CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 99Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research

Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

Open access
Guerreschi, Gian Giacomo, Smelyanskiy, Mikhail·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1701.01450arXiv 1701.01450
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A novel class of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms based on the variational approach have recently emerged from separate proposals addressing, for example, quantum chemistry and combinatorial problems. These algorithms provide an approximate solution to the problem at hand by encoding it in the state of a quantum computer. The operations used to prepare the state are not a priori fixed but, quite the opposite, are subjected to a classical optimization procedure that modifies the quantum gates and improves the quality of the approximate solution. While the quantum hardware determines the size of the problem and what states are achievable (limited, respectively, by the number of qubits and by the kind and number of possible quantum gates), it is the classical optimization procedure that determines the way in which the quantum states are explored and whether the best available solution is actually reached. In addition, the quantities required in the optimization, for example the objective function itself, have to be estimated with finite precision in any experimental implementation. While it is desirable to have very precise estimates, this comes at the cost of repeating the state preparation and measurement multiple times. Here we analyze the competing requirements of high precision and low number of repetitions and study how the overall performance of the variational algorithm is affected by the precision level and the choice of the optimization method. Finally, this study introduces quasi-Newton optimization methods in the general context of hybrid variational algorithms and presents quantitative results for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1701.01450

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar variational algorithms could be applied for simulating the Wick-rotated Schrodinger equation of imaginary time evolution and general first-order derivative equations with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians.

    “Similar variational algorithms could be applied for simulating the Wick-rotated Schrödinger equation of imaginary time evolution [87] and general firstorder derivative equations with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians [92].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [92]

    The citation [92] is attached to the claim about general first-order derivative equations with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. The Discussion and Conclusions (p. 19) mentions variational algorithms for time-evolving states, but does not address those equations or non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. Searches for those terms and for imaginary-time evolution found no passage establishing the attributed application. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • An alternative approach reduces the overhead by simulating the stochastic Schrodinger equation, which unravels density matrix evolution into trajectories of pure states.

    “An alternative approach [92] which reduces this overhead is to simulate the stochastic Schrödinger equation, which unravels the evolution of the density matrix into trajectories of pure states.”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [92]

    The passages in Section II (p. 5) discuss preparing quantum states and the repetitions needed to estimate observables, not simulating density-matrix evolution. Searches for the stochastic Schrödinger equation and for density-matrix trajectories found no passage addressing the claimed method or its overhead reduction. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [6]J. Mower, N. C. Harris, G. R. Steinbrecher, Y. Lahini, and D. Englund, Physical Review A 92 , 032322 (2015), 1406.3255.
  2. [7]M. Veldhorst, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, W. Huang, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Nature (2015), 10.1038/nature15263. · DOI
  3. [8]S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, Proceedings of the 43rd annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '11 , 333 (2011).
  4. [9]S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, arXiv:1608.00263 (2016). · arXiv
  5. [11]J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, New Journal of Physics 18 , 023023 (2016).
  6. [12]E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:1411.4028 (2014). · arXiv
  7. [13]E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv:1602.07674 (2016). · arXiv
  8. J. M. Martinis, Physical Review X 6 , 031007 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/%2010.1103/PhysRevX.6.031007 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [15]J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, The Computer Journal 7 , 308 (1965). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [16]M. J. D. Powell, The Computer Journal 7 , 155 (1964). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [17]C. T. Kelley, SIAM Journal on Optimization 10 , 43 (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S1052623497315203 · DOI
  12. [18]J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization (Springer, 2000).
  13. [19]S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  14. [20]M. Smelyanskiy, N. P. D. Sawaya, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, arXiv:1601.07195 (2016). · arXiv
  15. [21]N. P. D. Sawaya, M. Smelyanskiy, J. R. McClean, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, arXiv:1602.01857v2 (2016). · arXiv
  16. [22]D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Physical Review A 94 , 022309 (2016).
  17. [23]Z.-C. Yang, A. Rahmani, A. Shabani, H. Neven, and C. Chamon, arXiv:1607.06473 , 1 (2016). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guerreschi, G. G., & Smelyanskiy, M.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1701.01450
arXiv
1701.01450
OpenAlex
W2573722252
Cited by
99
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Keywords
hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, variational quantum algorithms, quantum approximate optimization algorithm, quasi-Newton methods, measurement noise, state preparation and measurement, combinatorial optimization, quantum chemistry, optimizer comparison

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