We study a special kind of interpolating paths in quantum adiabatic search algorithms. With this special kind of adiabatic paths, notably we find that even when the parameter n within it tends to infinity, the adiabatic evolution would be a failure if the initial state is orthogonal to the final target state. But superficially, it seems that the minimum gap of the quantum system happening at the end of the computation would not affect the validity of the algorithm, since each ground state of the problem Hamiltonian encodes a solution to the problem. When the beginning state has a nonzero overlap with the final state, again if the parameter n within the special interpolating paths tends to infinity, it may give ones the counterintuitive impression that the adiabatic evolution could be considerably faster than the usual simple models of adiabatic evolution, even possible with constant time complexity. However, the fact is that as in the usual case, the quadratic speedup is the quantum algorithmic performance limit for which this kind of interpolating functions can provide for the adiabatic evolution. We also expose other easily made mistakes which may lead to draw the wrong conclusions about the validity of the adiabatic search algorithms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work are supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61402188, the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China under Grant No. 2016CFB541, the Applied Basic Research Program of Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau of China under Grant No. 2016010101010003 and the Science and Technology Program of Shenzhen of China under Grant No. JCYJ20170307160458368.
Cleve, R., Ekert, A., Macchiavello, C., Mosca, M.: Quantum algorithms revisited. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454(1969), 339–354 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, D., Jozsa, R.: Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 439(1907), 553–558 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Proceedings, pp. 124–134. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
Grover, L.K.: Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79(2), 325 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S., et al.: A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-complete problem. Science 292(5516), 472–475 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hen, I., Young, A.P.: Exponential complexity of the quantum adiabatic algorithm for certain satisfiability problems. Phys. Rev. E 84(6), 061152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, N.G., Amin, M.H.S.: Does adiabatic quantum optimization fail for NP-complete problems? Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(5), 050502 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, B., Krovi, H., Roland, J.: Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107(28), 12446–12450 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnerone, S., Zanardi, P., Lidar, D.A.: Adiabatic quantum algorithm for search engine ranking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(23), 230506 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaitan, F., Clark, L.: Ramsey numbers and adiabatic quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(1), 010501 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somma, R.D., Nagaj, D., Kieferová, M.: Quantum speedup by quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(5), 050501 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharonov, D., van Dam, W., Kempe, J., et al.: Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation. SIAM Rev. 50(4), 755–787 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizel, A., Lidar, D.A., Mitchell, M.: Simple proof of equivalence between adiabatic quantum computation and the circuit model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(7), 070502 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar