Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Studies of Classical and Quantum Annealing

Lorenzo Stella

Published Oct 24, 2005• 2 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A summary of the results of recent applications of PIMC-QA on different optimization problems is given in Chapter 1. In order to gain understanding on these problems, we have moved one step back, and concentrated attention on the simplest textbook problems where the energy landscape is well under control: essentially, one-dimensional potentials, starting from a double-well potential, the simplest form of barrier. On these well controlled landscapes we have carried out a detailed and exhaustive comparison between quantum adiabatic Schrödinger evolution, both in real and in imaginary time, and its classical deterministic counterpart, i.e., Fokker-Planck evolution [17]. This work will be illustrated in Chapter 2. On the same double well-potential, we have also studied the performance of different stochastic annealing approaches, both classical Monte Carlo annealing and PIMCQA. The CA work is illustrated in Chapter 3, where we analyze the different annealing behaviors of three possible types of Monte Carlo moves (with Box, Gaussian, and Lorentzian distributions) in a numerical and analytical way. The PIMC-QA work is illustrated in Chapter 4, were we show the difficulties that a state-of-the-art PIMCQA algorithm can encounter in describing tunneling even in a simple landscape, and we also investigate the role of the kinetic energy choice, by comparing the standard non-relativistic dispersion, Hkin = Tau(t)p^2, with a relativistic one, Hkin = Tau(t)|p|, which turns out to be definitely more effective. In view of the difficulties encountered by PIMC-QA even in a simple double-well potential, we finally explored the capabilities of another well established QMC technique, the Green's Function Monte Carlo (GFMC), as a base for a QA algorithm. This time, we concentrated our attention on a very studied and challenging optimization problem, the random Ising model ground state search, for which both CA and PIMC-QA data are available [10, 11]. A more detailed summary of the results and achievements described in this Thesis, and a discussion of open issues, is contained in the final section `Conclusions and Perspectives'. Finally, in order to keep this Thesis as self-contained as possible, we include in the appendices a large amount of supplemental material.

Related papers

Optimization by quantum annealing: Lessons from simple cases

Lorenzo Stella, Giuseppe E. Santoro, Erio Tosatti

We investigate the basic behavior and performance of simulated quantum annealing (QA) in comparison with classical annealing (CA). Three simple one-dimensional case study systems are considered: namely, a parabolic well, a double well, and a curved washboard. The time-dependent Schr\"odinger evolution in either real or imaginary time describing QA is contrasted with the Fokker-Planck evolution of CA. The asymptotic decrease of excess energy with annealing time is studied in each case, and the reasons for differences are examined and discussed. The Huse-Fisher classical power law of double-well CA is replaced with a different power law in QA. The multiwell washboard problem studied in CA by Shinomoto and Kabashima and leading classically to a logarithmic annealing even in the absence of disorder turns to a power-law behavior when annealed with QA. The crucial role of disorder and localization is briefly discussed.

arXiv:cond-mat/0502129•Physical Review B•Jul 6, 2005•58 citations

Optimization using quantum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution

Giuseppe E. Santoro, Erio Tosatti

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.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Aug 18, 2006•354 citations

Monte Carlo studies of quantum and classical annealing on a double well

Lorenzo Stella, Giuseppe E. Santoro, Erio Tosatti

We present results for a variety of Monte Carlo annealing approaches, both classical and quantum, benchmarked against one another for the textbook optimization exercise of a simple one-dimensional double well. In classical (thermal) annealing, the dependence upon the move chosen in a Metropolis scheme is studied and correlated with the spectrum of the associated Markov transition matrix. In quantum annealing, the path integral Monte Carlo approach is found to yield nontrivial sampling difficulties associated with the tunneling between the two wells. The choice of fictitious quantum kinetic energy is also addressed. We find that a ``relativistic'' kinetic energy form, leading to a higher probability of long real-space jumps, can be considerably more effective than the standard nonrelativistic one.

arXiv:cond-mat/0512064•Physical Review B•Apr 10, 2006•19 citations

Multiqubit Tunneling and Evolution in Quantum Annealing

Lucas T. Brady

Quantum computing seeks to use the powers of quantum mechanics to accomplish tasks that classical computers cannot easily accomplish. Adiabatic quantum computing is one flavor of quantum computing that slowly changes a system with time in such a way that the state remains close to the ground state for the entire evolution. An easy way to implement and study adiabatic computing is using stoquastic Hamiltonians with no-sign problem. These Hamiltonians can be readily simulated on classical computers using quantum Monte Carlo schemes; though, it is unknown whether such simulation captures the speed and power of the quantum computation.In this work, I study stoquastic Hamiltonians, focusing on quantum mechanical tunneling through classically inaccessible regions and barriers. I study multi-qubit tunneling problems to determine what properties of the barrier make this problem quantum mechanically or classically hard or inefficient. I compare quantum adiabatic computing with a path-integral Quantum Monte Carlo algorithm, which is a classical algorithm designed to simulate the quantum mechanical dynamics of the adiabatic evolution. Limited numerical data shows strong correlation between adiabatic and Monte Carlo runtimes, but due to computational limits, only small system sizes could be sampled.Additionally, I study the properties of the quantum adiabatic algorithm in both the asymptotic limit of a large number of qubits and long runtimes and more realistic finite system sizes and non-adiabatic conditions. I develop a modification of the existing Villain transformation that allows it to find the asymptotic running time of the quantum evolution for different barrier sizes. Furthermore, I compare this to finite system sizes and discover the extremely large numbers of qubits are needed for these asymptotics to be useful.When the quantum dynamics are run faster than adiabatically, new behavior arises that could potentially lead to enhancements in the quantum runtimes. I explore these enhancements, discovering when they do and do not occur. I also develop a broad framework for determining the nature of the near-adiabatic behavior of any quantum evolution, using only information about the energy gap between the ground state and the first excited state.

•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Optimization through quantum annealing: theory and some applications

Demian A. Battaglia, Lorenzo Stella

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.

Contemporary Physics•Jul 1, 2006•8 citations

Thermal, quantum and simulated quantum annealing: analytical comparisons for simple models

Victor Bapst, Guilhem Semerjian

We study various annealing dynamics, both classical and quantum, for simple mean-field models and explain how to describe their behavior in the thermodynamic limit in terms of differential equations. In particular we emphasize the differences between quantum annealing (i.e. evolution with Schrödinger equation) and simulated quantum annealing (i.e. annealing of a Quantum Monte Carlo simulation).

arXiv:1512.07819•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Dec 16, 2013•12 citations
A summary of the results of recent applications of PIMC-QA on different optimization problems is given in Chapter 1. In order to gain understanding on these problems, we have moved one step back, and concentrated attention on the simplest textbook problems where the energy landscape is well under control: essentially, one-dimensional potentials, starting from a double-well potential, the simplest form of barrier. On these well controlled landscapes we have carried out a detailed and exhaustive comparison between quantum adiabatic Schrödinger evolution, both in real and in imaginary time, and its classical deterministic counterpart, i.e., Fokker-Planck evolution [17]. This work will be illustrated in Chapter 2. On the same double well-potential, we have also studied the performance of different stochastic annealing approaches, both classical Monte Carlo annealing and PIMCQA. The CA work is illustrated in Chapter 3, where we analyze the different annealing behaviors of three possible types of Monte Carlo moves (with Box, Gaussian, and Lorentzian distributions) in a numerical and analytical way. The PIMC-QA work is illustrated in Chapter 4, were we show the difficulties that a state-of-the-art PIMCQA algorithm can encounter in describing tunneling even in a simple landscape, and we also investigate the role of the kinetic energy choice, by comparing the standard non-relativistic dispersion, Hkin = Tau(t)p^2, with a relativistic one, Hkin = Tau(t)|p|, which turns out to be definitely more effective. In view of the difficulties encountered by PIMC-QA even in a simple double-well potential, we finally explored the capabilities of another well established QMC technique, the Green's Function Monte Carlo (GFMC), as a base for a QA algorithm. This time, we concentrated our attention on a very studied and challenging optimization problem, the random Ising model ground state search, for which both CA and PIMC-QA data are available [10, 11]. A more detailed summary of the results and achievements described in this Thesis, and a discussion of open issues, is contained in the final section `Conclusions and Perspectives'. Finally, in order to keep this Thesis as self-contained as possible, we include in the appendices a large amount of supplemental material.
We investigate the basic behavior and performance of simulated quantum annealing (QA) in comparison with classical annealing (CA). Three simple one-dimensional case study systems are considered: namely, a parabolic well, a double well, and a curved washboard. The time-dependent Schr\"odinger evolution in either real or imaginary time describing QA is contrasted with the Fokker-Planck evolution of CA. The asymptotic decrease of excess energy with annealing time is studied in each case, and the reasons for differences are examined and discussed. The Huse-Fisher classical power law of double-well CA is replaced with a different power law in QA. The multiwell washboard problem studied in CA by Shinomoto and Kabashima and leading classically to a logarithmic annealing even in the absence of disorder turns to a power-law behavior when annealed with QA. The crucial role of disorder and localization is briefly discussed.
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.
We present results for a variety of Monte Carlo annealing approaches, both classical and quantum, benchmarked against one another for the textbook optimization exercise of a simple one-dimensional double well. In classical (thermal) annealing, the dependence upon the move chosen in a Metropolis scheme is studied and correlated with the spectrum of the associated Markov transition matrix. In quantum annealing, the path integral Monte Carlo approach is found to yield nontrivial sampling difficulties associated with the tunneling between the two wells. The choice of fictitious quantum kinetic energy is also addressed. We find that a ``relativistic'' kinetic energy form, leading to a higher probability of long real-space jumps, can be considerably more effective than the standard nonrelativistic one.
Quantum computing seeks to use the powers of quantum mechanics to accomplish tasks that classical computers cannot easily accomplish. Adiabatic quantum computing is one flavor of quantum computing that slowly changes a system with time in such a way that the state remains close to the ground state for the entire evolution. An easy way to implement and study adiabatic computing is using stoquastic Hamiltonians with no-sign problem. These Hamiltonians can be readily simulated on classical computers using quantum Monte Carlo schemes; though, it is unknown whether such simulation captures the speed and power of the quantum computation.In this work, I study stoquastic Hamiltonians, focusing on quantum mechanical tunneling through classically inaccessible regions and barriers. I study multi-qubit tunneling problems to determine what properties of the barrier make this problem quantum mechanically or classically hard or inefficient. I compare quantum adiabatic computing with a path-integral Quantum Monte Carlo algorithm, which is a classical algorithm designed to simulate the quantum mechanical dynamics of the adiabatic evolution. Limited numerical data shows strong correlation between adiabatic and Monte Carlo runtimes, but due to computational limits, only small system sizes could be sampled.Additionally, I study the properties of the quantum adiabatic algorithm in both the asymptotic limit of a large number of qubits and long runtimes and more realistic finite system sizes and non-adiabatic conditions. I develop a modification of the existing Villain transformation that allows it to find the asymptotic running time of the quantum evolution for different barrier sizes. Furthermore, I compare this to finite system sizes and discover the extremely large numbers of qubits are needed for these asymptotics to be useful.When the quantum dynamics are run faster than adiabatically, new behavior arises that could potentially lead to enhancements in the quantum runtimes. I explore these enhancements, discovering when they do and do not occur. I also develop a broad framework for determining the nature of the near-adiabatic behavior of any quantum evolution, using only information about the energy gap between the ground state and the first excited state.
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.