HackerPapers

arXiv:1512.02206quant-ph

What is the Computational Value of Finite Range Tunneling?

Vasil S. Denchev, Sergio Boixo, Sergei V. Isakov, Nan Ding, Ryan Babbush, Vadim Smelyanskiy, John Martinis, Hartmut Neven

Abstract

Quantum annealing (QA) has been proposed as a quantum enhanced optimization heuristic exploiting tunneling. Here, we demonstrate how finite range tunneling can provide considerable computational advantage. For a crafted problem designed to have tall and narrow energy barriers separating local minima, the D-Wave 2X quantum annealer achieves significant runtime advantages relative to Simulated Annealing (SA). For instances with 945 variables, this results in a time-to-99%-success-probability that is $\sim 10^8$ times faster than SA running on a single processor core. We also compared physical QA with Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC), an algorithm that emulates quantum tunneling on classical processors. We observe a substantial constant overhead against physical QA: D-Wave 2X again runs up to $\sim 10^8$ times faster than an optimized implementation of QMC on a single core. We note that there exist heuristic classical algorithms that can solve most instances of Chimera structured problems in a timescale comparable to the D-Wave 2X. However, we believe that such solvers will become ineffective for the next generation of annealers currently being designed. To investigate whether finite range tunneling will also confer an advantage for problems of practical interest, we conduct numerical studies on binary optimization problems that cannot yet be represented on quantum hardware. For random instances of the number partitioning problem, we find numerically that QMC, as well as other algorithms designed to simulate QA, scale better than SA. We discuss the implications of these findings for the design of next generation quantum annealers.

arXiv comments
17 pages, 13 figures. Edited for clarity, in part in response to comments. Added link to benchmark instances
Journal reference
Phys. Rev. X 6, 031015 (2016)
DOI
doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.031015
Subjects
quant-phQuantum Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 6 identifiable commenters in 6 comments across 6 threads, from Dec 2015 to Sep 2016. Found in 4 HN submissions from Dec 2015 to Dec 2015. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments6 threads

    • It is indeed, correct. The annealing example I linked is from his team (here's another one with full citation with Martinis at the end there [0]). And if you want further proof that Martinis and the Google Quantum team are pursing quantum annealing look no further than the…

      eghadView on HNParent context

    • This article and the discussed work was put out last December (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206). Scott Aaronson weighed in around that time; see http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555.

      radioactivistView on HNParent context

    • If we compare single core CPU performance against heavily motivated special solution, then it is not (it does not follow that the same method can be applied in this case, but then again, a better classical algorithm on single core beats the reported quantum result according to…

      eveningcoffeeView on HNParent context

    • > from the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 : we report the total computational effort of QMC in standard units of time per single core. That's an interesting way to compare quantum and classical computer "substrates" on the same footing: running time. > Based on the…

      ivan_ahView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.