Paper detail

Constrained-optimization Approach Delivers Superior Classical Performance for Graph Partitioning via Quantum-ready Method

Graph partitioning is one of an important set of well-known compute-intense (NP-hard) graph problems that devolve to discrete constrained optimization. We sampled solutions to the problem via two different quantum-ready methods to understand the pros and cons of each method. First we formulated and sampled the problem as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem, via the best known QUBO formulation, using a best-in-class QUBO sampler running purely classically. Second, we formulated the problem at a higher level, as a set of constraints and an objective function, and sampled it with a constrained-optimization sampler (which internally samples the problem via QUBOs also sampled classically). We find that both approaches often deliver better partitions than the purpose-built classical graph partitioners. Further, we find that the constrained-optimization approach is often able to deliver better partitions in less time than the bespoke-QUBO approach, without knowledge of the graph-partitioning problem. Stepping back from graph partitioning itself, one key controversial question is whether bespoke algorithms or general tools are more likely to deliver the power of QCs to real-world users. These results bear on that question, though they require confirmation on other problems and instances as well as replacement of the low-level sampler by a QC. Still, this early evidence supports the proposition that general tools will contribute significantly to a range of problems, expanding the impact of QCs. This benefit is independent of the low-level sampler employed, whether software or QC, so reinforces the need for more work on high-level optimization. An early version of such software is commercially available in the cloud today, delivering superior classical performance for some problems, enables quantum-forward organizations to migrate to quantum-ready methods now.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.