Boosting quantum annealer performance via sample persistence

Article

Abstract

We propose a novel method for reducing the number of variables in quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems, using a quantum annealer (or any sampler) to fix the value of a large portion of the variables to values that have a high probability of being optimal. The resulting problems are usually much easier for the quantum annealer to solve, due to their being smaller and consisting of disconnected components. This approach significantly increases the success rate and number of observations of the best known energy value in samples obtained from the quantum annealer, when compared with calling the quantum annealer without using it, even when using fewer annealing cycles. Use of the method results in a considerable improvement in success metrics even for problems with high-precision couplers and biases, which are more challenging for the quantum annealer to solve. The results are further enhanced by applying the method iteratively and combining it with classical pre-processing. We present results for both Chimera graph-structured problems and embedded problems from a real-world application.

Keywords

Adiabatic quantum computation Quantum annealing Variable reduction Sample persistency Binary optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Battaglia, D.A., Santoro, G.E., Tosatti, E.: Optimization by quantum annealing: lessons from hard satisfiability problems. Phys. Rev. E 71(6), 066,707 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boixo, S., Rønnow, T.F., Isakov, S.V., Wang, Z., Wecker, D., Lidar, D.A., Martinis, J.M., Troyer, M.: Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits. Nat. Phys. 10(3), 218–224 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V.N., Shabani, A., Isakov, S.V., Dykman, M., Denchev, V.S., Amin, M.H., Smirnov, A.Y., Mohseni, M., Neven, H.: Computational multiqubit tunnelling in programmable quantum annealers. Nat. Commun. 7, 10327 (2016). doi:10.1038/ncomms10327
  4. 4.
    Boros, E., Hammer, P.L., Tavares, G.: Preprocessing of unconstrained quadratic binary optimization. Rutcor research report (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bunyk, P.I., Hoskinson, E.M., Johnson, M.W., Tolkacheva, E., Altomare, F., Berkley, A.J., Harris, R., Hilton, J.P., Lanting, T., Przybysz, A.J., et al.: Architectural considerations in the design of a superconducting quantum annealing processor. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 24(4), 1–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chardaire, P., Lutton, J.L., Sutter, A.: Thermostatistical persistency: a powerful improving concept for simulated annealing algorithms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 86(3), 565–579 (1995)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi, V.: Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I. The parameter setting problem. Quantum Inf. Process. 7(5), 193–209 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi, V.: Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II. Minor-universal graph design. Quantum Inf. Process. 10(3), 343–353 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D-Wave Systems: Private communication (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D-Wave Systems: SAPI 2.3.1 documentation (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Denchev, V.S., Boixo, S., Isakov, S.V., Ding, N., Babbush, R., Smelyanskiy, V., Martinis, J., Neven, H.: What is the computational value of finite-range tunneling? Phys. Rev. X 6, 031,015 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031015 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finnila, A., Gomez, M., Sebenik, C., Stenson, C., Doll, J.: Quantum annealing: a new method for minimizing multidimensional functions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 219(5), 343–348 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glover, F.: Tabu search-part I. ORSA J. Comput. 1(3), 190–206 (1989)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glover, F.: Tabu search-part II. ORSA J. Comput. 2(1), 4–32 (1990)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hammer, P.L., Hansen, P., Simeone, B.: Roof duality, complementation and persistency in quadratic 0–1 optimization. Math. Program. 28(2), 121–155 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamze, F., de Freitas, N.: From fields to trees. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 243–250. AUAI Press (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heim, B., Rønnow, T.F., Isakov, S.V., Troyer, M.: Quantum versus classical annealing of ising spin glasses. Science 348(6231), 215–217 (2015)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hen, I., Job, J., Albash, T., Rønnow, T.F., Troyer, M., Lidar, D.A.: Probing for quantum speedup in spin-glass problems with planted solutions. Phys. Rev. A 92(4), 042,325 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jiang, H., Xuan, J.: Backbone guided local search for the weighted maximum satisfiability problem. INTECH Open Access Publisher (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, M., Amin, M., Gildert, S., Lanting, T., Hamze, F., Dickson, N., Harris, R., Berkley, A., Johansson, J., Bunyk, P., et al.: Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature 473(7346), 194–198 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kadowaki, T., Nishimori, H.: Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58(5), 5355 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katzgraber, H.G., Hamze, F., Andrist, R.S.: Glassy Chimeras could be blind to quantum speedup: designing better benchmarks for quantum annealing machines. Phys. Rev. X 4(2), 021,008 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katzgraber, H.G., Hamze, F., Zhu, Z., Ochoa, A.J., Munoz-Bauza, H.: Seeking quantum speedup through spin glasses: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Phys. Rev. X 5(3), 031,026 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    King, A.D.: Performance of a quantum annealer on range-limited constraint satisfaction problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.02098 (2015)
  25. 25.
    King, J., Yarkoni, S., Nevisi, M.M., Hilton, J.P., McGeoch, C.C.: Benchmarking a quantum annealing processor with the time-to-target metric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.05087 (2015)
  26. 26.
    Lanting, T., Przybysz, A., Smirnov, A.Y., Spedalieri, F., Amin, M., Berkley, A., Harris, R., Altomare, F., Boixo, S., Bunyk, P., et al.: Entanglement in a quantum annealing processor. Phys. Rev. X 4(2), 021041 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lechner, W., Hauke, P., Zoller, P.: A quantum annealing architecture with all-to-all connectivity from local interactions. Sci. Adv. 1(9), e1500,0838 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lucas, A.: Ising formulations of many NP problems. Front. Phys. 2(5) (2014). doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005. http://www.frontiersin.org/interdisciplinary_physics/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005/abstract
  29. 29.
    Mandrà, S., Zhu, Z., Wang, W., Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Katzgraber, H.G.: Strengths and weaknesses of weak-strong cluster problems: a detailed overview of state-of-the-art classical heuristics versus quantum approaches. Phys. Rev. A 94, 022,337 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGeoch, C.C., Wang, C.: Experimental evaluation of an adiabiatic quantum system for combinatorial optimization. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, p. 23. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mishra, A., Albash, T., Lidar, D.A.: Performance of two different quantum annealing correction codes. Quantum Inf. Process. 15(2), 609–636 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman, B., Troyansky, L.: Determining computational complexity from characteristic ‘phase transitions’. Nature 400(6740), 133–137 (1999)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muthukrishnan, S., Albash, T., Lidar, D.A.: Tunneling and speedup in quantum optimization for permutation-symmetric problems. Phys. Rev. X 6, 031,010 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031010 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pastawski, F., Preskill, J.: Error correction for encoded quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. A 93, 052,325 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Fluegemann, J., Biswas, R., Smelyanskiy, V.N.: A performance estimator for quantum annealers: Gauge selection and parameter setting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01083 (2015)
  36. 36.
    Perdomo-Ortiz, A., O’Gorman, B., Fluegemann, J., Biswas, R., Smelyanskiy, V.N.: Determination and correction of persistent biases in quantum annealers. Sci. Rep. 6, 18,628 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pudenz, K.L., Albash, T., Lidar, D.A.: Error-corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits. Nat. Commun. 5, 3243 (2014). doi:10.1038/ncomms4243
  38. 38.
    Pudenz, K.L., Albash, T., Lidar, D.A.: Quantum annealing correction for random Ising problems. Phys. Rev. A 91(4), 042,302 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ray, P., Chakrabarti, B., Chakrabarti, A.: Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model in a transverse field: absence of replica symmetry breaking due to quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. B 39(16), 11,828 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Romá, F., Risau-Gusman, S.: Backbone structure of the Edwards–Anderson spin-glass model. Phys. Rev. E 88(4), 042,105 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rønnow, T.F., Wang, Z., Job, J., Boixo, S., Isakov, S.V., Wecker, D., Martinis, J.M., Lidar, D.A., Troyer, M.: Defining and detecting quantum speedup. Science 345(6195), 420–424 (2014). doi:10.1126/science.1252319. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/420.abstract
  42. 42.
    Rosenberg, G., Haghnegahdar, P., Goddard, P., Carr, P., Wu, K., de Prado, M.L.: Solving the optimal trading trajectory problem using a quantum annealer. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal. Process. 10(6), 1053–1060 (2016)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rosenberg, G., Vazifeh, M., Woods, B., Haber, E.: Building an iterative heuristic solver for a quantum annealer. Comput. Optim. Appl. 65(13), 845–869 (2015)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Santoro, G.E., Martoňák, R., Tosatti, E., Car, R.: Theory of quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass. Science 295(5564), 2427–2430 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Selby, A.: QUBO-Chimera. https://github.com/alex1770/QUBO-Chimera (2013)
  46. 46.
    Selby, A.: Efficient subgraph-based sampling of Ising-type models with frustration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3934 (2014)
  47. 47.
    Tavares, G.: New algorithms for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) with applications in engineering and social sciences. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, Graduate School—New Brunswick (2008). doi:10.7282/T3XK8FS2
  48. 48.
    Tran, T.T., Do, M., Rieffel, E.G., Frank, J., Wang, Z., O’Gorman, B., Venturelli, D., Beck, J.C.: A hybrid quantum-classical approach to solving scheduling problems. In: Ninth Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Search (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vinci, W., Albash, T., Paz-Silva, G., Hen, I., Lidar, D.A.: Quantum annealing correction with minor embedding. Phys. Rev. A 92(4), 042310 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang, Y., Lü, Z., Glover, F., Hao, J.K.: Effective variable fixing and scoring strategies for binary quadratic programming. In: Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 72–83. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang, Y., Lü, Z., Glover, F., Hao, J.K.: Backbone guided tabu search for solving the UBQP problem. J. Heuristics 19(4), 679–695 (2013)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zaribafiyan, A., Marchand, D.J.J., Changiz Rezaei, S.S.: Systematic and deterministic graph-minor embedding for Cartesian products of graphs. Quantum Inf. Process. 16(5), 136 (2017). doi:10.1007/s11128-017-1569-z
  53. 53.
    Zhang, W.: Configuration landscape analysis and backbone guided local search. Part I: satisfiability and maximum satisfiability. Artif. Intell. 158(1), 1–26 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zintchenko, I., Hastings, M.B., Troyer, M.: From local to global ground states in Ising spin glasses. Phys. Rev. B 91(2), 024,201 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.1QB Information Technologies (1QBit)VancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations