Scaling advantage in quantum simulation of geometrically frustrated magnets
Authors:
Andrew D. King,
Jack Raymond,
Trevor Lanting,
Sergei V. Isakov,
Masoud Mohseni,
Gabriel Poulin-Lamarre,
Sara Ejtemaee,
William Bernoudy,
Isil Ozfidan,
Anatoly Yu. Smirnov,
Mauricio Reis,
Fabio Altomare,
Michael Babcock,
Catia Baron,
Andrew J. Berkley,
Kelly Boothby,
Paul I. Bunyk,
Holly Christiani,
Colin Enderud,
Bram Evert,
Richard Harris,
Emile Hoskinson,
Shuiyuan Huang,
Kais Jooya,
Ali Khodabandelou
, et al. (29 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The promise of quantum computing lies in harnessing programmable quantum devices for practical applications such as efficient simulation of quantum materials and condensed matter systems. One important task is the simulation of geometrically frustrated magnets in which topological phenomena can emerge from competition between quantum and thermal fluctuations. Here we report on experimental observa…
▽ More
The promise of quantum computing lies in harnessing programmable quantum devices for practical applications such as efficient simulation of quantum materials and condensed matter systems. One important task is the simulation of geometrically frustrated magnets in which topological phenomena can emerge from competition between quantum and thermal fluctuations. Here we report on experimental observations of relaxation in such simulations, measured on up to 1440 qubits with microsecond resolution. By initializing the system in a state with topological obstruction, we observe quantum annealing (QA) relaxation timescales in excess of one microsecond. Measurements indicate a dynamical advantage in the quantum simulation over the classical approach of path-integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) fixed-Hamiltonian relaxation with multiqubit cluster updates. The advantage increases with both system size and inverse temperature, exceeding a million-fold speedup over a CPU. This is an important piece of experimental evidence that in general, PIMC does not mimic QA dynamics for stoquastic Hamiltonians. The observed scaling advantage, for simulation of frustrated magnetism in quantum condensed matter, demonstrates that near-term quantum devices can be used to accelerate computational tasks of practical relevance.
△ Less
Submitted 8 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
Investigating the Performance of an Adiabatic Quantum Optimization Processor
Authors:
Kamran Karimi,
Neil G. Dickson,
Firas Hamze,
M. H. S. Amin,
Marshall Drew-Brook,
Fabian A. Chudak,
Paul I. Bunyk,
William G. Macready,
Geordie Rose
Abstract:
Adiabatic quantum optimization offers a new method for solving hard optimization problems. In this paper we calculate median adiabatic times (in seconds) determined by the minimum gap during the adiabatic quantum optimization for an NP-hard Ising spin glass instance class with up to 128 binary variables. Using parameters obtained from a realistic superconducting adiabatic quantum processor, we ext…
▽ More
Adiabatic quantum optimization offers a new method for solving hard optimization problems. In this paper we calculate median adiabatic times (in seconds) determined by the minimum gap during the adiabatic quantum optimization for an NP-hard Ising spin glass instance class with up to 128 binary variables. Using parameters obtained from a realistic superconducting adiabatic quantum processor, we extract the minimum gap and matrix elements using high performance Quantum Monte Carlo simulations on a large-scale Internet-based computing platform. We compare the median adiabatic times with the median running times of two classical solvers and find that, for the considered problem sizes, the adiabatic times for the simulated processor architecture are about 4 and 6 orders of magnitude shorter than the two classical solvers' times. This shows that if the adiabatic time scale were to determine the computation time, adiabatic quantum optimization would be significantly superior to those classical solvers for median spin glass problems of at least up to 128 qubits. We also discuss important additional constraints that affect the performance of a realistic system.
△ Less
Submitted 27 January, 2011; v1 submitted 21 June, 2010;
originally announced June 2010.
