- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Performance of quantum annealing for 2-satisfiability problems with multiple satisfying assignments

Vrinda Mehta1, Hans De Raedt1, Kristel Michielsen1,2,3, and Fengping Jin1

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 112, 012405 – Published 7 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/n7r5-s63q

Abstract

Using a specially constructed set of hard 2-satisfiability problems with four satisfying assignments, we study the scaling and sampling performance of numerical simulation of quantum annealing as well as that of the physical quantum annealers offered by D-Wave. To this end, we use both the standard quantum annealing and reverse annealing protocols in both our simulations and on the D-Wave quantum annealer. In the case of ideal quantum annealing the sampling behavior can be explained by perturbation theory and the scaling behavior of the time to solution depends on the scaling behavior of the minimum energy gap between the ground state and the first-excited state of the annealing Hamiltonian. The corresponding results from the D-Wave quantum annealers do not fit to this ideal picture, but suggest that the scaling of the time to solution from the quantum annealers matches those calculated from the equilibrium probability distribution.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (74)

  1. R. Orús, S. Mugel, and E. Lizaso, Rev. Phys. 4, 100028 (2019).
  2. S. Woerner and D. J. Egger, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 15 (2019).
  3. D. Venturelli and A. Kondratyev, Quantum Mach. Intell. 1, 17 (2019).
  4. T. Sakuma, arXiv:2011.07319.
  5. D. Solenov, J. Brieler, and J. F. Scherrer, Mo. Med. 115, 463 (2018).
  6. B. A. Cordier, N. P. D. Sawaya, G. G. Guerreschi, and S. K. McWeeney, J. R. Soc. Interface 19, 20220541 (2022).
  7. L. Wang, S. K. Kowk, and W. H. Ip, J. Intell. Manuf. 23, 2227 (2012).
  8. T. Tran, M. Do, E. Rieffel, J. Frank, Z. Wang, B. O'Gorman, D. Venturelli, and J. Beck, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, Vol. 7 (AAAI Press, Washington, DC, 2016), pp. 98–106.
  9. H. Mohammadbagherpoor, P. Dreher, M. Ibrahim, Y. Oh, J. Hall, R. E. Stone, and M. Stojkovic, arXiv:2111.09472.
  10. D. Inoue, A. Okada, T. Matsumori, K. Aihara, and H. Yoshida, Sci. Rep. 11, 3303 (2021).
  11. S. Feld, C. Roch, T. Gabor, C. Seidel, F. Neukart, I. Galter, W. Mauerer, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, Front. ICT 6, 13 (2019).
  12. C. Micheletti, P. Hauke, and P. Faccioli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080501 (2021).
  13. F. Bova, A. Goldfarb, and R. G. Melko, EPJ Quantum Technol. 8, 2 (2021).
  14. J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2006).
  15. R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, 2nd ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2000).
  16. L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, Numerical Linear Algebra (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2022).
  17. D. P. Bertsekas, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 48, 334 (1997).
  18. W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).
  19. E. Aarts and J. Korst, Simulated Annealing and Boltzmann Machines: A Stochastic Approach to Combinatorial Optimization and Neural Computing (Wiley, New York, 1988).
  20. S. Kirkpatrick, D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science 220, 671 (1983).
  21. E. G. Talbi, Metaheuristics: From Design to Implementation (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009).
  22. C. Blum and A. Roli, ACM Comput. Surv. 35, 268 (2003).
  23. B. Apolloni, C. Carvalho, and D. de Falco, Stoch. Process. Appl. 33, 233 (1989).
  24. A. B. Finnila, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, and J. D. Doll, Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343 (1994).
  25. T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998).
  26. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106.
  27. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, Science 292, 472 (2001).
  28. J. King, S. Yarkoni, J. Raymond, I. Ozfidan, A. D. King, M. M. Nevisi, J. P. Hilton, and C. C. McGeoch, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 061007 (2019).
  29. B. Heim, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, and M. Troyer, Science 348, 215 (2015).
  30. V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Babbush, V. Smelyanskiy, J. Martinis, and H. Neven, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031015 (2016).
  31. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031016 (2018).
  32. Y. Matsuda, H. Nishimori, and H. G. Katzgraber, New J. Phys. 11, 073021 (2009).
  33. S. Boixo, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, Z. Wang, D. Wecker, D. A. Lidar, J. M. Martinis, and M. Troyer, Nat. Phys. 10, 218 (2014).
  34. T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Science 345, 420 (2014).
  35. S. Santra, G. Quiroz, G. Ver Steeg, and D. A. Lidar, New J. Phys. 16, 045006 (2014).
  36. I. Hen, J. Job, T. Albash, T. F. Rønnow, M. Troyer, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042325 (2015).
  37. S. Muthukrishnan, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031010 (2016).
  38. W. Vinci and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 054016 (2016).
  39. K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Nat. Commun. 5, 3243 (2014).
  40. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
  41. M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Quantum Inf. Proc. 19, 197 (2020).
  42. C. D. G. Calaza, D. Willsch, and K. Michielsen, Quantum Inf. Proc. 20, 1 (2021).
  43. D. Willsch, M. Willsch, C. D. Gonzalez Calaza, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, M. Svensson, and K. Michielsen, Quantum Inf. Proc. 21, 141 (2022).
  44. J. A. Montanez-Barrera, P. van den Heuvel, D. Willsch, and K. Michielsen, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1 (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 2023), pp. 535–542.
  45. J. A. Montanez-Barrera, D. Willsch, A. Maldonado-Romo, and K. Michielsen, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 025022 (2024).
  46. V. Mehta, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032421 (2021).
  47. V. Mehta, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062406 (2022).
  48. S. Mandrà, Z. Zhu, and H. G. Katzgraber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070502 (2017).
  49. M. S. Könz, G. Mazzola, A. J. Ochoa, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A 100, 030303(R) (2019).
  50. V. Kumar, C. Tomlin, C. Nehrkorn, D. O'Malley, and D. Dulny, III, arXiv:2007.08487.
  51. A. Perdomo-Ortiz, S. E. Venegas-Andraca, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Inf. Process. 10, 33 (2011).
  52. N. Chancellor, New J. Phys. 19, 023024 (2017).
  53. A. D. King, J. Carrasquilla, J. Raymond, I. Ozfidan, E. Andriyash, A. Berkley, M. Reis, T. Lanting, R. Harris, F. Altomare et al., Nature (London) 560, 456 (2018).
  54. D. Ottaviani and A. Amendola, arXiv:1808.08721.
  55. J. Marshall, D. Venturelli, I. Hen, and E. G. Rieffel, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044083 (2019).
  56. Y. Yamashiro, M. Ohkuwa, H. Nishimori, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052321 (2019).
  57. G. Passarelli, V. Cataudella, and P. Lucignano, Phys. Rev. B 100, 024302 (2019).
  58. M. Ohkuwa, H. Nishimori, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022314 (2018).
  59. H. Chen and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014100 (2020).
  60. G. Passarelli, K.-W. Yip, D. A. Lidar, H. Nishimori, and P. Lucignano, Phys. Rev. A 101, 022331 (2020).
  61. M. Sharir, Comp. Math. Appl. 7, 67 (1981).
  62. D. Krause, J. Large-scale Res. Facilities 5, A135 (2019).
  63. S. Ermon, C. Gomes, and B. Selman, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence-Volume Three, IJCAI'11 (AAAI Press, Cambridge, MA, 2011), pp. 2608–2613.
  64. T. Neuhaus, arXiv:1412.5361.
  65. L. G. Valiant, SIAM J. Comput. 8, 410 (1979).
  66. S. Morita and H. Nishimori, J. Math. Phys. 49, 125210 (2008).
  67. Z. Zhang, R. Paredes, B. Sundar, D. Quiroga, A. Kyrillidis, L. Duenas-Osorio, G. Pagano, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 015022 (2025).
  68. V. Mehta, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, and F. Jin, arXiv:2502.08575.
  69. L. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 2, 46 (1932).
  70. C. Zener, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 137, 696 (1932).
  71. H. De Raedt, S. Miyashita, K. Saito, D. García-Pablos, and N. García, Phys. Rev. B 56, 11761 (1997).
  72. S. Teufel, Adiabatic Perturbation Theory in Quantum Dynamics (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
  73. S. Jansen, M. B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, J. Math. Phys. 48, 102111 (2007).
  74. V. Mehta, Quantum annealing and its variants: Application to quadratic unconstrained binary optimization, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2023.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 112, 012405– Published 7 July, 2025
  • Received 14 February 2025
  • Accepted 11 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation