skip to main content
10.1145/3583133.3596409acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Efficient QAOA via a Polynomial QPU-Needless Approach

Published:24 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is a hybrid quantum algorithm described as ansatzes that represent both the problem and the mixer Hamiltonians. Both are parameterizable unitary transformations executed on a quantum machine/simulator and whose parameters are iteratively optimized using a classical device to optimize the problem's expectation value. To do so, in each QAOA iteration, most of the literature uses a quantum machine/simulator to measure the QAOA outcomes. However, this poses a severe bottleneck considering that quantum machines are hardly constrained (e.g. long queuing, limited qubits, etc.), likewise, quantum simulation also induces exponentially-increasing memory usage when dealing with large problems requiring more qubits. These limitations make today's QAOA implementation impractical since it is hard to obtain good solutions with a reasonably-acceptable time/resources. Considering these facts, this work presents a new approach with two main contributions, including (I) removing the need for accessing quantum devices or large-sized classical machines during the QAOA optimization phase, and (II) ensuring that when dealing with some k-bounded pseudo-Boolean problems, optimizing the exact problem's expectation value can be done in polynomial time using a classical computer.

References

  1. Utkarsh Azad, Bikash K. Behera, Emad A. Ahmed, Prasanta K. Panigrahi, and Ahmed Farouk. 2022. Solving Vehicle Routing Problem Using Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (2022), 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Joao Basso, Edward Farhi, Kunal Marwaha, Benjamin Villalonga, and Leo Zhou. 2022. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm at High Depth for MaxCut on Large-Girth Regular Graphs and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model. In 17th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography, TQC 2022, July 11--15, 2022, Urbana Champaign, Illinois, USA (LIPIcs, Vol. 232), François Le Gall and Tomoyuki Morimae (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 7:1--7:21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. David Deutsch. 1985. Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 400 (1985), 117 -- 97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniel J. Egger, Jakub Mareček, and Stefan Woerner. 2021. Warm-starting quantum optimization. Quantum 5 (June 2021), 479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Leo Zhou. 2022. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size. Quantum 6 (July 2022), 759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Edward Farhi and Aram W Harrow. 2019. Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1602.07674 [quant-ph]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Camille Grange, Michael Poss, and Eric Bourreau. 2022. An introduction to variational quantum algorithms on gate-based quantum computing for combinatorial optimization problems. arXiv:2212.11734 [math.OC]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Krzysztof Kurowski, Tomasz Pecyna, Mateusz Slysz, Rafał Różycki, Grzegorz Waligóra, and Jan Weglarz. 2023. Application of quantum approximate optimization algorithm to job shop scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research (2023). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Seth Lloyd. 2018. Quantum approximate optimization is computationally universal. arXiv:1812.11075 [quant-ph]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Thomas Lubinski, Carleton Coffrin, Catherine McGeoch, Pratik Sathe, Joshua Apanavicius, and David E. Bernal Neira. 2023. Optimization Applications as Quantum Performance Benchmarks. (2 2023). arXiv:2302.02278 [quant-ph]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mauro E. S. Morales, Jacob D. Biamonte, and Zoltán Zimborás. 2020. On the universality of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 9 (2020), 291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Moussa, Charles, Wang, Hao, Bäck, Thomas, and Dunjko, Vedran. 2022. Unsupervised strategies for identifying optimal parameters in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. EPJ Quantum Technol. 9, 1 (2022), 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. 2000. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ruslan Shaydulin, Ilya Safro, and Jeffrey Larson. 2019. Multistart Methods for Quantum Approximate optimization. In 2019 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC). 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. P.W. Shor. 1994. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 124--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Peter W. Shor. 1997. Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 5 (oct 1997), 1484--1509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Vicente P. Soloviev, Concha Bielza, and Pedro Larrañaga. 2023. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for Bayesian network structure learning. Quant. Inf. Proc. 22, 1 (2023), 19. arXiv:2203.02400 [quant-ph] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Vicente P. Soloviev, Concha Bielza, and Pedro Larrañaga. 2023. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for Bayesian network structure learning. Quant. Inf. Proc. 22, 1 (2023), 19. arXiv:2203.02400 [quant-ph] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Michael Streif and Martin Leib. 2020. Training the quantum approximate optimization algorithm without access to a quantum processing unit. Quantum Science and Technology 5, 3 (may 2020), 034008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Darrell Whitley, Hernan Aguirre, and Andrew Sutton. 2020. Understanding Transforms of Pseudo-Boolean Functions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Cancún, Mexico) (GECCO '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 760--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sheir Yarkoni, Elena Raponi, Thomas Bäck, and Sebastian Schmitt. 2022. Quantum annealing for industry applications: introduction and review. Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 10 (2022), 104001. arXiv:2112.07491 [quant-ph] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. 2020. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices. Phys. Rev. X 10 (Jun 2020), 021067. Issue 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. An Efficient QAOA via a Polynomial QPU-Needless Approach

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '23 Companion: Proceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
        July 2023
        2519 pages
        ISBN:9798400701207
        DOI:10.1145/3583133

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 July 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)62
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader