Paper detail

Unraveling the origin of higher success probabilities in quantum versus semi-classical annealing

Quantum annealing aims at finding optimal solutions to complex optimization problems using a suitable quantum many body Hamiltonian encoding the solution in its ground state. To find the solution one typically evolves the ground state of a soluble initial Hamiltonian adiabatically to the ground state of the designated final Hamiltonian. Here we explore whether and when a full quantum representation of the dynamics leads to higher probability to end up in the desired ground when compared to a classical mean field approximation. As simple, nontrivial example we target the ground state of interacting bosons trapped in a tight binding lattice with small local defect by turning on long range interactions. Already two atoms in four sites interacting via two cavity modes prove complex enough to exhibit significant differences between the full quantum model and a mean field approximation for the cavity fields mediating the interactions. We find a large parameter region of highly successful quantum annealing where the semi-classical approach largely fails. Here we see strong evidence for the importance of entanglement to end close to the optimal solution. The quantum model also reduces the minimal time for a high target occupation probability. In contrast to naive expectations that enlarging the Hilbert space is beneficial, different numerical cut-offs of the Hilbert space reveal an improved performance for lower cut-offs, i.e. an nonphysical reduced Hilbert space, for short simulation times. Hence a less faithful representation of the full quantum dynamics sometimes creates a higher numerical success probability in shorter time. However, a sufficiently high cut-off proves relevant to obtain near perfect fidelity for long simulations times in a single run. Overall our results exhibit a clear improvement based on a quantum model versus simulations based on a classical field approximation.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.