The European Physical Journal Special Topics

, Volume 224, Issue 1, pp 63–73 | Cite as

Performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm on constraint satisfaction and spin glass problems

  • I. Hen
  • A.P. Young
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Quantum Annealing: The Fastest Route to Quantum Computation?


One of the major ongoing debates on the future of quantum annealers pertains to their robustness against the decohering effects of finite temperature and interactions with the environment. We argue that even in an ideal setting of very low temperatures and in the absence of a decohering environment, quantum annealers may find it challenging to solve optimization problems significantly faster than state-of-the-art heuristic classical algorithms. Here, we study the performance of the quantum adiabatic algorithm (QAA) on a variety of constraint satisfaction problems by examining the size dependence of the minimum energy gap during the evolution of the QAA. We do so by employing Quantum Monte Carlo schemes as these allow us to study these problems at much larger scales than exact methods would allow. We find that in all cases a quantum phase transition occurs and the minimum gap decreases exponentially with system size, leading to an exponentially large running time for the QAA. Based on these and other results, we discuss potential modifications to the QAA that may improve the scaling of the minimum gap, leading to faster quantum adiabatic algorithms.


European Physical Journal Special Topic Spin Glass Spin Glass Phase Quantum Annealing Quantum Monte Carlo Simulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation, Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.D. Mermin, Quantum Computer Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computing: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proc. 35th Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, edited by S. Goldwasser, Los Alamitos CA (IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994), p. 124Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Kadowaki, H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Santoro, R. Martoňák, E. Tosatti, R. Car, Science 295, 2427 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, D. Preda, Science 292, 472 (2001), A longer version of the paper appeared in [arXiv:quant-ph/0104129]ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Toulouse, Commun. Phys. 2, 115 (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Binder, A.P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt Jr., M.P. Vecchi, Science 220, 671 (1983)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.E.J. Newman, G.T. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA, 1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Boixo, et al., Nature Phys. 10, 2018 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1962)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.H. Wannier, Physics 1, 251 (1965)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, “Quantum adiabatic algorithms versus simulated annealing” [arXiv:quant-ph/0201031], (2002)
  15. 15.
    M.W. Johnson, et al., Nature 473, 194 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.J. Berkley, et al., Phys. Rev. B 87, 020502(R) (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T.F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S.V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J.M. Martinis, D.A. Lidar, M. Troyer, Science 345, 6195 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.M. Childs, E. Farhi, J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012322 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Amin, D.V. Averin, J.A. Nesteroff, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022107 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Wang et al., “Comment on “Classical signature of quantum annealing”.” (unpublished) (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A.P. Young, S. Knysh, V. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 020502 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Hen, A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. E. 84, 061152 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Farhi, D. Gosset, I. Hen, A. Sandvik, P. Shor, A.P. Young, F. Zamponi, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052334 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Hen, A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. A. 86, 042310 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. Hen, Phys. Rev. E. 85, 036705 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. Hen, J. Phys. A 47, 045305 (2014)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. Hen, J. Phys. A 47, 235304 (2014)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 59, R14157 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Sandvik, J. Phys, A 25, 3667 (1992)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Zdeborová, M. Mézard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 078702 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. Zdeborová, M. Mézard, J. Stat. Mech. 12, P12004 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Jörg, F. Krzakala, G. Semerjian, F. Zamponi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 207206 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Kirkpatrick, B. Selman, Science 264, 1297 (1994)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    A.P. Young, S. Knysh, V. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 170503 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    C.K. Thomas, H.G. Katzgraber, Phys. Rev. E 83, 046709 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Guidetti, A.P. Young, Phys. Rev. E 84, 011102 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    For information about WALKSAT see
  38. 38.
    T. Jörg, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, A.C. Maggs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 147204 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    T. Jörg, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, A.C. Maggs, J. Pujos, Europhys. Lett. 89, 40004 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    S.F. Edwards, P.W. Anderson, J. Phys. F 5, 965 (1975)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Y. Matsuda, H. Nishimori, L. Zdeborova, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 185002 (2007)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    N. Wiebe, N.S. Babcock, New J. Phys. 14, 013024 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Roland, N.J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042308 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, D. Gosset, S. Gutmann, H.B. Meyer, P. Shor, Quant. Inf. Comp. 11, 181 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, S.E. Venegas-Andraca, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Inf. Process. 10, 33 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    N. Dickson, et al., Nature Comm. 4, 1903 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    S. Bravyi, B. Terhal, SIAM J. Comput. 39, 1462 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences and Springer 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Hen
    • 1
  • A.P. Young
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Marina del ReyMarina del ReyUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations