1: %\documentstyle[epsf, epsfig, psfig, 11pt]{article}

2: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

3: \usepackage{epsf,psfig,epsfig,amsmath}

4: 

5: \newcommand{\hcenterpage}[1]{

6:  \setlength{\textwidth}{#1}

7:  \setlength{\evensidemargin}{3.25in}

8:  \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5\textwidth}

9:  \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{\evensidemargin}

10:  \setlength{\marginparwidth}{1.74cm}

11:  \addtolength{\marginparwidth}{-\marginparsep}

12:  \addtolength{\marginparwidth}{\evensidemargin}

13: }

14: 

15: \newcommand{\vcenterpage}[1]{

16:  \setlength{\textheight}{#1}

17:  \setlength{\topmargin}{4.3in} % was 3.8in

18:  \addtolength{\topmargin}{-0.5\textheight}

19:  \setlength{\topskip}{0cm}

20: % \setlength{\parskip}{0.0ex plus0ex minus0ex}

21: }

22: 

23: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

24: 

25: %\input{defs}

26: 

27: \hcenterpage{6.75in}

28: \vcenterpage{9.25in}

29: %\thispagestyle{empty}

30: \title{Simulations of the adiabatic quantum optimization for the Set Partition Problem.}

31: 

32: \vskip-0.15in

33: 

34: 

35: 

36: \author{V.N. Smelyanskiy$^*$, U. V. Toussaint, D.A. Timucin \\

37: Computational Science Division\\ NASA Ames Research Center\\

38: $^*\,$ vadim@quantum.arc.nasa.gov}

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: \maketitle

42: \date{}

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: We  analyze the  complexity of the quantum optimization

46: algorithm based on adiabatic evolution for the NP-complete set partition

47: problem. We introduce a  cost function defined on a logarithmic

48: scale of the partition residues so that the  total number of

49: values of the cost function is of the order of the problem size.

50: We simulate the behavior of the  algorithm by numerical

51: solution of the time-dependent Schr{\" o}dinger equation as well

52: as the stationary equation for the adiabatic eigenvalues. The

53: numerical results for the time-dependent quantum evolution

54: indicate that the complexity of the algorithm scales exponentially

55: with the problem size. This result appears to contradict the recent

56: numerical results for complexity of quantum adiabatic algorithm applied to

57: a different NP-complete problem (Farhi et al, {\it Science} 292, p.472 (2001)).

58: \end{abstract}

59: 

60: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}

61: \normalsize

62: 

63: \thispagestyle{empty}

64: \section{Introduction}

65: \label{sec:Intro}

66: 

67: 

68:  Most common computationally intensive tasks encountered in

69: practice may be formulated as combinatorial optimization problems

70: (COPs), many of which are found to belong to the algorithmic class

71: \emph{nondeterministic-polynomial complete} (NP-complete)

72: \cite{Garey}. The NP-complete problems are computationally hard -

73: they are characterized (in the worst cases) by exponential scaling

74: of the running time or memory requirements with the problem size.

75: A special property of the class is that any NP-complete problem

76: can be converted into any other NP-complete problem in polynomial time on

77: a classical computer; therefore, it is sufficient to find a

78: deterministic algorithm that can be guaranteed to solve all instances

79: of just one of the NP-complete problems within a polynomial time

80: bound.

81: 

82: An instance of a COP of size $n$ may be encoded using bit

83: strings $\textsf{z} = z_0 \, z_1 \, \cdots \, z_{n-1}$,   $\,\,z_j

84: = 0, 1$, with a corresponding value of the cost function (or

85: ``energy'') $E = E_{\textsf{z}}$ for each string.  The objective

86: is to find the bit string(s) with the minimum cost (and the

87: corresponding cost value). In quantum computation, bits $z_j$ are

88: replaced by spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ \emph{qubits}; the qubit states

89: $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ are eigenstates of the $\pm z$

90: component of the $j$-th spin, respectively.  The Hilbert space of

91: a quantum \emph{register} with $n$ qubits is spanned by $N = 2^n$

92: basis vectors $|\textsf{z}\rangle = |z_0\rangle \otimes \cdots

93: \otimes |z_{n-1}\rangle$.

94: 

95: \section{Optimization by Adiabatic Quantum Evolution}

96: \label{sec:opt}

97: 

98: Following \cite{Farhi,Farhiapp,Cerf}, we consider a quantum evolution of duration $T$ based on the time-dependent

99: Hamiltonian

100: \begin{equation}

101: H(t) = \alpha(s)\, V + \beta(s)\, H_{P}, \quad s\equiv s(t). \label{farhi}

102: \end{equation}

103: \noindent

104: Here, $H_P = \sum_{\textsf{z}} E_{\textsf{z}}

105: |\textsf{z}\rangle \langle \textsf{z}|$ is the ``problem''

106: Hamiltonian that embodies the problem structure in its energy

107: spectrum and eigenstates, the summation being performed over all $N$ $n$-bit

108: strings, and $V$ is a ``driver'' Hamiltonian that is constructed

109: in such a way as to cause transitions between those states -

110: essentially an Ising-type spin Hamiltonian corresponding to 1- and

111: 2-gate operations:

112: \begin{equation}

113: V = -\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} B_i \sigma_{x}^{i} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i, \,

114: j=0}^{n-1} J_{ij} \sigma_{x}^{i} \sigma_{x}^{j}.  \label{driver}

115: \end{equation}

116: 

117: Coefficients $\alpha\left(s\left(t\right)\right)$ and $\beta(s(t))$ vary in time in such

118: a way that at the initial instant of time $H(0)=V$ and at the

119: final instant $H(T)=H_P$. A particular choice of the coefficients

120: is \cite{Farhi}

121: \begin{equation}

122: \alpha(s)=1-s, \quad \beta(s)=s, \quad s(t)=t/T\label{alpha}

123: \end{equation}

124: \noindent The total Hamiltonian (\ref{farhi})  produces a

125: nontrivial quantum evolution from some initial (superposition)

126: state $\psi(0)$ to a final (solution) state $\psi(T)$.  If no

127: knowledge about the solution is available \emph{a priori}, then

128: the initial state may be chosen as the symmetric state  (cf.

129: \cite{Grover,Farhi})

130: \begin{equation}

131: \psi(0) =

132: 2^{-n/2} \sum_{\textsf{z}=0}^{2^{n}-1} |\textsf{z}\rangle. \label{ini}

133: \end{equation}\noindent

134: This choice is appropriate provided (\ref{ini}) is a ground state

135: of $V$ (e.g.,   $B_i, J_{ij} \geq 0$).

136: Now, if $T$ is sufficiently large, then functions $\alpha(t/T)$ and $\beta(t/T)$

137: vary in time slowly and the system will remain in the

138: instantaneous  (adiabatic) ground state of $H(t)$ during its

139: entire evolution $0 < t < T$ (cf.  \cite{Farhi}). Accordingly,

140: $\psi(T)$ will be a superposition of states $|z\rangle$ corresponding to

141: the ground state of $H_P$. It is clear that in this case a measurement

142: performed on the quantum register at $t = T$ will find with

143: certainty one of the solutions of COP. In this case the complexity

144: of the quantum algorithm is determined by its duration $T$. If we

145: expand the wavefunction of the system $\psi(t)$ in the basis of

146: the adiabatic eigenfunctions $\Psi_k(t)$ of the Hamiltonian $H(t)$

147: \begin{eqnarray}

148: &&H(t) \Psi_k(t) = g_k(t) \Psi_k(t), \quad k=0,1,\ldots,2^{n}-1.\label{adiab} \\

149: &&\psi(t)=\sum_{k=0}^{2^n-1}\,  C_k(t) \Psi_k(t) \exp\left(-i/\hbar \int^{t}_{0} dt' g_k(t')\right),

150: \label{corr} \\

151: \end{eqnarray}

152: \noindent

153: then adiabatic approximation corresponds to $\psi(t) \propto \Psi_0(t)$ (up to the oscillating

154: phase factor). Coefficients $C_k(t)$ with $k>0$ correspond to nonadiabatic corrections.

155: Using perturbation theory in the basis of eigenfunctions  $\Psi_k(t)$ the total probability $p_{n-ad}(t)$

156: of {\itshape not\/} finding the system at the instant $t$ in its adiabatic ground state equals

157: \begin{eqnarray}

158: && p_{n-ad}(t)=\left(\frac{\dot {s}(t)}{s(t)}\right)^2\,

159: \sum_{k=1}^{2^n-1}\, \frac{|V_{0k}|^{2}}{[g_k(t)-g_0(t)]^4}

160: \label{nonad} \\

161: && V_{0k}=\langle \Psi_0|V|\Psi_k\rangle.\nonumber

162: \end{eqnarray}

163: \noindent Here we used the explicit form of coefficients

164: $\alpha,\,\beta$ given in (\ref{alpha}). It is seen that during

165: the quantum evolution coefficients  $C_k(t)\sim \dot s/s \sim 1/T$

166: and the largest admixture of the exited states into the total

167: superposition   occurs at the instant  of time when one of

168: the exited levels $g_k(t)$ closely approaches the ground state

169: (avoided-crossing). From here the overall criterion for the

170: adiabatic evolution can be expressed in the well-known form

171: \begin{equation}

172: \eta = {\tilde{V}\over T \Delta g_{min}^2} \ll 1, \label{criterion}

173: \end{equation}

174: \noindent where $\Delta g_{min}$ is the closest approach of the

175: ground state to one of the excited states during the evolution - a

176: minimum gap- and $\tilde V$ is the characteristic energy scale for

177: the matrix elements of $V$. We note that although instantaneous

178: nonadiabatic corrections (\ref{nonad}) are quadratic in the

179: parameter $\eta$ (near the avoided crossing) the probability of

180: nonadiabatic transitions $W_{n-ad}$ away from the ground state is

181: exponentially small  in $\eta$ \cite{Landau}. This probability is

182: defined on an infinite time axis and its logarithm is proportional

183: to the imaginary part of the integral along the contour in the

184: complex plane of $t$  that begins and ends on the real time axis and

185: loops around the complex branching point $t^*$

186: \begin{equation}

187: W_{n-ad}~\exp\left(-|{\rm Im} \oint\, g_0(t) dt|\right).

188: \label{imagin}

189: \end{equation}

190: \noindent Here $t^*$ correspond to one of the roots of the

191: equation

192: \begin{equation}

193: g_k(t^*)=g_0(t^*)\label{roots}

194: \end{equation}

195: \noindent that provides the smallest value for the exponential in

196: (\ref{imagin}) (out of all possible complex solutions of

197: (\ref{imagin}) for different excited states $\Psi_k$). In a

198: standard (Landau-Zener) theory of nonadiabatic transitions the value

199: of the exponent is approximately of the order of the parameter

200: $\eta$ in (\ref{criterion}), and therefore it is the size of the

201: minimum gap $\Delta g_{min}$ that determines the condition for {\itshape T\/}

202: and hence the complexity of the quantum adiabatic search algorithm

203: according to \cite{Farhi}. We note finally that, as pointed out in

204: \cite{Cerf}, the improved complexity of the adiabatic algorithm is

205: determined by the instantaneous rate $\dot s(t)/s(t)$ of the variation

206: of the control parameter $s(t)$ near the avoided crossing. We will

207: not discuss in this paper such modifications and focus primarily on

208: intrinsic properties of the quantum system in question.

209: 

210: \section{Set Partition Problem}

211: \label{sec:spp}

212: 

213: In this paper, we will analyze the complexity of the adiabatic quantum

214: optimization for the  \emph{set partition problem}

215: (SPP), which is one of the basic NP-complete problems of

216: theoretical computer science \cite{Garey}.  The optimization

217: version of SPP is to partition a set of $n$ positive integers

218: $\{\alpha_0, a_1, \ldots, \alpha_{n-1}\}$ into two disjoint

219: subsets ${\mathcal A}_1$ and ${\mathcal A}_2$ such that the

220: ``residue'' $|\sum_{\alpha_j \in {\mathcal A}_1} \alpha_j -

221: \sum_{\alpha_j \in {\mathcal A}_2} \alpha_j|$ is minimized. The

222: complexity of the problem substantially depends on the size of the

223: integers $\alpha_j$ (see below). It is often customary for the

224: analysis of the random instances of the problem to introduce 

225: finite-precision rational numbers $a_j$ that are independently and

226: identically distributed (i.i.d.) in the unit interval $(0,1]$.

227: \begin{equation}

228: \alpha_{j} \leq 2^{b} \,\,\,\,\forall j, \quad  a_{j} = 2^{-b}

229: \alpha_{j} \in (0, 1]

230: \end{equation}

231: \noindent Here $b$ is the total number of bits used to represent the

232: numbers $a_j$. The values of the partition can be encoded in

233: binaries by attaching ``sign'' bits $s_j$ to the numbers $a_j$. The

234: partition residue can be defined as $|\Omega_{\textsf{z}}|$ where

235: \begin{equation}

236: \Omega_{\textsf{z}} = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} s_j a_j,\quad  s_j = 1 - 2

237: z_j = \pm 1 \quad (z_j =0,1)\label{omega}

238: \end{equation}

239: \noindent Here $\Omega_{\textsf{z}}$ is a {\em signed} partition

240: residue. We note that by definition the problem is symmetric: two

241: bit strings that can be obtained from each other by flipping  all

242: the bits ($s_j \rightarrow -s_j$) correspond to two values of

243: $\Omega_{\textsf{z}}$ that differ only in sign. We note that the

244: minimum-residue partition(s) may be thought of as the ground

245: state(s) of the following spin Hamiltonian \cite{Mertens}

246: \begin{equation}

247: \Omega_{\textsf{z}}^{2} = \sum_{i, \, j=0}^{n-1} a_i a_j s_i s_j.

248: \label{cost0}

249: \end{equation}

250: \noindent This is an infinite range Ising spin glass with Mattis

251: type antiferromagnetic coupling, $J_{ij}=-a_i\, a_j$. Infinite

252: range coupling clearly represents a major  problem with direct

253: (`analog') physical implementation of this Hamiltonian on a quantum

254: computer. Therefore one can consider using an oracle-type cost

255: function $E(\textsf{z})=|\Omega_{\textsf{z}}|$ to implement the

256: problem Hamiltonian in (\ref{farhi}) for SPP.  The corresponding

257: unitary transformation will multiply the basis states $|z\rangle$

258: by phase factors $\exp\left(-i\Delta t \,E(\textsf{z})\right)$

259: during the elementary discrete steps of the  `continuous-time'

260: adabatic quantum optimization (\ref{farhi}). Although this approach

261: is natural for the satisfiability problem \cite{Farhi} it has a

262: serious limitation for  SPP (as well as some other NP-complete

263: problems like integer programming, where the precision of

264: integers is of central importance). To demonstrate this point 

265: we need to consider the density of states of the partition residues.

266: 

267: \subsubsection{Density of states}

268: 

269: We define the density of states for a given instance of SPP as

270: follows

271: \begin{equation}

272: \rho(\Omega) = \sum_{\textsf{z}} \delta(\Omega -

273: \Omega_{\textsf{z}}).\label{density}

274: \end{equation}

275: \noindent The exact form of $\rho(\Omega)$ depends on a given

276: instance of SPP (i.e., a particular set of numbers $a_j$). However

277: we introduce a {\em coarse-grained} density of states

278: \begin{equation}

279: {\bar \rho}(\Omega) = \frac{1}{\Delta \Omega}

280: \int_{\Omega}^{\Omega + \Delta \Omega} \rho (\zeta) \mathrm{d}

281: \zeta \label{cg}

282: \end{equation}

283: \noindent where averaging is over an interval of $\Delta \Omega$

284: whose size will be determined below.  Using (\ref{omega}) and

285: (\ref{density}) we can rewrite this expression in the form

286: \begin{equation}

287: {\bar \rho}(\Omega) = \frac{2^n}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

288: {e^{i w (\Omega+\Delta\Omega)}-e^{i w \Omega} \over i w}\,I(w)\,

289: \mathrm{d} w, \quad\quad  I(w)= \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \cos(a_j w).

290: \label{cos}

291: \end{equation}

292:  \noindent

293: Note that  $I(\pi k 2^b)=(-1)^k,\,k=0,\pm1,\ldots$ and $I(w)$

294: has very sharp maxima (minima) at those points. In their

295: vicinities the integral in (\ref{cos}) can be evaluated by

296: steepest descent method for any given problem instance. The sum over

297: the contributions from different saddle points was obtained by

298: Mertens \cite{Mertens} in his derivation of the partition function

299: for the corresponding spin glass model. We emphasize however that

300: $I(w)$ can have multiple sharp resonances at the intermediate

301: points $|w|<2^{-b}$. The positions of these resonances are at the

302: multiples of $\pi/q$ where $q$ is an  {\it approximate} greatest

303: common divisor (g.c.d.) of

304: the set of $n$ numbers $a_j$ such that $a_j = f_j q+ r_j$ where

305: $f_j$ are integers and $r_j$ are residues of the division. Provided

306: that most of the residues are sufficiently small

307: \[

308: {\pi^{2}\over 2} \sum_{j=1}^{p} r_{j}^{2} \leq 1, \quad p \sim n,

309: \]

310: the function $I(w)$ will have steep peaks at those points. It can

311: be shown that in the general case the value of the approximate g.c.d.

312: for a set of $n$ $b-bit$ numbers inside the unit interval

313: scales as $2^{-n}$ for $n<b$. Obviously it equals  $2^{-b}$ for

314: $n>b$. In what follows we will be interested in the

315: high-precision case $n<b$. We choose the size of the averaging

316: window $\Delta \Omega \gg 2^{-n}$ and this introduces a cut-off

317: in the integral (\ref{cost0}) at

318: \[|w| \ll \pi/\Delta\Omega \ll 2^{n}\]

319: It follows from above that in this case the values of the g.c.d. will

320: lie outside the cutoff and corresponding resonances will not

321: contribute to the integral. The value of the integral can be

322: estimated near the single remaining maximum at $w=0$. The width of

323: the maximum near that point is ~ $\delta w ~ n^{-1/2} \ll 1$  and

324: therefore the window function in (\ref{omega}) works as a step

325: function in that region. Finally we obtain

326: \begin{equation}

327: {\bar \rho}(\Omega) = {2^n \over \sqrt{2 \pi n \sigma^2}} \exp

328: \left(-{\Omega^2 \over 2 n \sigma^2} \right),\qquad

329: \sigma^2 = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} a_j^2.

330:  \label{density1}

331: \end{equation}

332: \noindent Here the variance $\sigma$ is

333: a ``self-averaging'' quantity, and the coarse-graining is

334: performed over an interval much larger than the characteristic

335: separation between neighboring partition residue values

336: \begin{equation}

337: \Delta E\, \sim  \, \sqrt{n}\,\, 2^{-n} \end{equation} \noindent

338: yet much smaller than the scale of variation of ${\rho}(\Omega)$:

339: $\Delta E

340:  \ll \Delta \Omega \ll \sqrt{n}$.  We note that in the

341: high-precision regime ($n < b$), partition residues

342: $\Omega_{\textsf{z}}$ are irregularly spaced and well separated

343: from each other (on the scale of $2^{-b}$). However this structure

344: is being averaged out in (\ref{density1}) and the result indicates

345: that, in general, no more structure exists on a scale

346: $\gg 2^{-n}$ other than that given by the Gaussian distribution in

347: (\ref{density1}).  We note that this distribution is usually

348: obtained for the SPP using averaging over different instances of

349: the problem  (cf. \cite{Fu,Ferreira}, \cite{Mertens}(\emph{b}));

350: here we recovered it as a coarse-grained distribution for a {\em

351: given} instance which is more consistent with our goal of studying

352: the complexity of the adiabatic quantum optimization algorithm \cite{note2}.

353: 

354: \subsection{Cost function}

355: Computational complexity of SPP depends critically on the number

356: of bits $b$: numerical simulations with independent identically

357: distributed (i.i.d.) random $b$-bit numbers $a_j$ show

358: \cite{Walsh,Korf} that the solution time grows  exponentially with

359: $n$ for $2^{n - b} \ll 1$ (high-precision, computationally `hard

360: phase'), and polynomially for $2^{n-b} \gg 1$ (low-precision,

361: computationally `easy phase'), exhibiting a behavior similar to a

362: phase transition \cite{Mertens}(\emph{a}).

363: 

364: In the low-precision phase, values of $\Omega_{\textsf{z}}$ are

365: equally spaced (in $2^{-b}$) and strongly degenerate each

366: corresponding to (roughly) $2^{b-n} \gg 1$ number of

367: bit-strings. This degeneracy grows exponentially with n if $b$

368: remains fixed. The total number of solutions with zero residues

369: accumulate correspondingly and this is why the complexity

370: eventually becomes polynomial in $n$. The quantum algorithm suggested

371: in \cite{Raedt} directly computes the density of states (\ref{density}) of the SPP

372: and is efficient in finding the number of

373: solutions in the low-precision case. In this case it is also

374: feasible to use a cost function

375: $E(\textsf{z})=|\Omega_{\textsf{z}}|$ (provided the number of 

376: possible values does not grow exponentially with $n$).

377: 

378: The situation is qualitatively different in the high-precision

379: case. Implementation of the approach based on the above cost

380: function will require a  quantum computer  using exponentially high

381: precision  physical parameters (external fields, etc) to control

382: small differences {\em in the phases} of unitary transformations on

383: the scale at least $~2^{-n}$. This is a technical difference from

384: the constraint satisfaction problem in which the cost function

385: generally takes only the set of values that scales polynomially

386: with $n$; the size of the set equals  the total number of

387: constraints $m$ (the computationally most difficult case

388: corresponds to $m \sim n$ and the case of $m \sim 2^{n}$ is not of

389: general interest there). To avoid the above restriction in

390: the implementation of the adabatic quantum optimization algorithm for SPP, we

391: introduce a cost function $E(\Omega)$ based  on a logarithmic

392: scale of the partition residue values:

393: \begin{eqnarray}

394: &&E(\Omega) = 0 , \quad {\rm for} \quad 0\leq |\Omega|/\Delta < 1,

395: \label{cost2}\\ && E(\Omega) = k ,  \quad {\rm for}

396: \quad 2^{k-1}\leq |\Omega|/\Delta < 2^{k}, \quad k=0,1,\ldots

397: L,\nonumber\\ &&2^{L-1} \leq A/\Delta < 2^{L}, \quad A=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}

398: a_{j}.\nonumber

399: \end{eqnarray}

400: \noindent Since the density of states is linear at $\Omega \ll

401: \sqrt{ n}$ number of states $d_k$ per energy level

402: $E(\Omega_{\textsf z})=k$ will grow exponentially with $k$ in that

403: range ($\sim 2^k$). The total number of levels $L$ depends on the

404: value of $\Delta$. Using the density of states (\ref{density1})

405: for $\Omega_{\textsf{z}}\ll \sqrt n$ one can set

406: \begin{equation}

407: \Delta =\sqrt{n} \, 2^{-n} \,K.\label{seed}

408: \end{equation}

409: where $K$ is some fixed number (a few dozen) independent of $n$.

410: The  number of ground states of the problem Hamiltonian

411: \begin{equation}

412: H_{P} = \sum_{k=0}^{L-1}E(\Omega_{z})|z\rangle \langle z|

413: \label{Hp}

414: \end{equation}

415: \noindent approximately equals $K$, and the total number of

416: energy levels $L$ is close to $n$. It can be estimated from (\ref{cost2}) that

417: $n-L  \sim log_{2}{K}$. The distribution of the

418: low-lying states $d_k$ with cost function (\ref{cost2}) is

419: somewhat similar to that in the slightly underconstrained cases of

420: the satisfiability problem.

421: 

422: 

423: 

424: \section{Results}

425: To study the complexity of the adiabatic quantum optimization algorithm

426: for SPP, we numerically integrate the time dependent

427: Schr{\" o}dinger equation with the Hamiltonian $H(t)$

428: (\ref{farhi}), (\ref{driver}) in which we set $B_{i}=1$ and

429: $J_{ij}=0$. We start from the symmetric initial state (\ref{ini})

430: and integrate the Schr{\" o}dinger equation in the 

431: interval $0 \leq t \leq T$. Unlike the approach adopted in

432: \cite{Farhiapp} we do not set {\em a-priori} a value of success

433: probability. Instead we introduce a complexity metric for the algorithm

434: \begin{equation}

435: {\cal C}(T) = {T+1\over p_0(T)} d_0.\label{complexity}

436: \end{equation}

437: \noindent Here $p_0(T)$ is the total probability of finding the system in

438: its ground level (with $E(\Omega_{\textsf{z}})=0$)  at the end of the algorithm, $t=T$,

439: and $d_0$ is the number of states at the ground level. The

440: algorithm has to be repeated on average $d_0/p_0(T)$ number of

441: times to reach success probability $\approx$ 1.  

442: A typical plot of

443: ${\cal C}(T)$ for an instance of SPP with $n$=15 numbers is shown in

444: Fig. \ref{fig:complexity15}. At very small $T$ the wavefunction is

445: close to the symmetric initial state and the complexity is $\sim 2^{n}$.

446: The extremely sharp decrease in ${\cal C}(T)$ with $T$ is due to the

447: buildup of the population $p_0(T)$ in the ground level as quantum

448: evolution approaches adiabatic limit. At certain $t=T^{*}$ the function

449: ${\cal C}(T)$ goes through the minimum: for $T > T^{*}$ the

450: decrease in the number of trials $d_0/p_0(T)$ does not compensate

451: anymore for the overall increase in the runtime  $T$ for each trial.

452: The minimal  complexity $C^*=C(T^*)$  is

453: defined via one dimensional minimization over $T$ for a given

454: problem instance  \cite{adnote}.

455: \begin{figure}

456: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Complexity_N1501.eps,width=4in,height=3in}}

457: \caption{$C(T)$ {\em vs} $T$ for n=15, precision b=25 bits. Point 1 on the figure corresponds 

458: to the minimal value of complexity;

459: the corresponding values are $T^*=22.67$,  $p_0(T^*)=0.15$ and $d_0=22$.  At Point 2 the

460: total population of the ground level has already reached $p_0(T)=70\%$.

461: }

462: \label{fig:complexity15}

463: \end{figure}

464: \noindent

465: In Fig.\ref{fig:complexity} we plotted the data for optimal  complexities $C^*$ at different

466: values of $n$ on a logarithmic scale. Vertical sets of points 

467: on the plot indicate the results for {\em all} simulation data we currently have

468: for each $n$. The results indicate that the

469: median value of complexity $C^*$ scales {\em exponentially} with

470: $n$; linear fit to the graph gives $\log C^* \approx 0.56\, n$. This

471: corresponds to the scaling law $C^* \sim 2^{0.8\, n}$.  The

472: exponential behavior of the algorithm clearly manifests itself for

473: the larger values of $n\geq$ 11. The scatter in the values of

474: $\log C^*$ appears to decreases with $n$ however this result is probably due to the

475: smaller number of data points available  for larger

476: $n$ values.

477: \begin{figure}

478: \centerline{\psfig{figure=complexity06.eps,width=6in}}

479: \caption{$C^{*}$  {\em vs} $n$, precision b=25 bits. Percentage figures correspond to the

480: total population at the ground level at minimal complexity for a given n

481: (e.g. 25$\%$ for n=9). Numbers below the vertical sets of points for each $n$ show

482: the number of trials (e.g., 97 for n=8, 6 for n=16, etc). Numbers

483: on the top indicate the average values of $d_0$ for all trials at a given $n$.

484: Median values for the complexity for each $n$ are shown with red squares.

485: The line is the least squares fit of an exponential function to the median values

486: between n=11 and n=17.

487: }

488: \label{fig:complexity}

489: \end{figure}

490: 

491: 

492: In Fig. \ref{fig:probabilities} we show the distribution of the

493: probabilities $|\langle z |\psi(T)|^2$ for different values of $T$

494: for an instance of SPP with $n$=15 (plots for different $T$ shown with different

495: colors)and precision b=25 bits. Values of $z$ are ordered with

496: respect to the corresponding values of the partition residues

497: $|\Omega_{\textsf z}|$. It is clearly seen on logarithmic scale

498: that probability distribution forms  'steps' corresponding to

499: different values of the cost function $E(\Omega_{\textsf z})$ defined

500: in (\ref{cost2}). Within each step, the distribution of probabilities

501: does not reveal any structure. The same property holds also for

502: intermediate times ($t < T$).  Detailed analytical results \cite{VUD}

503: indicate that it is this absence of structure in

504: $\psi_z(t)$  that is responsible for the exponential

505: complexity of the algorithm.

506: \begin{figure}

507: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Probability_Distribution01.eps,width=4in,height=3in}}

508: \caption{$|\langle z|\psi(T)|^2$ {\em vs } $z$ for one instance of SPP with n=15.

509: Note that the values of the index number on the horizontal axis correspond to the positions of 

510: different bit-strings 

511: ${\textsf{z}}$ 

512: sorted with  respect to the

513: partition residue values 

514: $|\Omega_{\textsf{z}}|$

515:  (in increasing order). Index number 0 corresponds to the smallest partition

516: residue. 

517:  The number of states at the ground

518: level is $d_0$=22. Curve shown in red  corresponds to the value of $T=T^*=32$ (minimal complexity).

519: Curve shown in green corresponds to the value of  $T$=8 and black color curve corresponds to $T$=90. 

520: %Total probabilities at the ground level $p(T)$ equal 0.5 for $T$=90; 0.1 for  $T=T^*=$=32;

521: %0.05 for $T=8$ 

522: }

523: \label{fig:probabilities}

524: \end{figure}

525: \noindent

526: \begin{figure}

527: \centerline{\psfig{figure=eigen_10_13.eps, width=4in,height=3in}}

528: \caption{Adiabatic eigenvalues $g_k$ {\em vs} $s=t/T$ (k=0,1,2,$\ldots$).}

529: \label{fig:Eigenvalues1}

530: \end{figure}

531: \noindent

532: \begin{figure}

533: \centerline{\psfig{figure=eigen_10_13a.eps,width=4in,height=3in}}

534: \caption{Magnified version of the Fig. \ref{fig:Eigenvalues1} in the avoided -crossing region.}

535: \label{fig:Eigenvalues2}

536: \end{figure}

537: \noindent

538: \subsection*{The Stationary Schr{\"o}dinger equation}

539: In addition to solving the time-dependent Schr{\" o}dinger  equation

540: we also analyzed the adiabatic solutions of the stationary Schr{\"

541: o}dinger equation with the same form of the Hamiltonian $H(t)$

542: (\ref{farhi}) as above. Our preliminary  results were obtained using

543: Mathematica for modest values of $n \leq$ 10. The results for n=10 

544: are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:Eigenvalues1} and

545: \ref{fig:Eigenvalues2}. Figure \ref{fig:Eigenvalues2} represents the magnified

546: part of Fig. \ref{fig:Eigenvalues1} near the avoided crossing region.

547: %e used the same form of the Hamiltonian 

548: Adiabatic eigenvalues were computed for different

549: values of the scaled time parameter $s=t/T \in (0,1)$. The solid line

550: represents the evolution of the ground state eigenvalue between $s=0$ and $s=1$.

551: The vertical sets of points

552: correspond to excited adiabatic levels for a given  $s$. At the

553: beginning ($s=0$) eigenvalues correspond to those of the

554: Hamiltonian $V$: equally spaced levels -n,-n+2, $\ldots$, n,

555: corresponding to different number of spin excitations along the $x$

556: quantization axis. The first excited state is $n-$fold degenerate,

557: the second is $n(n-1)$, the k-th exited state is $\binom{n}{k}$-fold

558: degenerate, etc. For $s>0$ the degeneracy is removed. For

559: $s\rightarrow 1$ the eigenvalue spectrum is the one for the problem

560: Hamiltonian $H_{P}$ (in \ref{Hp}). We have shifted the energy reference in the Hamiltonian

561: $H_P$ by $-n$ (cf. also (\ref{farhi})) to match the energy scale for the symmetric case

562: which emphasizes the avoided crossing region.

563: In our case the ground state was 13-fold degenerate and

564: the corresponding eigenvalues merge at $s\rightarrow 1$. The close

565: approach of these eigenvalues is not relevant for the minimum-gap

566: analysis since they all end up in the same final level. However

567: the minimum separation of the instantaneous adiabatic ground state

568: eigenvalue from the excited state eigenvalues that {\em do not} end up

569: on the same ground level at $s=1$ is clearly seen in the figures.

570: Note that the size of this separation is much greater than the

571: separations between the excited states. This behavior clearly

572: departs from the standard 2-level avoided crossing picture and is

573: due to the contributions from the exponential number of terms in

574: (\ref{nonad}) as will be analyzed elsewhere \cite{VUD}.

575: We also note that the value n=10 does not correspond to the

576: exponential scaling regime for the algorithmic complexity that appears to

577: start for greater $n$  values as follows from the discussion above.

578: 

579: In conclusion, we have performed numerical simulations of the

580: adiabatic quantum optimization for SPP using a step-like density

581: of states defined on a logarithmic scale of partition residues.

582: The results indicate an exponential scaling of the algorithmic

583: complexity as a function of the problem size. The apparent reason

584: is the loss of structure in SPP during the effective

585: coarse-graining over the intervals of partition residues

586: corresponding to the same cost function values.

587: 

588: 

589: 

590: %

591: %\begin{figure}

592: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=T_distribution01.eps,width=4in,height=3in}}

593: %\caption{}

594: %\label{fig:Tdistribution}

595: %\end{figure}

596: 

597: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

598: \bibitem{Garey}M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson, {\em Computers and Intractability. A Guide to the Theory

599: of NP-Completeness} (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1997)

600: 

601: \bibitem{Farhi}  (\emph{a})  E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, ``Quantum computation by

602: adiabatic evolution,'' arXiv:quant-ph/0001106;  (\emph{b}) 

603: E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda,  ``A quantum adiabatic evolution

604: algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-complete problem'', {\it Science} {\bf 292}, 472 (2001).

605: 

606: \bibitem{Farhiapp}  E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, 

607: ``A numerical study of the performance of a quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm for satisfiability,'' 

608: arXiv:quant-ph/0007071; A. M. Childs, E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and

609: S. Gutmann, ``Finding cliques by quantum adiabatic evolution'',  arXiv:quant-ph/0012104.

610: 

611: \bibitem{Cerf} J. Roland and N. Cerf, "Quantum Search by local adiabatic evolution",

612: arXiv:quant-ph/0107015

613: 

614: \bibitem{Grover} L. K. Grover, ``Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack,''

615: Physical Review Letters {\bf 79}, 325--328 (1997).

616: 

617: \bibitem{Landau} L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifschitz , "Quantum

618: Mechanics", Pergamon, London (1959).

619: 

620: \bibitem{Mertens} S. Mertens, (\emph{a}) ``Phase transition in the number partitioning problem,''

621: Physical Review Letters {\bf 81}, 4281--4284 (1998); (\emph{b})

622: ``Random costs in combinatorial optimization,'' {\em Physical

623: Review Letters} {\bf 84}, 1347--1350 (2000).

624: 

625: \bibitem{Fu} Y. Fu, in {\em Lectures in the Sciences of Complexity}, ed. by D.L. Stein (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989).

626: 

627: \bibitem{Ferreira} F. Ferreira and J. Fontanari, {\em Journal of Physics A} {\bf 31}, 3417 (1998).

628: 

629: \bibitem{note2}

630:  We also note that occasionally for certain "singular"

631: instances of the partition problem values of approximate g.c.d.

632: can be rather large (e.g. $~1/n$), i.e. most of the numbers are

633: nearly commensurate with each other. In this case intermediate

634: resonances will be of interest and the density of states will have

635: an additional structure at low 'frequencies' $\delta w ~ /pi/d$.

636: We do not consider those instances in a present paper.

637: 

638: \bibitem{Walsh} I.P.Gent and T. Walsh, {\em Comp. Intell.} {\bf

639: 14}, 430 (Blackwell, Cambridge MA, 1998).

640: 

641: \bibitem{Korf} R.E. Korf, {\em Artif. Intell.} {\bf 106}, 181

642: (1998).

643: 

644: \bibitem{Raedt} H. De Raedt et al,{\em Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 290},5-6, 

645: p. 227-233 (2001).

646: 

647: \bibitem{adnote} We note that an additional optimization can be

648: done if one defines a complexity $C$ similar to (\ref{complexity})

649: but uses an  intermediate time instance $t$ instead of $T$ there.

650: In this case quantum algorithm is terminated  at 

651: the instance  $t=t^*(T)\leq T$ for each $T$ when minimal complexity

652: is reached and then additional minimization over $T$

653: is performed. Our results indicate that this method does 

654: provide further improvement for the overall complexity but takes a 

655: prohibitely long time to perform numerical  optimization of $C$.

656:  

657: \bibitem{VUD} V.N. Smelyanskiy, U.V. Toussaint, D.A. Timucin, to

658: be submitted.

659: \end{thebibliography}

660: \end{document}

661: