Multilevel leapfrogging initialization for quantum approximate optimization algorithm (2306.06986v4)
Abstract: Recently, Zhou et al. have proposed a novel Interpolation-based (INTERP) strategy to generate the initial parameters for the Parameterized Quantum Circuit (PQC) in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). INTERP produces the guess of the initial parameters at level $i+1$ by applying linear interpolation to the optimized parameters at level $i$, achieving better performance than random initialization (RI). Nevertheless, INTERP consumes extensive running costs for deep QAOA because it necessitates optimization at each level of the PQC. To address this problem, a Multilevel Leapfrogging Interpolation (MLI) strategy is proposed. MLI can produce the guess of the initial parameters from level $i+1$ to $i+l$ ($l>1$) at level $i$, omitting the optimization rounds from level $i+1$ to $(i+l-1)$. The final result is that MLI executes optimization at few levels rather than each level, and this operation is referred to as Multilevel Leapfrogging optimization (M-Leap). The performance of MLI is investigated on the Maxcut problem. Compared with INTERP, MLI reduces most optimization rounds. Remarkably, the simulation results demonstrate that MLI can achieve the same quasi-optima as INTERP while consuming only 1/2 of the running costs required by INTERP. In addition, for MLI, where there is no RI except for level $1$, the greedy-MLI strategy is presented. The simulation results suggest that greedy-MLI has better stability (i.e., a higher average approximation ratio) than INTERP and MLI beyond obtaining the same quasi-optima as INTERP. According to the efficiency of finding the quasi-optima, the idea of M-Leap might be extended to other training tasks, especially those requiring numerous optimizations, such as training adaptive quantum circuits.
- L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997).
- J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
- C. Bravo-Prieto, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2, 035028 (2021).
- G. E. Crooks, “Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem,” (2018), arXiv:1811.08419 [quant-ph] .
- E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph] .
- S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum 5, 491 (2021).
- F. G. S. L. Brandao, M. Broughton, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and H. Neven, “For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances,” (2018), arXiv:1812.04170 [quant-ph] .
- J. Wurtz and D. Lykov, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052419 (2021).
- R. M. Karp, 50 Years of Integer Programming (2010).
- J. Wurtz and P. Love, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042612 (2021).
- T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
- M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, Journal of the ACM (JACM) 42, 1115 (1995).
- G. G. Guerreschi and A. Y. Matsuura, Scientific reports 9, 6903 (2019).
- M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science 339, 1169 (2013).