Recently, many researchers are investigating quantum annealing as a solver for real-world combinatorial optimization problems. However, due to the format of problems that quantum annealing solves and the structure of the physical annealer, these problems often require additional setup prior to solving. We study how these setup steps affect performance and provide insight into the interplay among them using the job-shop scheduling problem for our evaluation. We show that the empirical probability of success is highly sensitive to problem setup and that excess variables and large embeddings reduce performance. We then show that certain problem instances are unable to be solved without the use of additional post-processing methods. Finally, we investigate the effect of pausing during the anneal. Our results show that pausing within a certain time window can improve the probability of success, which is consistent with other work. However, we also show that the performance improvement due to pausing can be masked depending on properties of the embedding, and thus, special care must be taken for embedded problems.
Recently, many researchers are investigating quantum annealing as a solver for real-world combinatorial optimization problems. However, due to the format of problems that quantum annealing solves and the structure of the physical annealer, these problems often require additional setup prior to solving. We study how these setup steps affect performance and provide insight into the interplay among them using the job-shop scheduling problem for our evaluation. We show that the empirical probability of success is highly sensitive to problem setup and that excess variables and large embeddings reduce performance. We then show that certain problem instances are unable to be solved without the use of additional post-processing methods. Finally, we investigate the effect of pausing during the anneal. Our results show that pausing within a certain time window can improve the probability of success, which is consistent with other work. However, we also show that the performance improvement due to pausing can be masked depending on properties of the embedding, and thus, special care must be taken for embedded problems.
We study the interplay between quantum annealing parameters in embedded problems, providing both deeper insights into the physics of these devices and pragmatic recommendations to improve performance on optimization problems. We choose as our test case the class of bounded-degree minimum-spanning-tree problems. Through runs on a D-Wave quantum annealer, we demonstrate that pausing in a specific time window in the anneal provides improvement in the probability of success and in the time to solution for these problems. The time window is consistent across problem instances and its location is within the region suggested by prior theory and seen in previous results on native problems. An approach to enable gauge transformations for problems with the qubit coupling strength J in an asymmetric range is presented and shown to significantly improve performance. We also confirm that the optimal pause location exhibits a shift with the magnitude of the ferromagnetic coupling, ∣JF∣, between physical qubits representing the same logical one. We extend the theoretical picture for pausing and thermalization in quantum annealing to the embedded case. This picture, along with perturbation-theory analysis and exact numerical results on small problems, confirms that the effective pause region moves earlier in the anneal as ∣JF∣ increases. It also suggests why pausing, while still providing significant benefit, has a less pronounced effect on embedded problems.
Prior work showed the efficacy of pausing midanneal: such a pause improved the probability of success by orders of magnitude in a class of native problem instances and improved the time to solution in a class of embedded problem instances. A physics-based picture provides qualitative suggestions for where pausing midanneal is effective, for the interplay between annealing schedule parameters and other annealing properties and parameters such as embedding size and strength of the ferromagnetic coupling ∣JF∣, and for the conditions under which pausing can improve the time to solution. Here, through demonstrations on an updated annealing architecture that has higher connectivity than previous annealers, and on multiple embedded problem classes, we are able to confirm various aspects of this picture. We demonstrate the robustness of the optimal pause parameters across platforms and problem classes, explore how to set ∣JF∣ to optimize performance in different scenarios, and provide empirical evidence that short pauses trump longer overall annealing times in time to solution. We also identify the number of different coefficients in a problem as a predictor of problem hardness, and explore its interplay with the optimal ∣JF∣ and embedding size. Based on these results we are able to present qualitative guidelines for parameter setting in quantum annealers.
Recent research has shown that alternative annealing schedules provide the means for improving performance in modern quantum annealing devices. One such type of schedule is forward annealing with a pause, in which there is a period of time when system evolution is paused. While the results from using this type of schedule have been promising, effectively using a pause is not a trivial task. One challenge associated with introducing a pause into the schedule is determining the point in the anneal at which the pause will start. Additionally, tuning the schedule in real-time requires a significant amount of time. A second challenge is that while a pause may increase the number of correct solutions returned from the annealer, the time-to-solution, a standard metric for measuring performance in quantum annealing, will not necessarily be improved. We propose a method for constructing annealing schedules containing a pause that avoids the costly process of determining the optimal pause location in an online manner. We also evaluate our method on the subset sum problem, a problem of practical significance, and show that our method is able to achieve a 70% reduction in time-to-solution from a standard schedule containing no pause.
Job Shop Scheduling is a combinatorial optimization problem of particular importance for production environments where the goal is to complete a production task in the shortest possible time given limitations in the resources available. Due to its computational complexity it quickly becomes intractable for problems of interesting size. The emerging technology of Quantum Annealing provides an alternative computational architecture that promises improved scalability and solution quality. However, several limitations as well as open research questions exist in this relatively new and rapidly developing technology. This paper studies the application of quantum annealing to solve the job shop scheduling problem, describing each step required from the problem formulation to the fine-tuning of the quantum annealer and compares the solution quality with various classical solvers. Particular attention is devoted to aspects that are often overlooked, such as the computational cost of representing the problem in the formulation required by the quantum annealer, the relative qubits requirements and how to mitigate chain breaks. Furthermore, the impact of advanced tools such as reverse annealing is presented and its effectiveness discussed. The results indicate several challenges emerging at various stages of the experimental pipeline which bring forward important research questions and directions of improvement.
Quantum annealing (QA) has the potential to significantly improve solution quality and reduce time complexity in solving combinatorial optimization problems compared to classical optimization methods. However, due to the limited number of qubits and their connectivity, the QA hardware did not show such an advantage over classical methods in past benchmarking studies. Recent advancements in QA with more than 5000 qubits, enhanced qubit connectivity, and the hybrid architecture promise to realize the quantum advantage. Here, we use a quantum annealer with state-of-the-art techniques and benchmark its performance against classical solvers. To compare their performance, we solve over 50 optimization problem instances represented by large and dense Hamiltonian matrices using quantum and classical solvers. The results demonstrate that a state-of-the-art quantum solver has higher accuracy (~0.013%) and a significantly faster problem-solving time (~6561×) than the best classical solver. Our results highlight the advantages of leveraging QA over classical counterparts, particularly in hybrid configurations, for achieving high accuracy and substantially reduced problem solving time in large-scale real-world optimization problems.
Despite increases in qubit count and connectivity in quantum annealers, a quantum speedup has yet to be observed for problems of practical significance. In order to further improve annealer performance, some researchers focus on tuning annealer parameters, such as the annealing schedule. In this work, we focus on pausing, an annealing schedule modification that has been shown to improve the probability of solving an optimization problem by orders of magnitude. However, a challenge associated with pausing is selecting an appropriate pause location, as pausing is only effective in problem-dependent regions and ineffective elsewhere. Moreover, there is little advice on how to determine where pausing is effective. Thus, pausing effectively is difficult and often inaccessible to the majority of users. To address these issues, we propose a data-driven method that leverages machine learning to predict optimal pause locations. First, we construct a dataset consisting of optimization problems and their corresponding optimal pause locations. The optimal pause locations are determined using spin-vector Monte Carlo, a method known to yield results similar to quantum annealing. Next, we train a convolutional neural network on this dataset, demonstrating its ability to distinguish between problem types and accurately predict the optimal pause location. Finally, we evaluate the model on multiple types of optimization problems. Our results show that the pause locations predicted by our method improve solution quality for all selected problem types. Additionally, our model can be pre-trained and easily distributed, making the power of pausing accessible to users unfamiliar with annealing schedule modifications.