The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Classical Algorithms and Quantum Limitations for Maximum Cut on High-Girth Graphs
Open accessAbstract
We study the performance of local quantum algorithms such as the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) for the maximum cut problem, and their relationship to that of randomized classical algorithms. 1) We prove that every (quantum or classical) one-local algorithm (where the value of a vertex only depends on its and its neighbors' state) achieves on D-regular graphs of girth > 5 a maximum cut of at most 1/2 + C/√D for C = 1/√2 ≈ 0.7071. This is the first such result showing that one-local algorithms achieve a value that is bounded away from the true optimum for random graphs, which is 1/2 + P_*/√D + o(1/√D) for P_* ≈ 0.7632 [Dembo et al., 2017]. 2) We show that there is a classical k-local algorithm that achieves a value of 1/2 + C/√D - O(1/√k) for D-regular graphs of girth > 2k+1, where C = 2/π ≈ 0.6366. This is an algorithmic version of the existential bound of [Lyons, 2017] and is related to the algorithm of [Aizenman et al., 1987] (ALR) for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model. This bound is better than that achieved by the one-local and two-local versions of QAOA on high-girth graphs [M. B. Hastings, 2019; Marwaha, 2021]. 3) Through computational experiments, we give evidence that the ALR algorithm achieves better performance than constant-locality QAOA for random D-regular graphs, as well as other natural instances, including graphs that do have short cycles. While our theoretical bounds require the locality and girth assumptions, our experimental work suggests that it could be possible to extend them beyond these constraints. This points at the tantalizing possibility that O(1)-local quantum maximum-cut algorithms might be pointwise dominated by polynomial-time classical algorithms, in the sense that there is a classical algorithm outputting cuts of equal or better quality on every possible instance. This is in contrast to the evidence that polynomial-time algorithms cannot simulate the probability distributions induced by local quantum algorithms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond
Preskill, J. (2018) · Quantum · doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 · Cited by 8,830
The computational complexity of linear optics
Aaronson, S., & Arkhipov, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing · doi:10.1145/1993636.1993682 · Cited by 874
Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm
Farhi, E., & Harrow, A. W. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1602.07674 · Cited by 331
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms
Bharti, K., Cervera-Lierta, A., Kyaw, T. H., Haug, T., Alperin-Lea, S., Anand, A., Degroote, M., Heimonen, H., Kottmann, J. S., Menke, T., et al. (2022) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.015004 · Cited by 2,231
Metadata
- Authors
- Barak, B., & Marwaha, K.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
- Publisher
- Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3171066440
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Leibniz international proceedings in informatics (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1565264)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF2010021)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Keywords
- MaxCut, quantum approximate optimization algorithm, d-regular graphs, Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, quantum-classical comparison, random graphs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review