Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Quantum optimization with linear Ising penalty functions for customer data science

Published 8 Apr 2024 in quant-ph | (2404.05467v2)

Abstract: Constrained combinatorial optimization problems, which are ubiquitous in industry, can be solved by quantum algorithms such as quantum annealing (QA) and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). In these quantum algorithms, constraints are typically implemented with quadratic penalty functions. This penalty method can introduce large energy scales and make interaction graphs much more dense. These effects can result in worse performance of quantum optimization, particularly on near-term devices that have sparse hardware graphs and other physical limitations. In this work, we consider linear Ising penalty functions, which are applied with local fields in the Ising model, as an alternative method for implementing constraints that makes more efficient use of physical resources. We study the behaviour of the penalty method in the context of quantum optimization for customer data science problems. Our theoretical analysis and numerical simulations of QA and the QAOA indicate that this penalty method can lead to better performance in quantum optimization than the quadratic method. However, the linear Ising penalty method is not suitable for all problems as it cannot always exactly implement the desired constraint. In cases where the linear method is not successful in implementing all constraints, we propose that schemes involving both quadratic and linear Ising penalties can be effective.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (35)
  1. T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Physical Review E 58, 5355 (1998).
  2. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014), arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028.
  3. L. T. Brady and S. Hadfield, Iterative Quantum Algorithms for Maximum Independent Set: A Tale of Low-Depth Quantum Algorithms (2023), arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13110.
  4. A. D. King et al., Computational supremacy in quantum simulation (2024), arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00910.
  5. R. Orús, S. Mugel, and E. Lizaso, Reviews in Physics 4, 100028 (2019).
  6. D. Venturelli and A. Kondratyev, Quantum Machine Intelligence 1, 17 (2019).
  7. D. M. Fox, K. M. Branson, and R. C. Walker, PLOS ONE 16, 1 (2021).
  8. J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  9. V. Choi, Quantum Information Processing 7, 193 (2008).
  10. W. Lechner, P. Hauke, and P. Zoller, Science Advances 1, 1 (2015).
  11. A. Rocchetto, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Science Advances 2, e1601246 (2016).
  12. J. Chen, T. Stollenwerk, and N. Chancellor, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2, 1 (2021).
  13. M. Ohzeki, Scientific Reports 10, 3126 (2020).
  14. S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science 220, 671 (1983).
  15. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018).
  16. L. Meredith and D. Maki, Applied Economics 33, 1785 (2001).
  17. C. Aguilar-Palacios, S. Munoz-Romero, and J. L. Rojo-Alvarez, IEEE Access 9, 34078 (2021).
  18. J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical Optimization, Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering (Springer New York, 2006).
  19. N. Van Thoai, in Advanced Computational Methods for Knowledge Engineering, edited by N. T. Nguyen, T. van Do, and H. A. le Thi (Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 3–17.
  20. T. Hagge, Optimal fermionic swap networks for Hubbard models (2020), arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08324.
  21. I. Hen and F. M. Spedalieri, Physical Review Applied 5, 034007 (2016).
  22. I. Hen and M. S. Sarandy, Physical Review A 93, 062312 (2016).
  23. T. Vyskocil and H. Djidjev, Algorithms 12, 1 (2019).
  24. P. D. de la Grand’rive and J.-F. Hullo, Knapsack Problem variants of QAOA for battery revenue optimisation (2019), arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02210.
  25. S. Yu and T. Nabil, Frontiers in Physics 9, 1 (2021).
  26. R. L. Stratonovich, in Soviet Physics Doklady, Vol. 2 (1957) p. 416.
  27. J. Hubbard, Physical Review Letters 3, 77 (1959).
  28. M. Kuramata, R. Katsuki, and K. Nakata, in 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 556–565.
  29. G. van Rossum and F. L. Drake Jr, Python tutorial (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, 1995).
  30. M. Zaman, K. Tanahashi, and S. Tanaka, IEEE Transactions on Computers 71, 838 (2022).
  31. J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007).
  32. Gurobi Optimization, LLC, Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (2023).
  33. Qiskit contributors, Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing (2023).
  34. M. J. D. Powell, A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation, in Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis, edited by S. Gomez and J.-P. Hennart (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1994) pp. 51–67.
  35. A. Callison and N. Chancellor, Phys. Rev. A 106, 010101 (2022).
Citations (1)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 1 like about this paper.