Quantum annealing was recently found experimentally in a disordered spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ magnet to be more effective than its classical, thermal counterpart. We use the random two-dimensional Ising model as a test example and perform on it both classical and quantum (path-integral) Monte Carlo annealing. A systematic study of the dependence of the final residual energy on the annealing Monte Carlo time quantitatively demonstrates the superiority of quantum relative to classical annealing in this system. In order to determine the parameter regime for optimal efficiency of the quantum annealing procedure we explore a range of values of Trotter slice number P and temperature T. This identifies two different regimes of freezing with respect to efficiency of the algorithm, and leads to useful guidelines for the optimal choice of quantum annealing parameters.
Quantum annealing was recently found experimentally in a disordered spin-21 magnet to be more effective than its classical, thermal counterpart. We use the random two-dimensional Ising model as a test example and perform on it both classical and quantum (path-integral) Monte Carlo annealing. A systematic study of the dependence of the final residual energy on the annealing Monte Carlo time quantitatively demonstrates the superiority of quantum relative to classical annealing in this system. In order to determine the parameter regime for optimal efficiency of the quantum annealing procedure we explore a range of values of Trotter slice number P and temperature T. This identifies two different regimes of freezing with respect to efficiency of the algorithm, and leads to useful guidelines for the optimal choice of quantum annealing parameters.
Probing the lowest energy configuration of a complex system by quantum annealing was recently found to be more effective than its classical, thermal counterpart. By comparing classical and quantum Monte Carlo annealing protocols on the two-dimensional random Ising model (a prototype spin glass), we confirm the superiority of quantum annealing relative to classical annealing. We also propose a theory of quantum annealing based on a cascade of Landau-Zener tunneling events. For both classical and quantum annealing, the residual energy after annealing is inversely proportional to a power of the logarithm of the annealing time, but the quantum case has a larger power that makes it faster.
We review here some recent work in the field of quantum annealing, alias adiabatic quantum computation. The idea of quantum annealing is to perform optimization by a quantum adiabatic evolution which tracks the ground state of a suitable time-dependent Hamiltonian, where 'ℏ' is slowly switched off. We illustrate several applications of quantum annealing strategies, starting from textbook toy-models—double-well potentials and other one-dimensional examples, with and without disorder. These examples display in a clear way the crucial differences between classical and quantum annealing. We then discuss applications of quantum annealing to challenging hard optimization problems, such as the random Ising model, the travelling salesman problem and Boolean satisfiability problems. The techniques used to implement quantum annealing are either deterministic Schrödinger's evolutions, for the toy models, or path-integral Monte Carlo and Green's function Monte Carlo approaches, for the hard optimization problems. The crucial role played by disorder and the associated non-trivial Landau–Zener tunnelling phenomena is discussed and emphasized.
Simulated quantum annealing (SQA) is a classical computational strategy that emulates a quantum annealing (QA) dynamics through a path-integral Monte Carlo whose parameters are changed during the simulation. Here we apply SQA to the one-dimensional transverse field Ising chain, where previous works have shown that, in the presence of disorder, a coherent QA provides a quadratic speedup with respect to classical simulated annealing, with a density of Kibble-Zurek defects decaying as ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{KZ}}^{\mathrm{QA}}\ensuremath{\sim}{({log}_{10}\ensuremath{\tau})}^{\ensuremath{-}2}$ as opposed to ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{KZ}}^{\mathrm{SA}}\ensuremath{\sim}{({log}_{10}\ensuremath{\tau})}^{\ensuremath{-}1}, \ensuremath{\tau}$ being the total annealing time, while for the ordered case both give the same power law ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{KZ}}^{\mathrm{QA}}\ensuremath{\approx}{\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{KZ}}^{\mathrm{SA}}\ensuremath{\sim}{\ensuremath{\tau}}^{\ensuremath{-}1/2}$. We show that the dynamics of SQA, while correctly capturing the Kibble-Zurek scaling ${\ensuremath{\tau}}^{\ensuremath{-}1/2}$ for the ordered case, is unable to reproduce the QA dynamics in the disordered case at intermediate $\ensuremath{\tau}$. We analyze and discuss several issues related to the choice of the Monte Carlo moves (local or global in space), the time-continuum limit needed to eliminate the Trotter-discretization error, and the long autocorrelation times shown by a local-in-space Monte Carlo dynamics for large disordered samples.
We present an implementation of quantum annealing (QA) via lattice Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC), focusing on its application to the Ising spin glass in transverse field. In particular, we study whether or not such a method is more effective than the path-integral Monte Carlo- (PIMC) based QA, as well as classical simulated annealing (CA), previously tested on the same optimization problem. We identify the issue of importance sampling, i.e., the necessity of possessing reasonably good (variational) trial wave functions, as the key point of the algorithm. We performed GFMC-QA runs using such a Boltzmann-type trial wave function, finding results for the residual energies that are qualitatively similar to those of CA (but at a much larger computational cost), and definitely worse than PIMC-QA. We conclude that, at present, without a serious effort in constructing reliable importance sampling variational wave functions for a quantum glass, GFMC-QA is not a true competitor of PIMC-QA.
The path integral Monte Carlo simulated quantum annealing algorithm is applied to the optimization of a large hard instance of the random satisfiability problem (N = 10,000). The dynamical behavior of the quantum and the classical annealing are compared, showing important qualitative differences in the way of exploring the complex energy landscape of the combinatorial optimization problem. At variance with the results obtained for the Ising spin glass and for the traveling salesman problem, in the present case the linear-schedule quantum annealing performance is definitely worse than classical annealing. Nevertheless, a quantum cooling protocol based on field-cycling and able to outperform standard classical simulated annealing over short time scales is introduced.
Quantum annealing is a promising tool for solving optimization problems, similar in some ways to the traditional (classical) simulated annealing of Kirkpatrick et al. Simulated annealing takes advantage of thermal fluctuations in order to explore the optimization landscape of the problem at hand, whereas quantum annealing employs quantum fluctuations. Intriguingly, quantum annealing has been proved to be more effective than its classical counterpart in many applications. We illustrate the theory and the practical implementation of both classical and quantum annealing – highlighting the crucial differences between these two methods – by means of results recently obtained in experiments, in simple toy-models, and more challenging combinatorial optimization problems (namely, Random Ising model and Travelling Salesman Problem). The techniques used to implement quantum and classical annealing are either deterministic evolutions, for the simplest models, or Monte Carlo approaches, for harder optimization tasks. We discuss the pro and cons of these approaches and their possible connections to the landscape of the problem addressed.