- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing algorithm for solving an n-vertex MaxCut problem with log(n) qubits

Marko J. Rančić*

  • TotalEnergies, Nano-INNOV Bt. 861, 8, Boulevard Thomas Gobert, 91120 Palaiseau, France

  • *marko.rancic@totalenergies.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 5, L012021 – Published 15 February, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.L012021

Abstract

Quantum computers are devices, which allow more efficient solutions of problems as compared to their classical counterparts. As the timeline to developing a quantum-error corrected computer is unclear, the quantum computing community has dedicated much attention to developing algorithms for currently available noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers (NISQ). Thus far, within NISQ, optimization problems are one of the most commonly studied and are quite often tackled with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). This algorithm is best known for computing graph partitions with a maximal separation of edges (MaxCut), but can easily calculate other problems related to graphs. Here, I present a novel quantum optimization algorithm, which uses exponentially less qubits as compared to the QAOA while requiring a significantly reduced number of quantum operations to solve the MaxCut problem. Such an improved performance allowed me to partition graphs with 32 nodes on publicly available 5 qubit gate-based quantum computers without any preprocessing such as division of the graph into smaller subgraphs. These results represent a 40% increase in graph size as compared to state-of-art experiments on gate-based quantum computers such as Google Sycamore. The obtained lower bound is 54.9% on the solution for actual hardware benchmarks and 77.6% on ideal simulators of quantum computers. Furthermore, large-scale optimization problems represented by graphs of a 128 nodes are tackled with simulators of quantum computers, again without any predivision into smaller subproblems and a lower solution bound of 67.9% is achieved. The study presented here paves way to using powerful genetic optimizer in synergy with quantum computers.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (38)

  1. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  2. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1996), pp. 212–219.
  3. P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society, NW Washington, DC, 1994), pp. 124–134.
  4. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009).
  5. IBM quantum roadmap, Research IBM com, https://www.ibm.com/quantum/roadmap.
  6. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016).
  7. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  8. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. Obrien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  9. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  10. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  11. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  12. L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021067 (2020).
  13. M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo et al., Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph problems on a planar superconducting processor, Nat. Phys. 17, 332 (2021).
  14. The reader should be made aware of the state-of-the-art QAOA experiments with 40 trapped ion qubits [37]. However, here the focus was on finding the ground state of the linear Ising model rather than optimizing a partition of a realistic graph.
  15. G. G. Guerreschi and A. Y. Matsuura, Qaoa for max-cut requires hundreds of qubits for quantum speed-up, Sci. Rep. 9, 6903 (2019).
  16. J. Li, M. Alam, and S. Ghosh, Large-scale quantum approximate optimization via divide-and-conquer, arXiv:2102.13288.
  17. B. Tan, M.-A. Lemonde, S. Thanasilp, J. Tangpanitanon, and D. G. Angelakis, Qubit-efficient encoding schemes for binary optimisation problems, Quantum 5, 454 (2021).
  18. F. Hoffmeister and T. Bäck, Genetic algorithms and evolution strategies: Similarities and differences, In International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (Springer, New York, 1990), pp. 455–469.
  19. N. N. Glibovets and N. M. Gulayeva, A review of niching genetic algorithms for multimodal function optimization, Cybern. Syst. Anal. 49, 815 (2013).
  20. N. Casas, Genetic algorithms for multimodal optimization: A review, arXiv:1508.05342.
  21. M. A. Bouhlel, J. T. Hwang, N. Bartoli, R. Lafage, J. Morlier, and J. R. R. A. Martins, A python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives, Adv. Eng. Softw. 135, 102662 (2019).
  22. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.L012021 for the optimizer settings and larger graph results.
  23. M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming, J. ACM 42, 1115 (1995).
  24. A. Pothen, H. D. Simon, and K.-P. Liou, Partitioning sparse matrices with eigenvectors of graphs, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 11, 430 (1990).
  25. M. Möttönen, J. J. Vartiainen, V. Bergholm, and M. M. Salomaa, Quantum Circuits for General Multiqubit Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130502 (2004).
  26. V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, and I. L. Markov, Synthesis of quantum-logic circuits, IEEE Trans. Compu.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 25, 1000 (2006).
  27. E. Malvetti, R. Iten, and R. Colbeck, Quantum circuits for sparse isometries, Quantum 5, 412 (2021).
  28. V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, M. S. Alam, S. Ahmed, J. M. Arrazola, C. Blank, A. Delgado, S. Jahangiri et al., Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations, arXiv:1811.04968.
  29. D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys. 270, 359 (2007).
  30. A. M. Childs and R. Kothari, Simulating sparse Hamiltonians with star decompositions, in Conference on Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography (Springer, New York, 2010), pp. 94–103.
  31. E. Knill, G. Ortiz, and R. D. Somma, Optimal quantum measurements of expectation values of observables, Phys. Rev. A 75, 012328 (2007).
  32. The top 500 supercomputers list, https://www.top500.org/lists/top500/2022/11/, 2022.
  33. D. Goldberg, What every computer scientist should know about floating-point arithmetic, ACM Comput. Surv. 23, 5 (1991).
  34. M. L. Overton, Numerical Computing with IEEE Floating Point Arithmetic (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2001).
  35. J. M. Aldous and R. J. Wilson, Graphs and Applications: An Introductory Approach (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2003).
  36. R. Motwani and P. Raghavan, Randomized Algorithms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
  37. G. Pagano, A. Bapat, P. Becker, K. S. Collins, A. De, P. W. Hess, H. B. Kaplan, A. Kyprianidis, W. L. Tan, C. Baldwin et al., Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range Ising model with a trapped-ion quantum simulator, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 25396 (2020).
  38. M. J. Rancic, An exponentially more efficient optimization algorithm for noisy quantum computers, zenodo (2021), doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5592834.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 5, L012021– Published 15 February, 2023
  • Received 2 March 2022
  • Accepted 20 December 2022
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