Abstract:Quantum annealing (QA) is a method for solving combinatorial optimization problems. We can estimate the computational time for QA using the adiabatic condition. The adiabatic condition consists of two parts: an energy gap and a transition matrix. Most past studies have focused on the relationship between the energy gap and computational time. The success probability of QA is considered to decrease exponentially owing to the exponentially decreasing energy gap at the first-order phase-transition point. In this study, through a detailed analysis of the relationship between the energy gap, transition matrix, and computational cost during QA, we propose a general method for constructing counterintuitive models wherein QA with a constant annealing time fails despite a constant energy gap, based on polynomial energy. We assume that the energy of the total Hamiltonian is at most $\Theta(L)$, where $L$ is the number of qubits. In our formalism, we choose a known model that exhibits an exponentially small energy gap during QA, and modify the model by adding a specific penalty term to the Hamiltonian. In the modified model, the transition matrix in the adiabatic condition becomes exponentially large as the number of qubits increases, while the energy gap remains constant. Moreover, we achieve a quadratic speedup, for which the upper bound for improvement in the adiabatic condition is determined by the polynomial energy. As examples, we consider the adiabatic Grover search and the $p$-spin model. In these cases, with the addition of the penalty term, although the success probability of QA on the modified models becomes exponentially small despite a constant energy gap; we can achieve a success probability considerably higher than that of conventional QA. Moreover, we numerically show the scaling of the computational cost is quadratically improved compared to the conventional QA.

Pulsed Quantum Annealing

Quantum annealing showing an exponentially small success probability despite a constant energy gap with polynomial energy

Prospects for quantum enhancement with diabatic quantum annealing

On Quantum Annealing Without a Physical Quantum Annealer

Short-depth QAOA circuits and quantum annealing on higher-order ising models

Greedy parameter optimization for diabatic quantum annealing

Can Constrained Quantum Annealing Be Effective in Noisy Quantum Annealers?

Benchmarking Quantum Hardware for Training of Fully Visible Boltzmann Machines

Beyond Quantum Annealing: Optimal control solutions to MaxCut problems

Advanced anneal paths for improved quantum annealing

Theories and Applications of Quantum Annealing: A Literature Survey

Adaptive quantum optimization algorithms for programmable atom-cavity systems

Performance of quantum annealing inspired algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems

Proposal to experimentally evaluate the adiabatic condition of quantum annealing in coupled systems of Kerr parametric oscillators

Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

Customized quantum annealing schedules

How to experimentally evaluate the adiabatic condition for quantum annealing

Hybrid quantum annealing for larger-than-QPU lattice-structured problems

GPU-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

Scaling Advantage in Approximate Optimization with Quantum Annealing

Experimental Demonstration of A Quantum Annealing Algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem in A Nuclear-Magnetic-Resonance Quantum Simulator