CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 25Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsQuantum many-body systems

Classical algorithms and quantum limitations for maximum cut on high-girth graphs

Open access
Barak, Boaz, Marwaha, Kunal·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2106.05900arXiv 2106.05900
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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 classical algorithms. (1) We prove that every (quantum or classical) one-local algorithm achieves on $D$-regular graphs of girth $> 5$ a maximum cut of at most $1/2 + C/\sqrt{D}$ for $C=1/\sqrt{2} \approx 0.7071$. This is the first such result showing that one-local algorithms achieve a value bounded away from the true optimum for random graphs, which is $1/2 + P_*/\sqrt{D} + o(1/\sqrt{D})$ for $P_* \approx 0.7632$. (2) We show that there is a classical $k$-local algorithm that achieves a value of $1/2 + C/\sqrt{D} - O(1/\sqrt{k})$ for $D$-regular graphs of girth $> 2k+1$, where $C = 2/π\approx 0.6366$. This is an algorithmic version of the existential bound of Lyons and is related to the algorithm of Aizenman, Lebowitz, and Ruelle (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. (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. Our experimental work suggests that it could be possible to extend beyond our theoretical 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.

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.2106.05900

Cites

26 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • There is currently no provable quantum advantage for VQA with NISQ devices.

    “Despite its potential, it is important to note that there is currently no provable quantum advantage for VQA with NISQ devices (Barak and Marwaha, 2021).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Barak and Marwaha, 2021

    The Introduction (p. 2) says quantum advantage for NISQ optimization remains an open question, particularly for local algorithms on natural graph problems. The discussion (p. 7) likewise says advantage has not been ruled out, while its limitation concerns one-local algorithms on high-girth maximum-cut instances. These passages support the narrower optimization claim, not a statement about all VQAs on NISQ devices. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Because each gate operation involves a certain amount of noise, NISQ algorithms are naturally limited to employing circuits of shallow depths.

    “Because each gate operation involves a certain amount of noise, NISQ algorithms are naturally limited to employing circuits of shallow depths (Barak and Marwaha, 2021).”

    From Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Barak and Marwaha, 2021

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barak, B., & Marwaha, K.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2106.05900
arXiv
2106.05900
OpenAlex
W3171066440
Cited by
19
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
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