Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Recursive greedy initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm with guaranteed improvement

Stefan H. Sack1, Raimel A. Medina1, Richard Kueng2, and Maksym Serbyn1

  • 1Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA), Am Campus 1, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria
  • 2Institute for Integrated Circuits, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, Austria

Phys. Rev. A 107, 062404 – Published 2 June, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062404

Abstract

The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) is a variational quantum algorithm, where a quantum computer implements a variational ansatz consisting of p layers of alternating unitary operators and a classical computer is used to optimize the variational parameters. For a random initialization, the optimization typically leads to local minima with poor performance, motivating the search for initialization strategies of QAOA variational parameters. Although numerous heuristic initializations exist, an analytical understanding and performance guarantees for large p remain evasive. We introduce a greedy initialization of QAOA which guarantees improving performance with an increasing number of layers. Our main result is an analytic construction of 2p+1 transition states—saddle points with a unique negative curvature direction—for QAOA with p+1 layers that use the local minimum of QAOA with p layers. Transition states connect to new local minima, which are guaranteed to lower the energy compared to the minimum found for p layers. We use the Greedy procedure to navigate the exponentially increasing with p number of local minima resulting from the recursive application of our analytic construction. The performance of the Greedy procedure matches available initialization strategies while providing a guarantee for the minimal energy to decrease with an increasing number of layers p.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (32)

  1. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  2. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  3. L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021067 (2020).
  4. S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum 5, 491 (2021).
  5. D. J. Egger, J. Mareček, and S. Woerner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum 5, 479 (2021).
  6. N. Jain, B. Coyle, E. Kashefi, and N. Kumar, Graph neural network initialisation of quantum approximate optimisation, Quantum 6, 861 (2022).
  7. J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum 6, 635 (2022).
  8. F. G. S. L. Brandão, M. Broughton, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and H. Neven, For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm's objective function value concentrates for typical instances, arXiv:1812.04170.
  9. V. Akshay, D. Rabinovich, E. Campos, and J. Biamonte, Parameter concentrations in quantum approximate optimization, Phys. Rev. A 104, L010401 (2021).
  10. G. E. Crooks, Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem, arXiv:1811.08419.
  11. D. Wales, Energy Landscapes: Applications to Clusters, Biomolecules and Glasses, Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
  12. Note that on physical grounds we do not consider singular Hessians that have one or more vanishing eigenvalues, see Appendix pp2.
  13. M. Streif, S. Yarkoni, A. Skolik, F. Neukart, and M. Leib, Beating classical heuristics for the binary paint shop problem with the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012403 (2021).
  14. E. Farhi, D. Gamarnik, and S. Gutmann, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm needs to see the whole graph: A typical case, arXiv:2004.09002.
  15. K. Marwaha and S. Hadfield, Bounds on approximating Max kXOR with quantum and classical local algorithms, Quantum 6, 757 (2022).
  16. Z. Wang, S. Hadfield, Z. Jiang, and E. G. Rieffel, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for MaxCut: A fermionic view, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022304 (2018).
  17. R. Bellman, Introduction to Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1997).
  18. C. G. Broyden, The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms 1. General considerations, IMA J. Appl. Math. 6, 76 (1970).
  19. R. Fletcher, A new approach to variable metric algorithms, Comput. J. 13, 317 (1970).
  20. D. Goldfarb, A family of variable-metric methods derived by variational means, Math. Comp. 24, 23 (1970).
  21. D. F. Shanno, Conditioning of quasi-newton methods for function minimization, Math. Comp. 24, 647 (1970).
  22. Note that we restrict only to symmetric TS since we numerically find no performance gain from including the nonsymmetric TS in the initialization procedure.
  23. A. A. Mele, G. Bigan Mbeng, G. E. Santoro, M. Collura, and P. Torta, Avoiding barren plateaus via transferability of smooth solutions in Hamiltonian variational ansatz, Phys. Rev. A 106, L060401 (2022).
  24. L. T. Brady, C. L. Baldwin, A. Bapat, Y. Kharkov, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal Protocols in Quantum Annealing and Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 070505 (2021).
  25. D. Liang, L. Li, and S. Leichenauer, Investigating quantum approximate optimization algorithms under bang-bang protocols, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033402 (2020).
  26. J. Wurtz and P. Love, MaxCut quantum approximate optimization algorithm performance guarantees for p>1, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042612 (2021).
  27. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  28. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  29. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 043001 (2019).
  30. C.-N. Chou, P. J. Love, J. Singh Sandhu, and J. Shi, Limitations of local quantum algorithms on random Max-k-XOR and beyond, arXiv:2108.06049.
  31. J. Weidenfeller, L. C. Valor, J. Gacon, C. Tornow, L. Bello, S. Woerner, and D. J. Egger, Scaling of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on superconducting qubit based hardware, Quantum 6, 870 (2022).
  32. M. Larocca, N. Ju, D. García-Martín, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Theory of overparametrization in quantum neural networks, arXiv:2109.11676.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation