Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we show success probabilities multiple orders of magnitude higher than those reported by [Sachdeva et al.]. These results, which can be reproduced using open-source code and free trial access to a D-Wave quantum annealer, contradict Q-CTRL's claims of superior performance. We also provide a direct comparison between quantum annealing and a recent demonstration of digitized quantum annealing on an IBM processor, showing that analog quantum annealing on a D-Wave QPU reaches far lower energies than digitized quantum annealing on an IBM QPU.
Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we show success probabilities multiple orders of magnitude higher than those reported by [Sachdeva et al.]. These results, which can be reproduced using open-source code and free trial access to a D-Wave quantum annealer, contradict Q-CTRL's claims of superior performance. We also provide a direct comparison between quantum annealing and a recent demonstration of digitized quantum annealing on an IBM processor, showing that analog quantum annealing on a D-Wave QPU reaches far lower energies than digitized quantum annealing on an IBM QPU.
Recent work [1] has claimed that a gate-model quantum-classical hybrid algorithm called bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (BF-DCQO) [2] outperforms D-Wave's annealing quantum computers in optimization tasks. We find the opposite to be true, and demonstrate that D-Wave's quantum annealers find solutions of far greater quality than claimed in Ref. [1], while using far less computation time. We also present evidence that suggests the quantum component of the hybrid approach makes minimal contributions to solution quality.
Abstract The Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz (QAOA) and Quantum Annealing (QA) are quantum algorithms that are both based on the adiabatic theorem and both have the goal of sampling the optimal solution(s) of combinatorial optimization problems. Quantum annealing has been physically instantiated on D-Wave devices using superconducting flux qubits, and QAOA can be programmed on digital gate-model quantum computers such as the programmable superconducting transmon qubit devices manufactured by IBM Quantum, for instance ibm_washington. QAOA and QA address the same types of problems, but it is unclear how they will scale to large problem sizes and to larger and higher-fidelity quantum computers. In this article, we present a direct comparison between QAOA, one and two rounds, run on all 127 qubits of ibm_washington and QA run on D-Wave Advantage_system4.1 and Advantage_system6.1. The problems which allow for this comparison are random Ising model problems whose connectivity matches the heavy hexagonal lattice topology of ibm_washington and the Pegasus graph connectivity of the two D-Wave devices. We create two classes of problem instances for this comparison: one with higher order terms (ZZZ variable interactions), linear terms, and quadratic terms, and a separate problem type with only linear and quadratic terms. The QAOA circuits are novel and extremely short depth, with a CNOT depth of 6 per round, which allows whole chip usage of ibm_washington's heavy hexagonal lattice and can be applied to future heavy-hex chips. We also test the effectiveness of the error suppression technique digital dynamical decoupling on the QAOA circuits, allowing one of the largest experimental evaluations of dynamical decoupling to date. The QAOA circuits compiled to ibm_washington are composed of approximately 3,000 gate instructions making these some the largest quantum circuits ever executed on a digital quantum processor. QAOA and QA are compared against the classical heuristic algorithm of simulated annealing and all problem instances are exactly solved using CPLEX in order to evaluate ground state success sampling probability. We find that (i) QA outperforms QAOA on all problem instances, (ii) QAOA samples the problems better than random sampling, and (iii) QAOA parameters exhibit clear parameter concentration across the ensemble of Ising models.
Combinatorial optimization is widely regarded as a primary application for near-term quantum processors, although a definitive demonstration of the practical quantum advantage remains elusive. Recent studies have reported that both gate-based quantum circuits and quantum annealers can outperform state-of-the-art classical heuristics on multi-objective optimization (MO-MaxCut) problems. However, these studies did not fully account for the substantial pre- and post-processing overheads intrinsic to quantum solvers, leading to incomplete comparisons between quantum and classical approaches. In this work, we re-examine the same benchmark suite using GPU-based quantum-annealing-inspired algorithms (QAIAs), which, analogously to quantum processors, generate probabilistic samples and thus serve as formidable classical contenders. Our results show that QAIAs can sample candidate solutions approximately two orders of magnitude faster than previously studied quantum processors. In terms of end-to-end runtime, QAIAs also surpass industry-leading classical solvers, thereby establishing themselves as the superior performers among the quantum and classical solvers evaluated thus far for the MO-MaxCut instances.
Quantum processing units (QPUs) executing annealing algorithms have shown promise in optimization and simulation applications. Hybrid algorithms are a natural bridge to larger applications. We present a simple greedy method for solving larger-than-QPU lattice-structured Ising optimization problems. The method, implemented in the open source D-Wave Hybrid framework, uses a QPU coprocessor operating with generic parameters. Performance is evaluated for standard spin-glass problems on two lattice types with up to 11,616 spin variables, double the size that is directly programmable on any available QPU. The proposed method is shown to converge to low-energy solutions faster than an open source simulated annealing method that is either directly employed or substituted as a coprocessor in the hybrid method. Using newer Advantage QPUs in place of D-Wave 2000Q QPUs is shown to enhance convergence of the hybrid method to low energies and to achieve a lower final energy.
A recent Google study [Phys. Rev. X, 6:031015 (2016)] compared a D-Wave 2X quantum processing unit (QPU) to two classical Monte Carlo algorithms: simulated annealing (SA) and quantum Monte Carlo (QMC). The study showed the D-Wave 2X to be up to 100 million times faster than the classical algorithms. The Google inputs are designed to demonstrate the value of collective multiqubit tunneling, a resource available to D-Wave QPUs but not to simulated annealing. But the computational hardness in these inputs is highly localized in gadgets, with only a small amount of complexity coming from global interactions, meaning that the relevance to real-world problems is limited. In this study we provide a new synthetic problem class that addresses the limitations of the Google inputs while retaining their strengths. We use simple clusters instead of more complex gadgets and more emphasis is placed on creating computational hardness through frustrated global interactions like those seen in interesting real-world inputs. The logical problems used to generate these inputs can be solved in polynomial time [J. Phys. A, 15:10 (1982)]. However, for general heuristic algorithms that are unaware of the planted problem class, the frustration creates meaningful difficulty in a controlled environment ideal for study. We use these inputs to evaluate the new 2000-qubit D-Wave QPU. We include the HFS algorithm---the best performer in a broader analysis of Google inputs---and we include state-of-the-art GPU implementations of SA and QMC. The D-Wave QPU solidly outperforms the software solvers: when we consider pure annealing time (computation time), the D-Wave QPU reaches ground states up to 2600 times faster than the competition. In the task of zero-temperature Boltzmann sampling from challenging multimodal inputs, the D-Wave QPU holds a similar advantage as quantum sampling bias does not seem significant.
Abstract Complete exploration of design spaces is often computationally prohibitive. Classical search methods offer a solution but are limited by challenges like local optima and an inability to traverse dislocated design spaces. Quantum computing (QC) offers a potential solution by leveraging quantum phenomena to achieve computational speed-ups. However, the practical capability of current QC platforms to deliver these advantages remains unclear. To investigate this, we apply and compare two quantum approaches – the Gate-Based Grover’s algorithm and quantum annealing (QA) – to a generic tile placement problem. We benchmark their performance on real quantum hardware (IBM and D-Wave, respectively) against a classical brute-force search. QA on D-Wave’s hardware successfully produced usable results, significantly outperforming a classical brute-force approach (0.137 s vs 14.8 s) at the largest scale tested. Conversely, Grover’s algorithm on IBM’s gate-based hardware was dominated by noise and failed to yield solutions. While successful, the QA results exhibited a hardware-induced bias, where equally optimal solutions were not returned with the same probability (coefficient of variation: 0.248–0.463). These findings suggest that for near-term engineering applications, QA shows more immediate promise than current gate-based systems. This study’s contribution is a direct comparison of two physically implemented quantum approaches, offering practical insights, reformulation examples and clear recommendations on the utilisation of QC in engineering design.