Publication: Practical engineering of hard spin-glass instances
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2016-07-14
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
American Physical Society
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Recent technological developments in the field of experimental quantum annealing have made prototypical annealing optimizers with hundreds of qubits commercially available. The experimental demonstration of a quantum speedup for optimization problems has since then become a coveted, albeit elusive goal. Recent studies have shown that the so far inconclusive results, regarding a quantum enhancement, may have been partly due to the benchmark problems used being unsuitable. In particular, these problems had inherently too simple a structure, allowing for both traditional resources and quantum annealers to solve them with no special efforts. The need therefore has arisen for the generation of harder benchmarks which would hopefully possess the discriminative power to separate classical scaling of performance with size from quantum. We introduce here a practical technique for the engineering of extremely hard spin-glass Ising-type problem instances that does not require "cherry picking" from large ensembles of randomly generated instances. We accomplish this by treating the generation of hard optimization problems itself as an optimization problem, for which we offer a heuristic algorithm that solves it. We demonstrate the genuine thermal hardness of our generated instances by examining them thermodynamically and analyzing their energy landscapes, as well as by testing the performance of various state-of-the-art algorithms on them. We argue that a proper characterization of the generated instances offers a practical, efficient way to properly benchmark experimental quantum annealers, as well as any other optimization algorithm.
Description
©2016 American Physical Society.
We thank Ehsan Khatami for useful comments and suggestions. This work was partially supported by MINECO (Spain) through Grants No. FIS2012-35719-C02, No. FIS2015-65078-C2-1-P. Computation for the work described in this paper was partially supported by the University of Southern California's Center for High-Performance Computing (http://hpcc.usc.edu).
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity, Dover Books on Computer Science (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2013).
A. B. Finnila, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, and J. D. Doll, Quantum annealing: A new method for minimizing multidimensional functions, Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343 (1994).
T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998).
R. Martoňák, G. E. Santoro, and E. Tosatti, Quantum annealing by the path-integral Monte Carlo method: The two-dimensional random Ising model, Phys. Rev. B 66, 094203 (2002).
G. E. Santoro, R. Martoňák, E. Tosatti, and R. Car, Theory of quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass, Science 295, 2427 (2002).
J. Brooke, D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum, and G. Aeppli, Quantum annealing of a disordered magnet, Science 284, 779 (1999).
E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-Complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001).
B. W. Reichardt, The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima, in Proceedings of the Thirty-sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '04 (ACM, New York, 2004), p. 502.
M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolkacheva, C. J. S. Truncik, S. Uchaikin, J. Wang, B. Wilson, and G. Rose, Quantum annealing with manufactured spins, Nature (London) 473, 194 (2011).
P. I. Bunyk, E. M. Hoskinson, M. W. Johnson, E. Tolkacheva, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, R. Harris, J. P. Hilton, T. Lanting, A. J. Przybysz, and J. Whittaker, Architectural considerations in the design of a superconducting quantum annealing processor, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 24, 1 (2014).
A. P. Young, S. Knysh, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, Size Dependence of the Minimum Excitation Gap in the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170503 (2008).
I. Hen and A. P. Young, Exponential complexity of the quantum adiabatic algorithm for certain satisfiability problems, Phys. Rev. E 84, 061152 (2011).
I. Hen, Excitation gap from optimized correlation functions in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. E 85, 036705 (2012).
E. Farhi, D. Gosset, I. Hen, A. W. Sandvik, P. Shor, A. P. Young, and F. Zamponi, Performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm on random instances of two optimization problems on regular hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052334 (2012).
T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Defining and detecting quantum speedup, Science 345, 420 (2014).
I. Hen, J. Job, T. Albash, T. F. Rønnow, M. Troyer, and D. A. Lidar, Probing for quantum speedup in spin-glass problems with planted solutions, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042325 (2015).
T. Lanting, A. J. Przybysz, A. Yu. Smirnov, F. M. Spedalieri, M. H. Amin, A. J. Berkley, R. Harris, F. Altomare, S. Boixo, P. Bunyk, N. Dickson, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, E. Hoskinson, M. W. Johnson, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, R. Neufeld, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolkacheva, S. Uchaikin, A. B. Wilson, and G. Rose, Entanglement in a Quantum Annealing Processor, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021041 (2014).
S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V. Isakov, M. Dykman, V. S. Denchev, M. Amin, A. Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, Computational role of collective tunneling in a quantum annealer, arXiv:1411.4036.
S. Boixo, T. F. Ronnow, S. V. Isakov, Z. Wang, D. Wecker, D. A. Lidar, J. M. Martinis, and M. Troyer, Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits, Nat. Phys. 10, 218 (2014).
S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V. Isakov, M. Dykman, V. S. Denchev, M. H. Amin, A. Yu. Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, Computational multiqubit tunneling in programmable quantum annealers, Nat. Commun. 7, 10327 (2016).
V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Babbush, V. Smelyanskiy, J. Martinis, and H. Neven, What is the Computational Value of Finite Range Tunneling? arXiv:1512.02206.
H. G. Katzgraber, F. Hamze, and R. S. Andrist, Glassy Chimeras could be Blind to Quantum Speedup: Designing Better Benchmarks for Quantum Annealing Machines, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021008 (2014).
V. Martin-Mayor and I. Hen, Unraveling quantum annealers using classical hardness, Sci. Rep. 5, 15324 (2015).
D. Venturelli, S. Mandrà, S. Knysh, B. O'Gorman, R. Biswas, and V. Smelyanskiy, Quantum Optimization of Fully Connected Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031040 (2015).
F. Belletti, M. Cotallo, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, A. Gordillo, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, E. Marinari, V. Martiń-Mayor, A. Muñoz-Sudupe, D. Navarro, S. Pérez-Gaviro, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, S. F. Schifano, D. Sciretti, A. Tarancón, R. Tripiccione, and J. L. Velasco (Janus Collaboration), Simulating spin systems on IANUS, an FPGA-based computer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 208 (2008).
F. Belletti, M. Guidetti, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, S. F. Schifano, R. Tripiccione, M. Cotallo, S. Perez-Gaviro, D. Sciretti, J. L. Velasco, A. Cruz, D. Navarro, A. Tarancon, L. A. Fernandez, V. Martin-Mayor, A. Muñoz-Sudupe, D. Yllanes, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, E. Marinari, G. Parisi, M. Rossi, and G. Zanier (Janus Collaboration), Janus: An FPGA-based system for high-performance scientific computing, Comput. Sci. Eng. 11, 48 (2009).
M. Baity-Jesi, R. A. Baños, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, J. M. Gil-Narvion, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, D. Iniguez, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, E. Marinari, V. Martin-Mayor, J. Monforte-Garcia, A. Muñoz Sudupe, D. Navarro, G. Parisi, S. Perez-Gaviro, M. Pivanti, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, S. F. Schifano, B. Seoane, A. Tarancon, R. Tripiccione, and D. Yllanes (Janus Collaboration), Janus II: A new generation application-driven computer for spin-system simulations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 550 (2014).
S. R. McKay, A. N. Berker, and S. Kirkpatrick, Spin-glass Behavior in Frustrated Ising Models with Chaotic Renormalization-group Trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 767 (1982).
A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Chaotic Nature of the Spin-glass Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 57 (1987).
J. R. Banavar and A. J. Bray, Chaos in spin glasses: A renormalization-group study, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8888 (1987).
I. Kondor, On chaos in spin glasses, J. Phys. A 22, L163 (1989).
I. Kondor and Végsö, Sensitivity of spin-glass order to temperature changes, J. Phys. A 26, L641 (1993).
A. Billoire and E. Marinari, Evidence against temperature chaos in mean-field and realistic spin glasses, J. Phys. A 33, L265 (2000).
T. Rizzo, Against chaos in temperature in mean-field spin-glass models, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34, 5531 (2001).
R. Mulet, A. Pagnani, and G. Parisi, Against temperature chaos in naive Thouless-Anderson-Palmer equations, Phys. Rev. B 63, 184438 (2001).
A. Billoire and E. Marinari, Overlap among states at different temperatures in the sk model, Europhys. Lett. 60, 775 (2002).
F. Krzakala and O. C. Martin, Chaotic temperature dependence in a model of spin glasses, Eur. Phys. J. 28, 199 (2002).
T. Rizzo and A. Crisanti, Chaos in Temperature in the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 137201 (2003).
G. Parisi and T. Rizzo, Chaos in temperature in diluted mean-field spin-glass, J. Phys. A 43, 235003 (2010).
M. Sasaki, K. Hukushima, H. Yoshino, and H. Takayama, Temperature Chaos and Bond Chaos in Edwards-Anderson Ising Spin Glasses: Domain-wall Free-energy Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 267203 (2005).
H. G. Katzgraber and F. Krzakala, Temperature and Disorder Chaos in Three-dimensional Ising Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 017201 (2007).
L. A. Fernandez, V. Martin-Mayor, G. Parisi, and B. Seoane, Temperature chaos in 3d Ising spin glasses is driven by rare events, Europhys. Lett. 103, 67003 (2013).
A. Billoire, Rare events analysis of temperature chaos in the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P04016.
K. H. Fischer and J. A. Hertz, Spin Glasses (University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 1991).
K. Binder and A. P. Young, Spin glasses: Experimental facts, theoretical concepts and open questions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986).
H. G. Katzgraber, F. Hamze, Z. Zhu, A. J. Ochoa, and H. Muonoz-Bauza, Seeking Quantum Speedup Through Spin Glasses: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031026 (2015).
A. D. Sokal, Monte Carlo methods in statistical mechanics: Foundations and new algorithms, in Functional Integration: Basics and Applications, edited by C. DeWitt-Morette, P. Cartier, and A. Folacci (Plenum, New York, 1997).
L. A. Fernandez, V. Martin-Mayor, S. Perez-Gaviro, A. Tarancon, and A. P. Young, Phase transition in the three dimensional Heisenberg spin glass: Finite-size scaling analysis, Phys. Rev. B 80, 024422 (2009).
R. Alvarez Baños, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, J. M. Gil-Narvion, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, M. Guidetti, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, E. Marinari, V. Martin-Mayor, J. Monforte-Garcia, A. Muñoz Sudupe, D. Navarro, G. Parisi, S. Perez-Gaviro, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, S. F. Schifano, B. Seoane, A. Tarancon, R. Tripiccione, and D. Yllanes (Janus Collaboration), Nature of the spin-glass phase at experimental length scales, J. Stat. Mech. (2010) P06026.
F. Hamze and N. de Freitas, From fields to trees, in UAI, edited by D. M. Chickering and J. Y. Halpern (AUAI Press, Arlington, Virginia, 2004), p. 243.
A. Selby, Efficient subgraph-based sampling of Ising-type models with frustration, arXiv:1409.3934.
The “Boltzmann factor” e−β∣∣ΔTTS∣∣ should not be confused with the standard one in statistical mechanics, e−βH: in our case the TTS plays the role that the Hamiltonian would play in a standard problem.
A. Selby, QUBO-Chimera, https://github.com/alex1770/QUBO-Chimera.
For the HFS algorithm, the most natural choice of TTS, so as to quantify the computational difficulty, is simply the physical, average solve time of an instance; due to the nature of the algorithm, it does not easily lend itself to a “universal,” system independent measure of TTS (e.g., number of algorithmic steps). The reader is referred to Refs. [16] and [51] for more details.
If one were to use a solver which suffers from intrinsic control errors (e.g., an analog device, such as the DW annealers), i.e., encoding errors in the Jij, one may have to perform some kind of averaging procedure to try to estimate the TTS more accurately (e.g., in the DW case, running over several different gauges [15]). The performance of our algorithm will of course be adversely affected in such a case.
To generate the hardest instances, k=4, we ran our algorithm 780 times with up to 1000 steps (that is, at least 100 of the 780 instances fell within the time interval [0.8,1.2] s). The total CPU time this took was approximately 400 h (though note that our code was not optimized). Also note that of these 780, about 120 have tHFS>1.2 s. The other k groups took significantly less time to generate.
Screening instances on PT occurs in two phases. Phase 1 screens 76800 random instances, taking ∼900 CPU h. Phase 2 then screens the 1024 (estimated) worst case instances for another 100 h. Given 76800 random 500+ bit instances we expect approximately 15 to have τ>107 (∼65 h per instance).
W. Barthel, A. K. Hartmann, M. Leone, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, M. Weigt, and R. Zecchina, Hiding Solutions in Random Satisfiability Problems: A Statistical Mechanics Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 188701 (2002).
F. Krzakala and L. Zdeborová, Hiding Quiet Solutions in Random Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 238701 (2009).