PreprintCited by 13Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Limitations of Local Quantum Algorithms on Random Max-k-XOR and Beyond

Open access

Abstract

We introduce a notion of \emph{generic local algorithm} which strictly generalizes existing frameworks of local algorithms such as \emph{factors of i.i.d.} by capturing local \emph{quantum} algorithms such as the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). Motivated by a question of Farhi et al. [arXiv:1910.08187, 2019] we then show limitations of generic local algorithms including QAOA on random instances of constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Specifically, we show that any generic local algorithm whose assignment to a vertex depends only on a local neighborhood with $o(n)$ other vertices (such as the QAOA at depth less than $ε\log(n)$) cannot arbitrarily-well approximate boolean CSPs if the problem satisfies a geometric property from statistical physics called the coupled overlap-gap property (OGP) [Chen et al., Annals of Probability, 47(3), 2019]. We show that the random MAX-k-XOR problem has this property when $k\geq4$ is even by extending the corresponding result for diluted $k$-spin glasses. Our concentration lemmas confirm a conjecture of Brandao et al. [arXiv:1812.04170, 2018] asserting that the landscape independence of QAOA extends to logarithmic depth -- in other words, for every fixed choice of QAOA angle parameters, the algorithm at logarithmic depth performs almost equally well on almost all instances. One of these concentration lemmas is a strengthening of McDiarmid's inequality, applicable when the random variables have a highly biased distribution, and may be of independent interest.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2108.06049

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.

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?

  • Due to the overlap gap property, QAOA needs increasingly high p-values for Maxk XOR with even k.

    “They showed analytically that, due to this property, the QAOA needs increasingly high p -values for Maxk XOR with even k .”

    From Limitations of Quantum Approximate Optimization in Solving Generic Higher-Order Constraint-Satisfaction Problems (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 1.3, Theorem 1.2, gives a logarithmic-in-n lower bound on p for QAOA to find a near-optimal solution with high probability on random Max-k-XOR instances with even k ≥ 4 and sufficiently high average degree. Section 8.3 establishes the coupled overlap-gap property used in the obstruction. The citing sentence omits those conditions and makes the depth requirement sound unconditional. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [BPS99] Sally C Brailsford, Chris N Potts, and Barbara M Smith. Constraint satisfaction problems: Algorithms and applications. European journal of operational research , 119(3):557581, 1999.
  2. [CGP + 19] Wei-Kuo Chen, David Gamarnik, Dmitry Panchenko, Mustazee Rahman, et al. Suboptimality of local algorithms for a class of max-cut problems. Annals of Probability , 47(3):1587-1618, 2019.
  3. [Cho94] K. P. Choi. On the Medians of Gamma Distributions and an Equation of Ramanujan. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 121(1):245-251, 1994.
  4. [Con18] Francesco Concetti. The full replica symmetry breaking in the Ising spin glass on random regular graph. Journal of Statistical Physics , 173(5):1459-1483, 2018.
  5. [CP18] Wei-Kuo Chen and Dmitry Panchenko. Disorder chaos in some diluted spin glass models. The Annals of Applied Probability , 28(3):1356-1378, 2018.
  6. [CST22] Antares Chen, Jonathan Shi, and Luca Trevisan. Cut Sparsification of the Clique Beyond the Ramanujan Bound: A Separation of Cut Versus Spectral Sparsification. In Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 3693-3731. SIAM, 2022.
  7. [DMS17] Amir Dembo, Andrea Montanari, and Subhabrata Sen. Extremal cuts of sparse random graphs. The Annals of Probability , 45(2):1190-1217, 2017.
  8. [DPMTL21] Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Dario Trevisan, and Seth Lloyd. The quantum Wasserstein distance of order 1. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 67(10):66276643, 2021.
  9. [DS04] Luca De Sanctis. Random multi-overlap structures and cavity fields in diluted spin glasses. Journal of statistical physics , 117(5):785-799, 2004.
  10. [DSS16] Jian Ding, Allan Sly, and Nike Sun. Satisfiability threshold for random regular NAESAT. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 341(2):435-489, 2016.
  11. [EAMS21] Ahmed El Alaoui, Andrea Montanari, and Mark Sellke. Optimization of mean-field spin glasses. The Annals of Probability , 49(6):2922-2960, 2021.
  12. [EWL + 21] Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T Wang, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Ahmed Omran, Dolev Bluvstein, Rhine Samajdar, Hannes Pichler, Wen Wei Ho, et al. Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator. Nature , 595(7866):227-232, 2021.
  13. [FGG14] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014. · arXiv
  14. [FGG20a] Edward Farhi, David Gamarnik, and Sam Gutmann. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09002 , 2020. · arXiv
  15. [FGG20b] Edward Farhi, David Gamarnik, and Sam Gutmann. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: Worst Case Examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08747 , 2020. · arXiv
  16. [FGGZ19] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Leo Zhou. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08187 , 2019. · arXiv
  17. [FGL12] Xiequan Fan, Ion Grama, and Quansheng Liu. Hoeffding's inequality for supermartingales. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 122(10):3545-3559, 2012.
  18. [FL03] Silvio Franz and Michele Leone. Replica bounds for optimization problems and diluted spin systems. Journal of Statistical Physics , 111(3):535-564, 2003.
  19. [GJ21] David Gamarnik and Aukosh Jagannath. The overlap gap property and approximate message passing algorithms for p -spin models. The Annals of Probability , 49(1):180-205, 2021.
  20. [GJW20] David Gamarnik, Aukosh Jagannath, and Alexander S Wein. Low-Degree Hardness of Random Optimization Problems. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 131-140. IEEE Computer Society, 2020.
  21. [GS14] David Gamarnik and Madhu Sudan. Limits of local algorithms over sparse random graphs. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Innovations in theoretical computer science , pages 369-376, 2014.
  22. [GT02] Francesco Guerra and Fabio Lucio Toninelli. The thermodynamic limit in mean field spin glass models. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 230(1):71-79, 2002.
  23. [GT04] Francesco Guerra and Fabio Lucio Toninelli. The high temperature region of the Viana-Bray diluted spin glass model. Journal of statistical physics , 115(1):531-555, 2004.
  24. [GWZ + 21] Ming Gong, Shiyu Wang, Chen Zha, Ming-Cheng Chen, He-Liang Huang, Yulin Wu, Qingling Zhu, Youwei Zhao, Shaowei Li, Shaojun Guo, et al. Quantum walks on a programmable two-dimensional 62-qubit superconducting processor. Science , 372(6545):948-952, 2021.
  25. [GZ19] David Gamarnik and Ilias Zadik. The landscape of the planted clique problem: Dense subgraphs and the overlap gap property. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07174 , 2019. · arXiv
  26. [H + 63] Theodore Edward Harris et al. The theory of branching processes , volume 6. Springer Berlin, 1963.
  27. [Has19] Matthew B Hastings. Classical and quantum bounded depth approximation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07047 , 2019. · arXiv
  28. [KKMO07] Subhash Khot, Guy Kindler, Elchanan Mossel, and Ryan O'Donnell. Optimal inapproximability results for MAX-CUT and other 2-variable CSPs? SIAM Journal on Computing , 37(1):319-357, 2007.
  29. [Kum92] Vipin Kumar. Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: A survey. AI magazine , 13(1):32-32, 1992.
  30. [Mon19] A. Montanari. Optimization of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Hamiltonian. In 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 1417-1433, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, nov 2019. IEEE Computer Society.
  31. [MP01] Marc Mézard and Giorgio Parisi. The Bethe lattice spin glass revisited. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems , 20(2):217-233, 2001.
  32. [Pan14a] Dmitry Panchenko. Introduction to the SK model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.0170 , 2014. · arXiv
  33. [Pan14b] Dmitry Panchenko. The Parisi formula for mixed p -spin models. The Annals of Probability , 42(3):946-958, 2014.
  34. [Par80] Giorgio Parisi. A sequence of approximated solutions to the SK model for spin glasses. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 13(4):L115, 1980.
  35. [PRTR14] Giorgio Parisi, Federico Ricci-Tersenghi, and Tommaso Rizzo. Diluted mean-field spin-glass models at criticality. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , 2014(4):P04013, 2014.
  36. [PT04] Dmitry Panchenko and Michel Talagrand. Bounds for diluted mean-fields spin glass models. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 130(3):319-336, 2004.
  37. [Rag08] Prasad Raghavendra. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every CSP? In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 245-254, 2008.
  38. [Sen18] Subhabrata Sen. Optimization on sparse random hypergraphs and spin glasses. Random Structures & Algorithms , 53(3):504-536, 2018.
  39. [SK75] David Sherrington and Scott Kirkpatrick. Solvable model of a spin-glass. Physical review letters , 35(26):1792, 1975.
  40. [Tak90] Lajos Takács. On Cayley's formula for counting forests. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A , 53(2):321-323, 1990.
  41. [Tal06] Michel Talagrand. The parisi formula. Annals of mathematics , pages 221-263, 2006.
  42. [WL20] Jonathan Wurtz and Peter J Love. Bounds on MAXCUT QAOA performance for p > 1. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11209 , 2020. · arXiv
  43. [ZWC + 20] Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X , 10(2):021067, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chou, C.-N., Love, P. J., Sandhu, J. S., & Shi, J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195429828
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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 (1818914, 1565264, 1618026)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (HR001120C0068)
  • H2020 European Research Council (834861)
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 › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Keywords
quantum approximate optimization algorithm, constraint satisfaction, overlap gap property, random constraint satisfaction problems

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