Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Comparing the Digital Annealer with Classical Evolutionary Algorithm (2205.13586v3)

Published 26 May 2022 in cs.NE and cs.AI

Abstract: In more recent years, there has been increasing research interest in exploiting the use of application specific hardware for solving optimisation problems. Examples of solvers that use specialised hardware are IBM's Quantum System One and D-wave's Quantum Annealer (QA) and Fujitsu's Digital Annealer (DA). These solvers have been developed to optimise problems faster than traditional meta-heuristics implemented on general purpose machines. Previous research has shown that these solvers (can optimise many problems much quicker than exact solvers such as GUROBI and CPLEX. Such conclusions have not been made when comparing hardware solvers with classical evolutionary algorithms. Making a fair comparison between traditional evolutionary algorithms, such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), and the DA (or other similar solvers) is challenging because the later benefits from the use of application specific hardware while evolutionary algorithms are often implemented on general-purpose machines. Moreover, quantum or quantum-inspired solvers are limited to solving problems in a specific format. A common formulation used is Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation (QUBO). Many optimisation problems are however constrained and have natural representations that are non-binary. Converting such problems to QUBO can lead to more problem difficulty and/or larger search space. The question addressed in this paper is whether quantum or quantum-inspired solvers can optimise QUBO transformations of combinatorial optimisation problems faster than classical evolutionary algorithms applied to the same problems in their natural representations. We show that the DA often present better average objective function values than GA on Travelling Salesman, Quadratic Assignment and Multi-dimensional Knapsack Problem instances.

Citations (5)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.