1 / 32

Quantum Search Heuristics: Tad Hogg’s Perspective

Quantum Search Heuristics: Tad Hogg’s Perspective. George Viamontes February 4, 2002. Outline. General Structure k-SAT Example Comparisons to Trugenberger Conclusions. What are we trying to solve?. Quantum Heuristics may be most useful for NP problems NP problem structure:

dixie
Download Presentation

Quantum Search Heuristics: Tad Hogg’s Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quantum Search Heuristics: Tad Hogg’s Perspective George Viamontes February 4, 2002

  2. Outline • General Structure • k-SAT Example • Comparisons to Trugenberger • Conclusions

  3. What are we trying to solve? • Quantum Heuristics may be most useful for NP problems • NP problem structure: • Exponential number of candidate solutions as problem size increases • Quick test for any given candidate solution to see if it is indeed a correct solution

  4. Quantum Heuristic vs. NP • Quantum algorithms can represent all candidate solutions simultaneously in a superposition • Tests of candidate solutions can be done on all candidates at once with a single operation • Test is often in the form of a cost function

  5. Generic Quantum Heuristic … H U H P Implementation-defined interatcion with Psi …

  6. Generic Quantum Heuristic • Hadamards put Psi into a superposition of candidate solutions • U modifies the probability amplitudes of Psi to favor better candidate solutions • P does phase adjustments on Psi • C is a control or work qubit • Quantum Heuristics vary a lot • P is optional • C can have different roles

  7. High-Level Breakdown • Put data qubits (Psi) into a superposition of all possible solutions • Do stuff to the probability amplitudes in order to increase the chance of measuring a good solution and decrease the chance of measuring a bad one • “Un-superposition” the data qubits • Do optional other stuff to the data (like changing phases) • Use extra control/work qubit(s) as necessary

  8. The Goal • Iterate the previous circuit until there is a good probability of measuring good candidate solutions • Hopefully the number of iterations will be kept to a minimum • This is the arena of competition with classical heuristics

  9. Generic Quantum Heuristic G … H U H P B G Implementation-defined interatcion with Psi …

  10. Outline • General Structure • k-SAT Example • Comparisons to Trugenberger • Conclusions

  11. What is k-SAT? • k-SAT is the problem of finding a satisfying truth assignment for a boolean function in CNF (i.e. an assignment that causes the whole function to be a 1) • The “k” represents the number of variables per clause • E.G. A 3-SAT instance:

  12. One Way to Solve k-SAT • The GSAT (“Greedy SAT”) algorithm: • First produce a random set of variable assignments (select a random set of variables and negate each one with probability ½) • Flip (negate) variables whose new value will result in the satisfying of more clauses • The flipping is essentially a cost function in which unsatisfied clauses result in a higher cost • GSAT runs until an overall minimum cost is reached or it has run for a prespecified number of steps

  13. Not the Best Solution • It turns out that GSAT isn’t the best heuristic for solving k-SAT • Walk-SAT on average performs better • Difference is that Walk-SAT doesn’t always rely on the cost function • It will randomly choose between minimizing cost and flipping a random variable in an unsatisfied clause

  14. However… • Hogg introduces a quantum heuristic for solving k-SAT and chooses to compare it with GSAT rather than Walk-SAT • Though not very useful, it makes sense to compare with GSAT since quantum heuristics, like GSAT, generally rely exclusively on a cost function

  15. Limitations of Hogg’s Decision • Overlooks an unexplored avenue of research which involves introducing random walks into quantum heuristics • Hogg’s heuristic on average has about the same performance as GSAT • Evidence that quantum heuristics may not be better than classical heuristics since Walk-SAT is better than GSAT

  16. One Possible Benefit • Portfolios involve running different heuristics concurrently on the same problem instances • Halt when one of the heuristics has a solution • The problem instances that GSAT performs well on are different than the instances Hogg’s quantum heuristic performs well on • Perhaps quantum heuristics could be used to create more powerful heuristic portfolios

  17. Mathematical View • Hogg’s implementation of the U operator: • Diagonal matrix with as the elements • s is the number of 1-bits in the overall superposition (tau is explained in the next slide) • And the P operator • Diagonal matrix with as the elements • c(s) is the number of unsatisfied clauses introduced by a particular solution in the superposition s (rho is explained in the next slide)

  18. Mathematical View

  19. Other Details • Hogg’s heuristic uses only a single work qubit in addition to the data qubits (Psi) • As the h term indicates, the heuristic is applied iteratively

  20. More Limitations • Phase Parameters seem to be determined experimentally (Hogg does not indicate where he gets particular values from) • Since an iteration counter is used directly, the quantum circuit requires a counter of some sort (Hogg does not mention this at all)

  21. Recap of Hogg’s Heuristic • On average, performs as well as GSAT but has different behavior for different problem instances • Not as good as the best classical heuristic • Has certain non-trivial implementation details that aren’t discussed

  22. Outline • General Structure • k-SAT Example • Comparisons to Trugenberger • Conclusions

  23. Recall… • Carlo Trugenberger has also presented a quantum heuristic • Bears some similarities to Hogg’s heuristic but also has fundamental differences

  24. Similarities • Trugenberger uses a U operator that is also a diagonal matrix with terms • Seems to indicate that such terms would be prevalent in any quantum heuristic due to their property of using phase to cancel out bad solutions

  25. Similarities • Trugenberger’s heuristic also follows the Hadamard – U – Hadamard pattern • A cost function is also used

  26. Differences • Trugenberger’s heuristic is far more general and robust (possible advantage) • The cost function is user-defined • Multiple control qubits are used rather than the single work qubit used by Hogg (possible drawback) • No dependence on iterations is explicitly defined (possible advantage)

  27. Differences • Trugenberger does not utilize the extra P operator to modify phases • Instead, Trugenberger’s U gate is enhanced to take care of the cost function and phase modification in a single operator • He does this by expanding the U gate to also include U inverse • By controlling this beefed up U gate with a control bit, the phase modifications can be combined with cost • The U inverse functionality helps to cancel out bad solutions and beef up good solutions

  28. The Winner? • Hard to say without simulation • Probably boils down to three factors: • Will quantum counting be worse than using multiple control qubits? • Is it harder to implement the beefed up U gate or the “simpler” U gate/P gate combination • Will Hogg’s heuristic suffer significantly from the delay of transforming any NP problem to SAT (Trugenberger is not bound to SAT)

  29. Outline • General Structure • k-SAT Example • Comparisons to Trugenberger • Conclusions

  30. Hope for Quantum Heuristics? • Hogg’s heuristic doesn’t show a benefit in doing things “quantumly” rather than classically • However, from the theory of portfolios, we can already see that there is some benefit to combining the quantum and the classical • Perhaps a good cost function definition in Trugenberger’s heuristic would save the day

  31. Smoke and Mirrors • There seems to be a communication gap between quantum heuristic researchers • Despite the striking similarities, Hogg does not cite Trugenberger and Trugenberger only cites one of Hogg’s earlier works • Hogg’s experimental results are not encouraging, and Trugenberger presents no experimental results

  32. Future Avenues • On the bright side, since quantum heuristics have not been widely explored or applied, there is still hope • Introduction of randomness into quantum heuristics may allow them to surpass classical heuristics which exploit randomness • Problems whose cost functions are more expensive to compute would give quantum heuristics the edge • Exploration of quantum-classical portfolios • Perhaps restructuring of the major gates would lead to further improvement

More Related