Experimental investigation of performance differences between Coherent Ising Machines and a quantum annealer
Abstract
Physical annealing systems provide heuristic approaches to solving NP-hard Ising optimization problems. Here, we study the performance of two types of annealing machines--a commercially available quantum annealer built by D-Wave Systems, and measurement-feedback coherent Ising machines (CIMs) based on optical parametric oscillator networks--on two classes of problems, the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model and MAX-CUT. The D-Wave quantum annealer outperforms the CIMs on MAX-CUT on regular graphs of degree 3. On denser problems, however, we observe an exponential penalty for the quantum annealer () relative to CIMs () for fixed anneal times, on both the SK model and on 50%-edge-density MAX-CUT, where the coefficients and are problem-class-dependent. On instances with over vertices, a several-orders-of-magnitude time-to-solution difference exists between CIMs and the D-Wave annealer. An optimal-annealing-time analysis is also consistent with a significant projected performance difference. The difference in performance between the sparsely connected D-Wave machine and the measurement-feedback facilitated all-to-all connectivity of the CIMs provides strong experimental support for efforts to increase the connectivity of quantum annealers.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1805.05217,
title = {Experimental investigation of performance differences between Coherent Ising Machines and a quantum annealer},
author = {Ryan Hamerly and Takahiro Inagaki and Peter L. McMahon and Davide Venturelli and Alireza Marandi and Tatsuhiro Onodera and Edwin Ng and Carsten Langrock and Kensuke Inaba and Toshimori Honjo and Koji Enbutsu and Takeshi Umeki and Ryoichi Kasahara and Shoko Utsunomiya and Satoshi Kako and Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi and Robert L. Byer and Martin M. Fejer and Hideo Mabuchi and Dirk Englund and Eleanor Rieffel and Hiroki Takesue and Yoshihisa Yamamoto},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.05217},
year = {2019}
}
Comments
12 pages, 5 figures, 1 table (main text); 14 pages, 12 figures, 2 tables (supplementary)