Optimizing QAOA on Bipotent Architectures

AI-generated keywords: Quantum Computing Optimization QAOA Bipotent Quantum Architectures Pulse-Level Optimizations

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Quantum computing has made progress in optimizing quantum gates, resulting in bipotent quantum architectures where optimized gates are available for some qubits but not for others.
  • This limits the application of user-side pulse-level optimizations that have proven effective for regular quantum circuits such as the ansatz circuit of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA).
  • A study was conducted to investigate the benefits of pulse-level optimizations versus vigorously optimized monolithic gates on bipotent quantum architectures.
  • Results showed that pulse-level optimizations currently outweighed the improvements due to vigorously optimized monolithic gates for various QAOA instances on two IBM quantum computers.
  • Circuit primitives' fidelity is not always the best indicator of overall algorithm performance; gate type and schedule duration should also be taken into account.
  • The findings provide practical guidance on optimal qubit selection on bipotent quantum architectures and suggest the need for improvements to make pulse-level optimization available for all gate types.
  • Balancing hardware and algorithmic improvements is important in optimizing quantum circuits effectively to maximize performance.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Yanjun Ji, Kathrin F. Koenig, Ilia Polian

arXiv: 2303.13109v1 - DOI (quant-ph)

Abstract: Vigorous optimization of quantum gates has led to bipotent quantum architectures, where the optimized gates are available for some qubits but not for others. However, such gate-level improvements limit the application of user-side pulse-level optimizations, which have proven effective for quantum circuits with a high level of regularity, such as the ansatz circuit of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). In this paper, we investigate the trade-off between hardware-level and algorithm-level improvements on bipotent quantum architectures. Our results for various QAOA instances on two quantum computers offered by IBM indicate that the benefits of pulse-level optimizations currently outweigh the improvements due to vigorously optimized monolithic gates. Furthermore, our data indicate that the fidelity of circuit primitives is not always the best indicator for the overall algorithm performance; also their gate type and schedule duration should be taken into account. This effect is particularly pronounced for QAOA on dense portfolio optimization problems, since their transpilation requires many SWAP gates, for which efficient pulse-level optimization exists. Our findings provide practical guidance on optimal qubit selection on bipotent quantum architectures and suggest the need for improvements of those architectures, ultimately making pulse-level optimization available for all gate types.

Submitted to arXiv on 23 Mar. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2303.13109v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In recent years, quantum computing has seen significant progress in the optimization of quantum gates, resulting in bipotent quantum architectures where optimized gates are available for some qubits but not for others. This gate-level optimization limits the application of user-side pulse-level optimizations that have proven effective for regular quantum circuits such as the ansatz circuit of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA). To address this trade-off between hardware and algorithm-level improvements on bipotent quantum architectures, Yanjun Ji, Kathrin F. Koenig, and Ilia Polian conducted a study investigating the benefits of pulse-level optimizations versus vigorously optimized monolithic gates. Their results showed that pulse-level optimizations currently outweighed the improvements due to vigorously optimized monolithic gates for various QAOA instances on two IBM quantum computers. Additionally, their data indicated that circuit primitives' fidelity is not always the best indicator of overall algorithm performance; gate type and schedule duration should also be taken into account. This effect was particularly pronounced for QAOA on dense portfolio optimization problems since their transpilation requires many SWAP gates for which efficient pulse-level optimization exists. The findings provide practical guidance on optimal qubit selection on bipotent quantum architectures and suggest the need for improvements to make pulse-level optimization available for all gate types. Overall, this study highlights the importance of balancing hardware and algorithmic improvements in optimizing quantum circuits effectively to maximize performance.
Created on 06 Apr. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.