arXiv:2603.24441
Benchmarking Techniques for Decoded Quantum Interferometry
Leon Bollmann, Maximilian Hess
Abstract
We develop a new benchmarking scheme for the Decoded Quantum Interferometry (DQI) algorithm quantifying the number of quantum gates required to obtain an optimal solution to a problem amenable to DQI. We apply the benchmarking scheme to the Binary Paint Shop Problem (BPSP) in order to benchmark the performance of DQI against a state of the art classical solver. To do so, we provide an explicit construction of a quantum circuit implementation of a greedy decoder for low-density parity check codes arising from max-2-XORSAT problems.
AI Summary
Decoded Quantum Interferometry (DQI) converts structured optimization into syndrome decoding, but practical performance depends on imperfect decoding and coherent implementation costs. This paper studies how to estimate the probability of obtaining an optimal solution, rather than only expected objective values, and applies the resulting benchmarks to the Binary Paint Shop Problem (BPSP). The proposed exact benchmark evaluates a chosen decoder on every error pattern of Hamming weight at most the DQI polynomial degree $l$, then computes probabilities for classically identified optimal solutions. An approximate version samples 2,000 errors per Hamming weight to estimate decoding failure rates and assumes correctly decoded errors are uniformly distributed within each Hamming shell. Small-instance comparisons, using 10 random instances at each of six sizes between 5 and 15 car pairs, find this approximation somewhat conservative. For BPSP, two max-XORSAT encodings yield codes whose distance remains approximately constant with problem size. For max-2-XORSAT, decoding is expressed as a graph $T$-join problem. A greedy matching decoder is implemented using CNOT and Toffoli gates with $O(n^2)$ auxiliary qubits. Benchmarks on 10 random instances per size from 10 to 80 car pairs suggest an optimal degree $l\approx 2n/5$. Accounting for decoder cost favors greedy decoding over a hypothetical blossom-based decoder, but both DQI estimates scale less favorably than Gurobi. Limitations include exponential-cost exact benchmarking, an unproved uniform-shell approximation, no quantum blossom implementation, and incomparable absolute resource units for quantum gates and Gurobi work. The tested sizes do not establish larger-instance behavior.
Central claim may not hold: The purported exact DQI measurement probabilities omit cross terms between different Hamming weights, contradicting the immediately preceding coherent-state formula even on a one-bit perfectly decoded example. The uniform-subset approximation squares an expected signed sum rather than averaging its square, omitting a generally nonzero variance contribution and invalidating its interpretation as the expected measurement probability. The gate-cost estimate uses success probabilities conditioned on postselection without charging for failed postselection attempts, whose success probability is R. The supplied greedy-decoder circuit retains syndrome-dependent path-register garbage, so without an additional coherent uncomputation it does not prepare the interference-preserving state assumed by the benchmarks. The stated conversion from objective value to satisfied-constraint count is incorrect: the definitions imply s(x)=(f(x)+m)/2.
Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the paper's full text. Automated: it can be wrong.