods in combinatorial optimization and related sampling tasks. We argue for continued exploration and interest in the QA framework on the basis that improved coherence times and control capabilities will enable the near-term exploration of several heuristic quantum optimization algorithms that have been introduced in the literature. These continuous-time Hamiltonian computation algorithms rely on control protocols that are more advanced than those in traditional ground-state QA, while still being considerably simpler than those used in gate-model implementations. The inclusion of coherent diabatic transitions to excited states results in a generalization called diabatic quantum annealing (DQA), which we argue for as the most promising route to quantum enhancement within this framework. Other promising variants of traditional QA include reverse annealing and continuous-time quantum walks, as well as analog analogues of parameterized quantum circuit ansatzes for machine learning. Most of these algorithms have no known (or likely to be discovered) efficient classical simulations, and in many cases have promising (but limited) early signs for the possibility of quantum speedups, making them worthy of further investigation with quantum hardware in the intermediate-scale regime. We argue that all of these protocols can be explored in a state-of-the-art manner by embracing the full range of novel out-of-equilibrium quantum dynamics generated by time-dependent effective transverse-field Ising Hamiltonians that can be natively implemented by, e.g., inductively-coupled flux qubits, both existing and projected at application scale.

[1]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[3]  Mario Szegedy,et al.  What do QAOA energies reveal about graphs , 2019, 1912.12277.

[4]  K. K. Nambiar,et al.  Foundations of Computer Science , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Quantum-inspired low-rank stochastic regression with logarithmic dependence on the dimension , 2018, ArXiv.

[6]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[7]  Susmit Jha,et al.  Estimating the Density of States of Boolean Satisfiability Problems on Classical and Quantum Computing Platforms , 2019, AAAI.

[8]  V. Kendon,et al.  Energetic Perspective on Rapid Quenches in Quantum Annealing , 2020, PRX Quantum.

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

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

[11]  K. B. Whaley,et al.  Continuous quantum error correction for evolution under time-dependent Hamiltonians , 2020, 2003.11248.

[12]  Anthony J Leggett,et al.  Quantum computing and quantum bits in mesoscopic systems , 2004 .

[13]  A. Young,et al.  De-Signing Hamiltonians for Quantum Adiabatic Optimization , 2020, Quantum.

[14]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Scalable Architecture for Adiabatic Quantum Computing of Np-Hard Problems , 2004 .

[15]  Amir Khoshaman,et al.  A path towards quantum advantage in training deep generative models with quantum annealers , 2019, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..

[17]  L. Brady,et al.  Optimal Protocols in Quantum Annealing and QAOA Problems , 2020, 2003.08952.

[18]  Daniel A. Lidar,et al.  Why and When Pausing is Beneficial in Quantum Annealing , 2020, Physical Review Applied.

[19]  H. Nishimori,et al.  Nonadiabatic Quantum Annealing for One-Dimensional Trasverse-Field Ising Model , 2013, 1303.6045.

[20]  Viv Kendon,et al.  Quantum computing using continuous-time evolution , 2020, Interface Focus.

[21]  Randall D. Kamien,et al.  Reviews of Modern Physics at 90 , 2019, Physics Today.

[22]  小谷 正雄 日本物理学会誌及びJournal of the Physical Society of Japanの月刊について , 1955 .

[23]  Elizabeth Crosson,et al.  Classical Simulation of High Temperature Quantum Ising Models , 2020, ArXiv.

[24]  Milad Marvian,et al.  Hardness and Ease of Curing the Sign Problem for Two-Local Qubit Hamiltonians , 2019, SIAM J. Comput..

[25]  Ewin Tang,et al.  Quantum-inspired classical algorithms for principal component analysis and supervised clustering , 2018, ArXiv.

[26]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[27]  Giovanni Acampora,et al.  Quantum machine intelligence , 2019, Quantum Mach. Intell..

[28]  Masoud Mohseni,et al.  Quantum-Assisted Genetic Algorithm , 2019, ArXiv.

[30]  J. Herskowitz,et al.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA , 1996, Current Biology.

[31]  K. B. Whaley,et al.  Error-correcting Bacon-Shor code with continuous measurement of noncommuting operators , 2016, Physical Review A.

[32]  Daniel Lidar,et al.  Boundaries of quantum supremacy via random circuit sampling , 2020, npj Quantum Information.

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

[35]  Seth Lloyd,et al.  Robust universal Hamiltonian quantum computing using two-body interactions , 2019, 1911.01354.

[36]  Hartmut Neven,et al.  Compilation of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Heuristics for Combinatorial Optimization , 2020 .

[37]  Keisuke Fujii Quantum speedup in stoquastic adiabatic quantum computation , 2018, ArXiv.