CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 77Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchQuantum many-body systems

Optimizing quantum heuristics with meta-learning

Open access
Wilson, Max, Stromswold, Sam, Wudarski, Filip, Hadfield, Stuart, Tubman, Norm M., Rieffel, Eleanor·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1908.03185arXiv 1908.03185
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Variational quantum algorithms, a class of quantum heuristics, are promising candidates for the demonstration of useful quantum computation. Finding the best way to amplify the performance of these methods on hardware is an important task. Here, we evaluate the optimization of quantum heuristics with an existing class of techniques called `meta-learners'. We compare the performance of a meta-learner to Bayesian optimization, evolutionary strategies, L-BFGS-B and Nelder-Mead approaches, for two quantum heuristics (quantum alternating operator ansatz and variational quantum eigensolver), on three problems, in three simulation environments. We show that the meta-learner comes near to the global optima more frequently than all other optimizers we tested in a noisy parameter setting environment. We also find that the meta-learner is generally more resistant to noise, for example seeing a smaller reduction in performance in Noisy and Sampling environments and performs better on average by a `gain' metric than its closest comparable competitor L-BFGS-B. These results are an important indication that meta-learning and associated machine learning methods will be integral to the useful application of noisy near-term quantum computers.

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.1908.03185

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?

  • The Variational Quantum Eigensolver algorithm and associated architectures have shown promising advances towards the goal of performing molecular quantum chemistry on quantum computers, with large scale implementation already being executed.

    “As discussed in the main text the Variational Quantum Eigensolver algorithm [16] (and associated architectures) have shown promising advances towards the goal of performing molecular quantum chemistry on quantum computers [255], with large scale implementation already being executed [256].”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [16]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 60

  1. Andrychowicz M, Denil M, Gomez S, Hoffman MW, Pfau D, Schaul T, Shillingford B, De Freitas N (2016) Learning to learn by gradient descent by gradient descent. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 3981-3989
  2. Ausiello G, Crescenzi P, iorgio G, Kann V, Marchetti-Spaccamela A, Protasi M (2012) Complexity and approximation: Combinatorial optimization problems and their approximability properties. Springer Science & Business Media
  3. Beasley D, Bull DR, Martin RR (1993) An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 1, fundamentals. University computing 15(2):56- 69
  4. Bello I, Zoph B, Vasudevan V, Le QV (2017) Neural optimizer search with reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, vol 70, pp 459-468. JMLR.org
  5. Bengio Y, Bengio S, Cloutier J (1990) Learning a synaptic learning rule. Université de Montréal, Dėpartement d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle Bengio Y, Simard P, Frasconi P et al (1994) Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(2):157-166
  6. Berral JL, Goiri I, Nou R, Julia F, Guitart J, Gavalda R, Torres J (2010) Towards energy-aware scheduling in data centers using machine learning. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on energy-efficient computing and networking, pp 215-224
  7. Byrd RH, Lu P, Nocedal J, Zhu C (1995) A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J Sci Comput 16(5):1190-1208
  8. Chen Y, Hoffman MW, Gómez Colmenarejo S, Denil M, Lillicrap T, Botvinick M, de Freitas N (2017) Learning to learn without gradient descent by gradient descent. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, vol 70, pp 748-756. JMLR. org
  9. Farhi E (2014) Jeffrey goldstone, and sam gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 · arXiv
  10. Feurer M, Klein A, Eggensperger K, Springenberg J, Blum M, Hutter F (2015) Efficient and robust automated machine learning. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 2962- 2970
  11. Grant E, Wossnig L, Ostaszewski M, Benedetti M (2019) An ini- tialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits. arXiv:1903.05076 · arXiv
  12. Guerreschi GG, Matsuura AY (2019) QAOA For Max-Cut requires hundreds of qubits for quantum speed-up. Sci Rep 9(1):6903
  13. Guerreschi GG, Smelyanskiy M (2017) Practical optimization for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. arXiv:1701.01450 · arXiv
  14. Hadfield S (2018) On the representation of Boolean and real functions as Hamiltonians for quantum computing. arXiv:1804.09130 · arXiv
  15. Hadfield S, Wang Z, Rieffel EG, O'Gorman B, Venturelli D, Biswas R (2017) Quantum approximate optimization with hard and soft constraints. In: Proceedings of the second international workshop on post moores era supercomputing. ACM, pp 15-21
  16. Hadfield S, Wang Z, O'Gorman B, Rieffel EG, Venturelli D, Biswas R (2019) From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz. Algorithms 12(2):34
  17. Hochreiter S (1998) The vanishing gradient problem during learning recurrent neural nets and problem solutions. Int J Uncertain Fuzz Knowl-Based Sys 6(02):107-116
  18. Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735-1780
  19. Huang EW, Mendl CB, Liu S, Johnston S, Jiang H-C, Moritz B, Devereaux TP (2017) Numerical evidence of fluctuating stripes in the normal state of high-tc cuprate supercon- ductors. Science 358(6367):1161-1164. ISSN 0036-8075. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aak9546. https://science. sciencemag.org/content/358/6367/1161 · DOI
  20. Hubbard J (1963) Electron correlations in narrow energy bands. Proc Royal Soc London Ser A Math Phys Sci 276(1365):238-257
  21. James C, et al. (1992) Spall multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. IEEE Trans Automatic Control 37(3):332-341
  22. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM (2015) Machine learning: Trends, perspec- tives, and prospects. Science 349(6245):255-260
  23. Kandala A, Mezzacapo A, Temme K, Takita M, Brink M, Chow JM, Gambetta JM (2017) Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 549(7671):242
  24. Kingma DP, Ba J (2014) Adam:, A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 · arXiv
  25. Knill E, Ortiz G, Somma RD (2007) Optimal quantum measurements of expectation values of observables. Phys Rev A 75(1):012328
  26. Krantz P, Kjaergaard M, Yan F, Orlando TP, Gustavsson S, Oliver WD (2019) A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits. Appl Phys Rev 6(2):021318
  27. Krauthgamer R, Feige U (2006) A polylogarithmic approximation of the minimum bisection. SIAM Rev 48(1):99-130
  28. LeBlanc JPF, Antipov AE, Becca F, Bulik IW, Chan GK-L, Chung C-M, Deng Y, Ferrero M, Henderson TM, Jiménez- Hoyos CA (2015) Solutions of the two-dimensional hubbard model: benchmarks and results from a wide range of numerical algorithms. Phys Rev X 5(4):041041
  29. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436
  30. Lemke C, Budka M, Gabrys B (2015) Metalearning: a survey of trends and technologies. Artif Intell Rev 44(1):117-130
  31. Li K, Malik J (2016) Learning to optimize. arXiv:1606.01885 · arXiv
  32. Libbrecht MW, Noble WS (2015) Machine learning applications in genetics and genomics. Nat Rev Genet 16(6):321
  33. Marshall J, Wudarski F, Hadfield S, Hogg T (2020) Characterizing local noise in qaoa circuits McClean JR, Boixo S, Smelyanskiy V, Babbush R, Neven H (2018) Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nat Commun 9(1):4812
  34. Mohseni M, Read P, Neven H, Boixo S, Denchev V, Babbush R, Fowler A, Smelyanskiy V, Martinis J (2017) Commercialize quantum technologies in five years. Nature News 543(7644):171
  35. Moll N, Barkoutsos P, Bishop LS, Chow JM, Cross A, Egger DJ, Filipp S, Fuhrer A, Gambetta JM, Ganzhorn M, et al. (2018) Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices. Quantum Science and Technology 3(3):030503
  36. Moseley B, Osborne M, Benjamin S (2018) Bayesian optimisation for variational quantum eigensolvers. https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/c5f1/7d67dc1decdf73cce890e1a25a9062e68f28.pdf
  37. Munkhdalai T, Yu H (2017) Meta networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, vol 70, pp 2554-2563. JMLR.org
  38. Nannicini G (2019) Performance of hybrid quantum-classical vari- ational heuristics for combinatorial optimization. Phys Rev E 99(1):013304
  39. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal 7(4):308-313
  40. Nichol A, Achiam J, Schulman J (2018) On first-order meta-learning algorithms. arXiv:1803.02999 · arXiv
  41. Niu MY, Lu S, Chuang IL (2019) Optimizing QAOA:, Success proba- bility and runtime dependence on circuit depth. arXiv:1905.12134 · arXiv
  42. O'Malley PJJ, Babbush R, Kivlichan ID, Romero J, McClean JR, Barends R, Kelly J, Roushan P, Tranter A, Ding N, et al. (2016) Scalable quantum simulation of molecular energies. Phys Rev X 6(3):031007
  43. Papadimitriou C (1994) Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley
  44. Rieffel EG, Hadfield S, Hogg T, Mandrá S, Marshall J, Mossi G, O'Gorman B, Plamadeala E, Tubman NM, Venturelli D, et al. (2019) From ansätze to Z-gates:, A NASA view of quantum computing. arXiv:1905.02860 · arXiv
  45. Romero J, Babbush R, McClean JR, Hempel C, Love PJ, Aspuru- Guzik A (2018) Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Quantum Science and Technology 4(1):014008
  46. Rubin NC (2016) A hybrid classical/quantum approach for large-scale studies of quantum systems with density matrix embedding theory. arXiv:1610.06910 · arXiv
  47. Santoro A, Bartunov S, Botvinick M, Wierstra D, Lillicrap T (2016) Meta-learning with memory-augmented neural networks. In: International conference on machine learning, pp 1842-1850
  48. Schuld M, Bergholm V, Gogolin C, Izaac J, Killoran N (2019) Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware. Phys Rev A 99(3):032331
  49. Schulz HJ (1993) Interacting fermions in one dimension: from weak to strong correlation. arXiv e-prints, art cond-mat/9302006 · arXiv
  50. Spall JC, Hill SD, Stark DR (2006) Theoretical framework for compar- ing several stochastic optimization approaches. In: Probabilistic and randomized methods for design under uncertainty. Springer, pp 99-117
  51. Vandal T, Kodra E, Ganguly S, Michaelis A, Nemani R, Ganguly AR (2017) Deepsd: Generating high resolution climate change projections through single image super-resolution. In: Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, pp 1663-1672
  52. Verdon G, Broughton M, Biamonte J (2017) A quantum algorithm to train neural networks using low-depth circuits. arXiv:1712.05304 · arXiv
  53. Verdon G, Broughton M, McClean JR, Sung KJ, Babbush R, Jiang Z, Neven H, Mohseni M (2019) Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks. arXiv:1907.05415 · arXiv
  54. Vidnerová P, Neruda R (2017) Evolution strategies for deep neural network models design. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1885:159- 166
  55. Vilalta R, Drissi Y (2002) A perspective view and survey of meta- learning. Artif Intell Rev 18(2):77-95
  56. Wang Z, Hadfield S, Jiang Z, Rieffel EG (2018) Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for MaxCut: A fermionic view. Phys Rev A 97(2):022304
  57. Wang Z, Rubin NC, Dominy JM, Rieffel EG (2019) XY-mixers:, Analytical and numerical results for QAOA. arXiv:1904.09314 · arXiv
  58. Wecker D, Hastings MB, Troyer M (2016) Training a quantum optimizer. Phys Rev A 94(2):022309
  59. Wichrowska O, Maheswaranathan N, Hoffman MW, Colmenarejo SG, Denil M, de Freitas N, Sohl-Dickstein J (2017) Learned optimizers that scale and generalize. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, vol 70, pp 3751-3760. JMLR. org
  60. Woitzik A (2018) Entanglement in quantum-classical variational algo- rithms. Master's thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universit ät Freiburgm Germany

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, M., Stromswold, S., Wudarski, F., Hadfield, S., Tubman, N. M., & Rieffel, E.
Affiliations
Ames Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Max
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
3
Issue
1
ISSN
2524-4906 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1908.03185
arXiv
1908.03185
OpenAlex
W2965090307
Cited by
77
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Quantum Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNA16BD14C)
  • Office of the Director of National Intelligence (IAA 145483)
  • Ames Research Center (NNA16BD14C)
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IAA145483, 145483)
  • Advanced Exploration Systems
  • NIH Office of the Director
  • Air Force Research Laboratory (F4HBKC4162G001, NNA16BD14C)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
meta-learning, variational quantum algorithms, variational quantum eigensolver, Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz, optimizer comparison, noisy quantum hardware, noise robustness, L-BFGS-B, Nelder-Mead

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