Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Can Constrained Quantum Annealing Be Effective in Noisy Quantum Annealers?
arXiv
Authors: Ryoya Igata, Myonsok I, Yuya Seki, Yuta Mizuno, Shohei Watabe
Year
2024
Paper ID
37776
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
185
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We investigate the performance of penalty-based quantum annealing (PQA) and constrained quantum annealing (CQA) in solving the graph partitioning problem under various noise models, including depolarizing, bit-flip, and phase-flip noise. We found that even in the absence of noise, the relative superiority of PQA or CQA is highly problem-dependent. PQA generally demonstrates relatively stable success probabilities, while CQA's performance varies significantly across problem instances. Notably, CQA experiences leakage from the constraint-satisfying subspace under most noise models, with the exception of phase-flip noise, where no leakage occurs exactly. The dependence of success probability on noise strength reveals that PQA consistently outperforms CQA in the weak noise regime, whereas CQA achieves higher success probabilities under strong phase-flip noise. However, even in this case, the overall success probability remains low, suggesting that CQA is not yet practical for noisy quantum annealers without the development of error-corrected quantum annealing and autonomous error correction techniques to address leakage from the constraint-satisfying subspace. To confine the system within the constraint subspace in CQA, error correction methods and cat code encoding will likely be required, both of which can suppress bit-flip errors.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We investigate the performance of penalty-based quantum annealing (PQA) and constrained quantum annealing (CQA) in solving the graph partitioning problem under various noise...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.