-
A comment on comparing optimization on D-Wave and IBM quantum processors
Authors:
Catherine C. McGeoch,
Kevin Chern,
Pau Farré,
Andrew K. King
Abstract:
Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we sh…
▽ More
Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we show success probabilities multiple orders of magnitude higher than those reported by [Sachdeva et al.]. These results, which can be reproduced using open-source code and free trial access to a D-Wave quantum annealer, contradict Q-CTRL's claims of superior performance. We also provide a direct comparison between quantum annealing and a recent demonstration of digitized quantum annealing on an IBM processor, showing that analog quantum annealing on a D-Wave QPU reaches far lower energies than digitized quantum annealing on an IBM QPU.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Computational supremacy in quantum simulation
Authors:
Andrew D. King,
Alberto Nocera,
Marek M. Rams,
Jacek Dziarmaga,
Roeland Wiersema,
William Bernoudy,
Jack Raymond,
Nitin Kaushal,
Niclas Heinsdorf,
Richard Harris,
Kelly Boothby,
Fabio Altomare,
Andrew J. Berkley,
Martin Boschnak,
Kevin Chern,
Holly Christiani,
Samantha Cibere,
Jake Connor,
Martin H. Dehn,
Rahul Deshpande,
Sara Ejtemaee,
Pau Farré,
Kelsey Hamer,
Emile Hoskinson,
Shuiyuan Huang
, et al. (37 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Quantum computers hold the promise of solving certain problems that lie beyond the reach of conventional computers. Establishing this capability, especially for impactful and meaningful problems, remains a central challenge. One such problem is the simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics of a magnetic spin system quenched through a quantum phase transition. State-of-the-art classical simulations dem…
▽ More
Quantum computers hold the promise of solving certain problems that lie beyond the reach of conventional computers. Establishing this capability, especially for impactful and meaningful problems, remains a central challenge. One such problem is the simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics of a magnetic spin system quenched through a quantum phase transition. State-of-the-art classical simulations demand resources that grow exponentially with system size. Here we show that superconducting quantum annealing processors can rapidly generate samples in close agreement with solutions of the Schrödinger equation. We demonstrate area-law scaling of entanglement in the model quench in two-, three- and infinite-dimensional spin glasses, supporting the observed stretched-exponential scaling of effort for classical approaches. We assess approximate methods based on tensor networks and neural networks and conclude that no known approach can achieve the same accuracy as the quantum annealer within a reasonable timeframe. Thus quantum annealers can answer questions of practical importance that classical computers cannot.
△ Less
Submitted 1 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Milestones on the Quantum Utility Highway
Authors:
Catherine C. McGeoch,
Pau Farre
Abstract:
We introduce quantum utility, a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by including overhead costs associated with the quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by a quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering computational overheads. We…
▽ More
We introduce quantum utility, a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by including overhead costs associated with the quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by a quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering computational overheads. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation context). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility that focus on restricted subsets of overheads: Milestone 0 considers pure anneal time (no overheads) and has been demonstrated in previous work; Milestone 1 includes overhead times to access the QPU (that is, programming and readout); and Milestone 2 incorporates an indirect cost associated with minor embedding.
We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to Milestones 1 and 2, using a testbed of 13 input classes and seven classical solvers implemented on CPUs and GPUs. For Milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For Milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed.
Analysis of test results on specific inputs reveals fundamentally distinct underlying mechanisms that explain the observed differences in quantum and classical performance profiles. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for future annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and for more challenging milestones.
△ Less
Submitted 1 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Comment on "Scaling advantages of all-to-all connectivity in physical annealers: the Coherent Ising Machine vs D-Wave 2000Q" [arXiv:1805.05217]
Authors:
Catherine C. McGeoch,
William Bernoudy,
James King
Abstract:
A recent paper [arXiv:1805.05217] compares performance of a D-Wave 2000Q system to two versions of the coherent Ising machine (CIM). This comment points out some flaws in the analysis, which undermine several of the conclusions drawn in the paper.
A recent paper [arXiv:1805.05217] compares performance of a D-Wave 2000Q system to two versions of the coherent Ising machine (CIM). This comment points out some flaws in the analysis, which undermine several of the conclusions drawn in the paper.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
Quantum Annealing amid Local Ruggedness and Global Frustration
Authors:
James King,
Sheir Yarkoni,
Jack Raymond,
Isil Ozfidan,
Andrew D. King,
Mayssam Mohammadi Nevisi,
Jeremy P. Hilton,
Catherine C. McGeoch
Abstract:
A recent Google study [Phys. Rev. X, 6:031015 (2016)] compared a D-Wave 2X quantum processing unit (QPU) to two classical Monte Carlo algorithms: simulated annealing (SA) and quantum Monte Carlo (QMC). The study showed the D-Wave 2X to be up to 100 million times faster than the classical algorithms. The Google inputs are designed to demonstrate the value of collective multiqubit tunneling, a resou…
▽ More
A recent Google study [Phys. Rev. X, 6:031015 (2016)] compared a D-Wave 2X quantum processing unit (QPU) to two classical Monte Carlo algorithms: simulated annealing (SA) and quantum Monte Carlo (QMC). The study showed the D-Wave 2X to be up to 100 million times faster than the classical algorithms. The Google inputs are designed to demonstrate the value of collective multiqubit tunneling, a resource available to D-Wave QPUs but not to simulated annealing. But the computational hardness in these inputs is highly localized in gadgets, with only a small amount of complexity coming from global interactions, meaning that the relevance to real-world problems is limited.
In this study we provide a new synthetic problem class that addresses the limitations of the Google inputs while retaining their strengths. We use simple clusters instead of more complex gadgets and more emphasis is placed on creating computational hardness through frustrated global interactions like those seen in interesting real-world inputs. The logical problems used to generate these inputs can be solved in polynomial time [J. Phys. A, 15:10 (1982)]. However, for general heuristic algorithms that are unaware of the planted problem class, the frustration creates meaningful difficulty in a controlled environment ideal for study.
We use these inputs to evaluate the new 2000-qubit D-Wave QPU. We include the HFS algorithm---the best performer in a broader analysis of Google inputs---and we include state-of-the-art GPU implementations of SA and QMC. The D-Wave QPU solidly outperforms the software solvers: when we consider pure annealing time (computation time), the D-Wave QPU reaches ground states up to 2600 times faster than the competition. In the task of zero-temperature Boltzmann sampling from challenging multimodal inputs, the D-Wave QPU holds a similar advantage as quantum sampling bias does not seem significant.
△ Less
Submitted 28 February, 2017; v1 submitted 17 January, 2017;
originally announced January 2017.
-
Benchmarking a quantum annealing processor with the time-to-target metric
Authors:
James King,
Sheir Yarkoni,
Mayssam M. Nevisi,
Jeremy P. Hilton,
Catherine C. McGeoch
Abstract:
In the evaluation of quantum annealers, metrics based on ground state success rates have two major drawbacks. First, evaluation requires computation time for both quantum and classical processors that grows exponentially with problem size. This makes evaluation itself computationally prohibitive. Second, results are heavily dependent on the effects of analog noise on the quantum processors, which…
▽ More
In the evaluation of quantum annealers, metrics based on ground state success rates have two major drawbacks. First, evaluation requires computation time for both quantum and classical processors that grows exponentially with problem size. This makes evaluation itself computationally prohibitive. Second, results are heavily dependent on the effects of analog noise on the quantum processors, which is an engineering issue that complicates the study of the underlying quantum annealing algorithm. We introduce a novel "time-to-target" metric which avoids these two issues by challenging software solvers to match the results obtained by a quantum annealer in a short amount of time. We evaluate D-Wave's latest quantum annealer, the D-Wave 2X system, on an array of problem classes and find that it performs well on several input classes relative to state of the art software solvers running single-threaded on a CPU.
△ Less
Submitted 20 August, 2015;
originally announced August 2015.
-
Algorithm engineering for a quantum annealing platform
Authors:
Andrew D. King,
Catherine C. McGeoch
Abstract:
Recent advances bring within reach the viability of solving combinatorial problems using a quantum annealing algorithm implemented on a purpose-built platform that exploits quantum properties. However, the question of how to tune the algorithm for most effective use in this framework is not well understood. In this paper we describe some operational parameters that drive performance, discuss appro…
▽ More
Recent advances bring within reach the viability of solving combinatorial problems using a quantum annealing algorithm implemented on a purpose-built platform that exploits quantum properties. However, the question of how to tune the algorithm for most effective use in this framework is not well understood. In this paper we describe some operational parameters that drive performance, discuss approaches for mitigating sources of error, and present experimental results from a D-Wave Two quantum annealing processor.
△ Less
Submitted 17 October, 2014; v1 submitted 9 October, 2014;
originally announced October 2014.
