- 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
  • Open Access

Enhancement of quantum annealing via n-local catalysts

Roopayan Ghosh1,2,*, Luca A. Nutricati3, Natasha Feinstein3, P. A. Warburton3, and Sougato Bose1

  • *Contact author: roopayan@iitbbs.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013301 – Published 19 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hnzj-j7kt

Abstract

The potential quantum speedup in solving optimization problems via adiabatic quantum annealing is often hindered by the closing of the energy gap during the anneal, especially when this gap scales exponentially with system size. In this work, we alleviate this bottleneck by demonstrating that for the NP-complete Maximum Weighted Independent Set (MWIS) problem, an informed choice of n-local catalysts (operators involving n qubits) can reopen the gap during the annealing process. By analyzing first-order phase transitions in toy instances of the MWIS problem, we first identify direct-tunneling catalysts that effectively eliminate the transition and provide an analytical discussion on when the sign of the catalyst influences its impact. We then reveal that n-local catalysts exponentially improve gap scaling and in certain scenarios are as effective as direct-tunnel coupling between two minima. Utilizing this understanding, we show that they also increase the efficiency of ground-state preparation via adiabatic quantum annealing in random graphs and analytically demonstrate the necessity of their placement across unfrustrated loops in the graph for effective performance in MWIS problems. Additionally, using a circuit implementation of the n-local catalyst (requiring 2n nearest-neighbor gates), we demonstrate that both the circuit depth and the total number of gates required to solve the problem are reduced by several orders of magnitude when compared to the discrete-time version of traditional quantum annealing using local drivers. Our analysis suggests that nonlocal quantum fluctuations entangling multiple qubits as a catalyst are key to achieving the desired quantum advantage.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (70)

  1. S. Morita and H. Nishimori, Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing, J. Math. Phys. 49, 125210 (2008).
  2. M. W. Johnson, et al., Quantum annealing with manufactured spins, Nature (London) 473, 194 (2011).
  3. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
  4. A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061 (2008).
  5. S. Jiang, K. A. Britt, A. J. McCaskey, T. S. Humble, and S. Kais, Quantum annealing for prime factorization, Sci. Rep. 8, 17667 (2018).
  6. A. Dutta, G. Aeppli, B. K. Chakrabarti, U. Divakaran, T. F. Rosenbaum, and D. Sen, Quantum phase transitions in transverse field spin models: From statistical physics to quantum information, arXiv:1012.0653.
  7. C. Borgs, Finite-size scaling of the mass-gap for first-order phase transitions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 30, 168 (1993).
  8. C. R. Laumann, R. Moessner, A. Scardicchio, and S. L. Sondhi, Quantum adiabatic algorithm and scaling of gaps at first-order quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 030502 (2012).
  9. M. Werner, A. García-Sáez, and M. P. Estarellas, Bounding first-order quantum phase transitions in adiabatic quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043236 (2023).
  10. A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013).
  11. S. Deffner, C. Jarzynski, and A. del Campo, Classical and quantum shortcuts to adiabaticity for scale-invariant driving, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021013 (2014).
  12. D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3909 (2017).
  13. S. Iram, et al., Controlling the speed and trajectory of evolution with counterdiabatic driving, Nat. Phys. 17, 135 (2021).
  14. I. Čepaitė, A. Polkovnikov, A. J. Daley, and C. W. Duncan, Counterdiabatic optimized local driving, PRX Quantum 4, 010312 (2023).
  15. P. M. Schindler and M. Bukov, Counterdiabatic driving for periodically driven systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 123402 (2024).
  16. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  17. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and L. Zhou, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model at infinite size, Quantum 6, 759 (2022).
  18. K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants, Phys. Rep. 1068, 1 (2024).
  19. G. Matos, S. Johri, and Z. Papić, Quantifying the efficiency of state preparation via quantum variational eigensolvers, PRX Quantum 2, 010309 (2021).
  20. J. Kempe, Quantum random walks: An introductory overview, Contemp. Phys. 44, 307 (2003).
  21. S. E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum walks: a comprehensive review, Quantum Inf. Process. 11, 1015 (2012).
  22. F. Magniez, A. Nayak, J. Roland, and M. Santha, Search via quantum walk, SIAM J. Comput. 40, 142 (2011).
  23. V. Wadhia, N. Chancellor, and V. Kendon, Cycle discrete-time quantum walks on a noisy quantum computer, Eur. Phys. J. D 78, 29 (2024).
  24. L. Gerblich, T. Dasanjh, H. Q. X. Wong, D. Ross, L. Novo, N. Chancellor, and V. Kendon, Advantages of multistage quantum walks over QAOA, arXiv:2407.06663.
  25. A. Imparato, N. Chancellor, and G. D. Chiara, A thermodynamic approach to optimization in complex quantum systems, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 025011 (2024).
  26. G. Pecci, R. Wang, P. Torta, G. B. Mbeng, and G. Santoro, Beyond quantum annealing: Optimal control solutions to maxcut problems, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 045013 (2024).
  27. Y. Susa, Y. Yamashiro, M. Yamamoto, and H. Nishimori, Exponential speedup of quantum annealing by inhomogeneous driving of the transverse field, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 023002 (2018).
  28. Y. Susa, Y. Yamashiro, M. Yamamoto, I. Hen, D. A. Lidar, and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing of the p-spin model under inhomogeneous transverse field driving, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042326 (2018).
  29. J. I. Adame and P. L. McMahon, Inhomogeneous driving in quantum annealers can result in orders-of-magnitude improvements in performance, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 035011 (2020).
  30. M. Bernaschi, I. González-Adalid Pemartín, V. Martín-Mayor, and G. Parisi, The quantum transition of the two-dimensional ising spin glass, Nature (London) 631, 749 (2024).
  31. Y. Seki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing with antiferromagnetic fluctuations, Phys. Rev. E 85, 051112 (2012).
  32. B. Seoane and H. Nishimori, Many-body transverse interactions in the quantum annealing of the p-spin ferromagnet, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 435301 (2012).
  33. E. Crosson, E. Farhi, C. Y.-Y. Lin, H.-H. Lin, and P. Shor, Different strategies for optimization using the quantum adiabatic algorithm, arXiv:1401.7320.
  34. Y. Seki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions for the Hopfield model, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, 335301 (2015).
  35. H. Nishimori and K. Takada, Exponential enhancement of the efficiency of quantum annealing by non-stoquastic Hamiltonians, Front. ICT 4, 2 (2017).
  36. L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, Nonstoquastic Hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. B 95, 184416 (2017).
  37. T. Albash, Role of nonstoquastic catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042334 (2019).
  38. K. Takada, S. Sota, S. Yunoki, B. Pokharel, H. Nishimori, and D. A. Lidar, Phase transitions in the frustrated Ising ladder with stoquastic and nonstoquastic catalysts, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043013 (2021).
  39. T. Albash and M. Kowalsky, Diagonal catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022608 (2021).
  40. N. Feinstein, L. Fry-Bouriaux, S. Bose, and P. A. Warburton, Effects of XX catalysts on quantum annealing spectra with perturbative crossings, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042609 (2024).
  41. Y. Matsuda, H. Nishimori, and H. G. Katzgraber, Ground-state statistics from annealing algorithms: Quantum versus classical approaches, New J. Phys. 11, 073021 (2009).
  42. G. Mazzola and M. Troyer, Quantum Monte Carlo annealing with multi-spin dynamics, J. Stat. Mech. (2017) 053105.
  43. M. S. Könz, G. Mazzola, A. J. Ochoa, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. Troyer, Uncertain fate of fair sampling in quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. A 100, 030303(R) (2019).
  44. For problems with exactly degenerate classical solutions, the minimum gap clearly occurs only at the end of the anneal; while our method can still mitigate perturbative crossings during the evolution, it cannot guarantee equal weight across all degenerate ground states, and hence we consider a nondegenerate solution.
  45. K. Takada, Y. Yamashiro, and H. Nishimori, Mean-field solution of the weak-strong cluster problem for quantum annealing with stoquastic and non-stoquastic catalysts, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 044001 (2020).
  46. R. M. Karp, Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems, edited by J. D. Bohlinger (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1972), pp. 85–103.
  47. M. H. S. Amin and V. Choi, First-order quantum phase transition in adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 062326 (2009).
  48. H. Nishimori and G. Ortiz, Elements of Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena (Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2010).
  49. The argument also works if E1(0)−E0(0)∼O(e−L). The main idea is that the approximate or exact degeneracy of the states cannot be lifted by the off-diagonal matrix elements, or quantum fluctuations and hence the gap closes and the system goes through a phase transition. This is best seen in the Grover limit where higher-order perturbations are superexponentially suppressed and an effective 2×2 model describes the system.
  50. For a more rigorous computation of the energy gap, see Ref. [69].
  51. V. Bapst, L. Foini, F. Krzakala, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi, The quantum adiabatic algorithm applied to random optimization problems: The quantum spin glass perspective, Phys. Rep. 523, 127 (2013).
  52. K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, J. Raymond, and A. Roy, Next-generation topology of D-wave quantum processors, arXiv:2003.00133.
  53. We scale up the system in Fig. 2, by adding a spin to each of the subsystems A and B.
  54. J. Takahashi and K. Hukushima, Phase transitions in quantum annealing of an NP-hard problem detected by fidelity susceptibility, J. Stat. Mech. (2019) 043102.
  55. Y. Susa, J. F. Jadebeck, and H. Nishimori, Relation between quantum fluctuations and the performance enhancement of quantum annealing in a nonstoquastic Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042321 (2017).
  56. Due to the problem geometry, some configurations are equivalent, but we do not make a distinction here.
  57. To achieve this, one typically needs to embed the problem into a unit disk graph, which leads to redundant qubits. Therefore, in practice, adding XX catalyst to the edges might be preferable.
  58. Although higher-order terms can have mixed signs, many-body perturbation theory is asymptotic and nonconvergent. We therefore focus on low-order corrections, assuming that they dominate.
  59. If the ground state and first excited states are the two states involved in the strongest hybridization, then we go back to the direct-coupling scenario. However, even from this theory it should be evident that a direct coupling affects the ground and first excited states in the opposite manner and pulls them apart.
  60. L. A. Nutricati, R. Ghosh, N. Feinstein, S. Bose, and P. A. Warburton, Enhancing the energy gap of random graph problems via XX-catalysts in quantum annealing, arXiv:2409.16350.
  61. There are proposals for constant depth implementation as well; for example, see Ref. [70].
  62. R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Nonuniversal critical dynamics in Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 86 (1987).
  63. U. Wolff, Collective Monte Carlo updating for spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 361 (1989).
  64. B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12446 (2010).
  65. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, D. Gosset, S. Gutmann, H. B. Meyer, and P. W. Shor, Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths, Quantum Inf. Comput. 11, 181 (2011).
  66. L. Foini, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi, Solvable model of quantum random optimization problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 167204 (2010).
  67. T. Hattori and S. Tanaka, Improving the efficiency of quantum annealing with controlled diagonal catalysts, Phys. Rev. A 113, 022433 (2026).
  68. J. Batle, C. H. R. Ooi, A. Farouk, M. Abutalib, and S. Abdalla, Do multipartite correlations speed up adiabatic quantum computation or quantum annealing? Quantum Inf. Proc. 15, 3081 (2016).
  69. T. Jörg, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, A. C. Maggs, and J. Pujos, Energy gaps in quantum first-order mean-field–like transitions: The problems that quantum annealing cannot solve, Europhys. Lett. 89, 40004 (2010).
  70. E. Bäumer and S. Woerner, Measurement-based long-range entangling gates in constant depth, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023120 (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013301– Published 19 March, 2026
  • Received 20 November 2024
  • Accepted 9 February 2026
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