Nonlinear Quantum Optimization Algorithms via Efficient Ising Model Encodings

Taylor L. Patti,1, 2, ∗ Jean Kossaifi,2 Anima Anandkumar,3, 2 and Susanne F. Yelin1 1Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 2NVIDIA, Santa Clara, California 95051, USA 3Department of Computing + Mathematical Sciences (CMS), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, CA 91125 USA Despite extensive research efforts, few quantum algorithms for classical optimization demonstrate realizable advantage. The utility of many quantum algorithms is limited by high requisite circuit depth and nonconvex optimization landscapes. We tackle these challenges to quantum advantage with two new variational quantum algorithms, which utilize multi-basis graph encodings and nonlin- ear activation functions to outperform existing methods with shallow quantum circuits. Additionally, both algorithms provide a polynomial reduction in measurement complexity and either a factor of two speedup or a factor of two reduction in quantum resources. Typically, the classical simulation of such algorithms with many qubits is impossible due to the exponential scaling of traditional quantum formalism and the limitations of tensor networks. Nonetheless, the shallow circuits and moderate entanglement of our algorithms, combined with efficient tensor method-based simulation, enable us to successfully optimize the MaxCut of high-connectivity graphs with up to 512 nodes (qubits) on a single GPU.

INTRODUCTION (2D matrices), which scale as 2n and 22n, respectively. These intractable dimensions for quantum network sim- ulation can be remediated by employing a decomposed NP-hard optimization problems, such as Traveling tensor formalism [28]. While many varieties of decom- Salesman and MaxCut, are central to a wide array of posed tensors exist, tensor train (TT) has proven partic- fields, such as logistics, engineering, and network de- ularly popular in the quantum sciences due to its modu- sign [1]. Despite the classical nature of these problems, larity and rank structure, which have close parallels to there is immense interest in identifying variational quan- quantum entanglement. In the TT formalism, states tum algorithms (VQAs) which solve them faster or more ψ are represented by matrix product states (MPS) and precisely than any classical method, a concept known as quantum| i operators by matrix product operators (MPOs) quantum advantage [2–5]. One common approach is the [29–31]. However, TT formalism is often unsuitable for variational quantum eigensolver (VQE), where parame- high-depth and connectivity regimes, which are most terized quantum circuits are optimized through gradient commonly used in quantum optimization, as TT ten- descent in order to find the ground state of a problem- sors quickly become prohibitively large (high-rank/bond- encoded Hamiltonian [6–8]. The quantum approximate dimension) when simulating deep or complicated circuits optimization algorithm (QAOA) is a related protocol in [32]. Moreover, they are limited to only nearest-neighbor which parameterized rotations about both an initial and interactions. Due in part to these limitations, no simu- a problem encoded Hamiltonian are alternated in order to lation of more than 100 qubits [33] has demonstrated find a solution encoded ground state [9–13]. Novel VQA successful quantum optimization∼ rivaling that of classical encoding strategies have also been considered in [14–16]. methods for non-local graph instances, with other large- While the approximation ratios of VQE and QAOA can scale implementations focusing on more restrictive prob- surpass those of polynomial complexity classical algo- lems. For instance, QAOA MaxCut optimization with rithms (e.g., Goemans-Williamson [17]) [18, 19], they up to 210 qubits has been achieved for highly-local 3- require between polynomially and exponentially many arXiv:2106.13304v2 [quant-ph] 2 Sep 2021 regular graphs [34]. It has also been implemented with gates in the number of qubits n. Such circuit depths several thousand qubits when exploring only local fea- can limit the algorithms’ potential to demonstrate quan- tures of global graphs, a method which did not yield high tum advantage, rendering them not only computation- average performance [35]. Moreover, large-scale MaxCut ally inefficient, but also highly susceptible to quantum implementations using VQE have not been explored. noise [10, 11, 20] and barren plateaus [21–26]. To com- Our approach - This manuscript introduces two bat these difficulties, alternative VQAs which demon- novel algorithms which can outperform traditional VQAs strate improved optimization are attracting greater in- while requiring fewer quantum resources and lower com- terest [27]. putational complexity. In particular: The traditional formalism of quantum mechanics scales exponentially in n, making simulation of large quan- • We devise two new methods of MaxCut graph encod- tum networks a central challenge to the development ing, Nonlinear Parallel VQA (NP-VQA) and Nonlin- of optimization algorithms. This is due to the use of ear Dense VQA (ND-VQA), which, compared to tradi- standard tensors for states (1D vectors) and operators tional VQAs, which introduce additional constraints, 2

(a) Schematic of Nonlinear Parallel VQA (NP-VQA). (b) Schematic of Nonlinear Dense VQA (ND-VQA). Two distinct graphs, G0 and G1, are mapped to the n/2 nodes of an n-qubit Ising model are reassigned z x classical Ising model, save that G1 utilizes the x, from σ to σ operators in a manner similar to the rather than the z, basis. This encoding is similar to ZX Hamiltonian, save that separate circuit that of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 6), save that preparations and measurements of single-qubit Pauli the x and z-bases are addressed in separate, strings enable the x and z-axes of a single-qubit to single-qubit Pauli strings. In addition to containing represent independent vertices. When this mapping two optimization problems, the resulting parallel loss is combined with single-qubit measurements and function, = p (Eq. 7), has local minima at bistable nonlinear activation functions (similar to those of points inL the (Lx, z) solution space and is generated by NP-VQA), only n/2 physical qubits are required to using a nonlinear activation function on the encode n logical qubits. The dense loss function, single-qubit components. = d (Eq. 15), has local minima at bistable points L L in the (x, z) solution space.

FIG. 1

or regularization, into the optimization problem that • Using TensorLy-Quantum, we simulate a MaxCut are beneficial to the algorithm’s performance, reducing problem requiring 512 logical qubits on a single its susceptibility to local minima in the training land- NVIDIA A100 GPU and exhibit superior performance scape. Moreover, these algorithms reduce runtime and to that of comparable VQE implementations. This sets hardware overhead. a new record for the large-scale simulation of a success- ful, global quantum optimization algorithm. • We demonstrate that NP-VQA and ND-VQA are capa- ble of solving global optimization problems even with By introducing new algorithms which improve optimiza- exceptionally shallow quantum circuits. Furthermore, tion performance, require fewer quantum resources, and we highlight that sampling multiple initializations of operate on shallower, more error-resistant circuits, this NP-VQA and ND-VQA on shallow circuits (with depth manuscript offers tools that may narrow the gap between L approximately logarithmic in n) can efficiently ad- traditional implementations and quantum advantage. dress MaxCut problems [36] on quantum hardware. NP-VQA and ND-VQA double the time-efficiency of • MaxCut Optimization Problems quantum MaxCut optimizations, or halve the required quantum resources, respectively. We accomplish this by encoding the classical Ising model into both the z MaxCut is a partitioning problem on unidirected and x-bases of our quantum cost function. The Heisen- graphs G = (V,E), where V are the set of vertices (blue berg uncertainty principle is not violated by including orbs in Fig. 2, left) connected by edges E (black lines con- Pauli strings along two orthogonal bases because, like necting orbs) [36]. The objective is to optimally assign all vertices vi, vj 1, 1 , so as to maximize the edge other VQA protocols, NP-VQA and ND-VQA use re- ∈ {− } weights wij E, where any such assignment is referred peated circuit preparations and measurements for each ∈ Pauli string of the loss function. to as a “cut”. In this work, we will consider a general- ized form of the problem known as weighted MaxCut, in • To implement both the performance advantages of our which wij can take arbitrary real values. novel algorithms and the efficiency of TT network rep- Two formulations of MaxCut exist: the NP-complete resentations, we develop TensorLy-Quantum [37], a decision problem and the NP-hard optimization problem new software package for simulating efficient quantum [39]. The former seeks to determine if a cut of size c or circuits with decomposed tensors on CPU and GPU. greater exists for a given graph G, whereas the latter at- TensorLy-Quantum is based on the TensorLy software temps to identify the largest cut of G possible. We here family [38]. focus on the more general optimization problem formula- 3

FIG. 2: Overview of traditional VQE using TT decompositions with periodic boundary conditions (tensor rings). (Left) A graph G with vertices vi, vj and weights wij is mapped into a Hamiltonian H in MPO form. The MPS ground state ψg of H encodes the solution to MaxCut(G). (Right) To find MaxCut(G) variationally, the null input state 0 |(ani MPS) is evolved under a parameterized quantum circuit U (an MPO), producing an output state ψ . U encodes| i a circuit of depth L (here L = 4, red box) in this manuscript’s layer (block) pattern: one layer | i (block) of single-qubit y-axis rotations Ry followed by a layer of control-Z gates which alternate between even and odd qubits. The energy expectation value = E is minimized via gradient descent. The global minimum of L L corresponds to ψ = ψg . | i | i tion, the ground truth of which we denote MaxCut(G). It is common practice to express this optimization in its binary quadratic form [36] ψ = U(θˆ) 0 . (3) | i | i

n We can decompose this unitary matrix as Λ subunitaries 1 X ˆ QΛ ˆ ˆ maximize w (1 v v ) . (1) U(θ) = k Uk(θk), where θk is the corresponding sub- 2 ij i j ˆ ˆ Qn ˆ − set of θ and Uk(θk) = exp( iθjWj)Mk for generic jmachine learning in the most n | i | i ∈ {| i | i} est eigenvalue or “ground state” solution as ψg , the efficient, non-approximate manner possible. When judi- | i qubits of which form a bijection with the optimal vi of ciously constructed, TT simulations can yield a low-rank MaxCut(G). quantum formalism that permits enormous compression Fig. 2 (right) depicts the VQE framework [6–8]. Eq. of state and operator spaces. Although in the quantum 1 is optimized by defining the loss function = E and sciences TT methods are most frequently associated with varying the parameters θˆ of a quantum circuitL with uni- state approximations and truncations, like the density tary U(θˆ), which acts on the input quantum state (Fig. matrix renormalization group [40], we here advocate for 2, right). Without loss of generality, we define the input their use in exact quantum simulation. Similarly, due to state as the n-qubit zero state 0 = N 0 , such that their local connectivity, TT decompositions in quantum | i n | i 4 computing have traditionally been employed for local op- but which encodes separate graphs into the z and x- timization problems, such as 3-regular MaxCut [41], how- bases and utilizes single-qubit measurements and nonlin- ever we here emphasize their utility for global optimiza- ear activation functions. For simplicity, we have chosen tion tasks. to neglect both external fields and y-basis interactions, To analyze VQE with TT formalism, the MPO H{β,γ} although we note that the addition of these terms could is generated from Eq. 2. The energy = E is then be used to both improve the algorithm’s performance, calculated with a single large contractionL (Fig. 2, right) as well as to simultaneously optimize three (rather than two) MaxCut instances. NP-VQA is depicted in Fig. X 1a. Two distinct graphs, G0 and G1, are mapped to E = Ψ{β}U {β,γ}H{γ,δ}U {δ,}Ψ{}, (5) the Ising model Hamiltonian in Eq. 6, save that the {β,γ,δ,} xx weights of G1 are denoted wij and that its vertices are parametrized with σx, rather than σz, operators. The where objective is to simultaneously solve MaxCut(G0) and MaxCut(G1). In order to optimize these independent

{β} β0,...,βm−1 X β0 βm−1 graphs in parallel, we must make several alterations to Ψ = Ψ = ψα α , ..., ψα α 0 1 m−1 0 standard VQE. To begin, Hp is thus an unsuitable loss {α} function, as its ground state’sh iz and x-basis spin compo- is an n-qubit MPS of m cores and nents are mutually dependent and generally encode nei- ther MaxCut(G0) nor MaxCut(G1). We instead focus x on the products of single-qubit measurements σi and {β,γ} β ,γ ,...,β ,γ X β ,γ β ,γ z h i U = U 0 0 m−1 m−1 = u 0 0 , ..., u m−1 m−1 σi such that cuts for the two graphs can be indepen- α0,α1 αm−1,α0 h i {α} dently optimized. This yields the NP-VQA loss function is the corresponding MPO unitary. n As we work in the absence of quantum noise, states X zz z z p = wij tanh( σi ) tanh( σj ) ψ display time-reversal symmetry and can be fully ex- L h i h i | i j

/MaxCut(G) /E large or dense graphs, where the MPO H can quickly 1.0 C 1.0 L become cumbersome. However, for the single-qubit mea- surements required for p, contraction with a simple, single-qubit operator needsL to occur 2n times. In order to efficiently compute 2n single-qubit measurements on large, exact tensor networks without either reconstruct- 0.5 ing an exponentially large (2n) space or contracting over the full network n times, we use an efficient partial n = 100 trace-based contraction∼ scheme in which we construct k n = 20 distinct reduced density matrix operators n = 8 0.8 0.0 0 50 100 0 50 100 X {β} {β,γ} {γ,δ} {δ} Epochs Epochs ρk = Ψ U U Ψ , (9) (a) Average MaxCut(G) convergence (left) and raw loss {β,γ,δ∈ /K} function (right) for both NP-VQA ( = p, solid lines) L L L where K is the kth set of kept indices. K should be and traditional VQE ( = E, dashed). NP-VQA improves |K| sufficiently small so that the 2 elements of ρk remain calculated MaxCut convergenceL although its ability to C numerically tractable. For each ρk, K smaller partial satisfy is limited by the normalization condition of Eq. traces can be done to isolate single-qubit| | density matri- L 8. ces ρq, with which we take the single-qubit expectation values of Eq. 7 Avg. Entanglement P ( > T ) C 0.5 0.7 ζ  ζ  σq = Tr σq ρq , (10) 0.4 h i tanh(x) 1 where ζ = z, x. 0.3 0.5 Not only does NP-VQA enable us to solve for the Max- 0.2 Cut of multiple graphs in parallel, the additional con- straints increase the average performance (quotient of av- 0.1 erage cut over ground truth MaxCut) by only permitting 0.3 1 convergence to local minima which are bistable points for − 1 1 − 0.0 both the z and x-axes, rather than the monostable condi- 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 100 200 tion of traditional VQE. Convergence to a local minima /∆ Epochs C C with bistability requires the concurrence of a zero gradi- (b) (Left) Average entanglement entropy for two-qubit ent for both independently parametrized axes at a sin- subpartitions (maximum value per qubit is 1) vs gle, non-optimal point in parameter space. As p is best fraction of calculated MaxCut convergence for nonlinear extremized by larger σζ , the circuit will tendL towards loss functions. While disentanglement is not directly satisfying the equalityh ini Eq. 8. As this corresponds to enforced by nonlinear loss functions and superposition entanglement-free qubits, there is a systematic disentan- is required (inset: tanh(x) loss function does not glement of the circuit into product states (Fig. 3b). To saturate 1 bound on domain of σζ , ζ = z, x), understand this process, note that for the general wave- product state± formation still occursh asi maximizing function z 2 x 2 σi + σi minimizes p. (Right) The probability hthati a singleh i run will convergeL to an optimal cut for φ = α 0i0r + β 0i1r + γ 1i0r + δ 1i1r n = 100, using NP-VQA with L = 7 (light green), L = 1 | i | i | i | i | i (dark green), and VQE with L = 7 (black). While the describing any two qubits i and r, minimization of the L = 1 case is entanglement-free, it benefits from the loss function leads to multi-axis superposition constraint of NP-VQA.

FIG. 3 σz 2+ σx 2 = h i i h i i (β + γ)2 + (α δ)2 (β γ)2 + (α + δ)2 , − − (11) complete graphs from n2 (specifically n(n 1)/2 two- operator Pauli strings)∼ to 2n (two single-qubit− mea- which is maximized when the concurrence (entanglement surements per qubit), lowering∼ the measurement com- [49, 50]) is minimized and vice versa. Once disentangle- plexity and runtime of the algorithm on real quantum ment nears completion, the equality in Eq. 8 begins to hardware [47, 48]. Numerically, p is more compact for hold and for any θt and qubit i, such that L 6

While quantum optimization literature typically tar- gets deep circuits with deterministic convergence, in what z z x x σ gt(σ ) = σ gt(σ ), (12) h i i i −h i i i follows we reason that a probabilistic sampling of various shallow NP-VQA circuit initializations (that is, running where g are the gradients as given by Eq. 4. As σζ = 0 t q shallower circuits multiple times) can be a more efficient is unfavorable for the optimization of , bothh axesi of p alternative. As larger values of are a direct certifi- each qubit i must be bistable with respectL to each an- cate of superior optimization, thereC should be no prefer- gle θ in order for update of that parameter to halt. t ence for less efficient single-shot techniques. Shallow im- In this manner, NP-VQA is a sort of quantum ana- plementations are particularly important for near-term log to alternating minimization in classical algorithms quantum devices, which are prohibitively susceptible to [51], but which uses both quantum superposition and noise at even moderate circuit-depth. Fig. 3b displays classical nonlinearity to minimize two cost functions si- the probability that an optimal cut, which we define as multaneously, rather than one sequentially. Alternating > T = 0.97 MaxCut(G), will be found for graphs G minimization has also proven useful in QAOA protocols Cwith n = 100.× While studies have indicated that up to an [15, 52–54]. exponential number of parameters are required to obtain As minimizing Eq. 7 cannot yield classical solutions to nearly perfect convergence [8], a quantity that would be Eq. 1, we define a rounding scheme for the classification inconceivable for a n = 100 qubits, traditional VQE alone and scoring of MaxCut(G) estimates C can produce optimal cuts approximately 12.5% of the time (Fig. 3b) with only seven total layers and 4n = 400 n wzz parameters, compared to 299 parameters for determin- ˆ X ij  z z  p(θ; G) = 1 R( σ )R( σ ) ∼ C 2 − h i i h j i istic convergence. Not only would multiple repetitions r j

(compared to 90% for VQE), its parallel implementation P ( > T ), r = 5 #G, (G) > T C C doubles the number of MaxCut instances optimized. 1.0 20

0.8 15 Nonlinear Dense VQA (ND-VQA) 0.6 10 The ND-VQA paradigm also draws upon nonlinear ac- 0.4 tivation functions and single-qubit measurements, but 5 rather than independently encoding two graph instances 0.2 into the z and x-bases, it jointly encodes a single n node (qubit) graph into the z and x bases of n/2 qubits (see 0.0 0 Fig. 1b). We will refer to these n and n/2 qubit registers 0 100 200 0 10 20 30 as the logical and physical qubits, respectively. This en- Epochs Epochs coding is carried out by treating both the z and x bases (a) (Left) The probability that at least one of r = 5 runs of each of the n/2 physical qubits as a separate logical will produce an optimal cut for n = 100, with L = 7 (light qubit, such that G can be encoded by a loss function green), L = 1 (dark green), and VQE with L = 7 (black). inspired by the the ZX Hamiltonian For the shallow NP-VQA L = 7 circuit, five repetitions produces nearly deterministic results with few epochs. n/2 n/2 n/2 (Right) Number of n = 20 graphs with optimal cuts for X zz z z X xx x x X zx z x r = 10. NP-VQA not only successfully optimizes all (vs Hd = wij σi σj + wij σi σj + wij σi σj , (14) j T ) . 1 0 C 0.8 C

n/2 X zz z z 0.6 d = w tanh( σ ) tanh( σ ) L ij h i i h j i j

n/2 zx inefficient, ND-VQA with n = 512 outperforms VQE with X wij 1 R( σz )R( σx ) . n = 8, a system 1/64th of its size and still converges to 2 − h i i h j i i,j optimal cuts 13% of the time. Furthermore, improved optimization of∼ the n = 512 would be readily attained with We again emphasize that, as Eqs. 15 and 16 are com- deeper circuits. (right) ND-VQA for n = 100 with L = 13 prised of distinct Pauli strings that are independently (light green), L = 7 (dark green), and VQE with L = 7 measured on separate circuit preparations, the uncer- (black). Incresing depth from 7 to 13, while still extremely zx tainty principle is not violated for wij with j = i. shallow for n = 100, greatly improves performance. ND-VQA doubles the number of quantum resources available, a valuable asset for a nascent field which has FIG. 4 invested millions of dollars and spent multiple decades to achieve 50-qubit registers. Furthermore, like that of its parallel∼ counterpart, the dual-basis constraint of ND- VQA improves MaxCut optimization. Fig. 4b illustrates 8 the average performance of both ND-VQA and VQE cir- candidate for quantum advantage. cuits for n = 8, 100 and the ND-VQA circuit alone for These algorithms are powerful enough to enable large- the pm3-8-50 (n = 512) instance of the DIMACS library scale simulations of effective optimization algorithms on [63]. The pm3-8-50 (n = 512) with traditional VQE was a single, consumer-grade GPU. To our knowledge, we too memory inefficient for evaluation on a single A100 were able to produce the largest simulation of a quantum GPU. Like its dense counterpart, ND-VQA demonstrates global optimization algorithm which rivals classical per- marked improvement over VQE in both average MaxCut formance achieved to-date. Such a successful and large- convergence and probabilistic sampling. scale implementation demonstrates that exceedingly sim- Although our current contraction algorithm yields a ple and low-rank TT representations are sufficient to maximum circuit depth of L = 13 for logical n = 512 on model diverse techniques in quantum machine learning, a single GPU, increased circuit-depth improves perfor- and to do so without truncation or approximation. Fi- mance (Fig. 4b). The simulation of such deeper circuits nally, through the use of large-scale global graphs, we could be provided by tensor contraction backends with demonstrate that the local connectivity and low entan- improved memory management, such as the cuTensor li- glement capacity of both the MPS formalism and lin- brary. Despite circuit-depth L only increasing sublog- early connected near-term quantum devices do not pre- arithmically in n, ND-VQA with n = 512 displayed clude successful quantum optimization routines. When strong performance, achieving average cut of 96% of we expand our definition of accuracy to encompass prob- ∼ the ground truth (Fig. 4b, left) and a highest accuracy abilistic sampling of various circuit initializations, we find upwards of 98% from thirty total runs. This exceeds that remarkably few quantum resources can be requisite not only the performance guarantees of polynomial algo- for classical optimization problems. rithms, but also the average performance of notable spe- cialty algorithms on this specific instance under similar specifications [64]. Moreover, ND-VQA obtains optimal ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cuts upwards of 13% of the time (Fig. 4b, right). While computational benchmarking has been demonstrated for thousands of qubits, to our knowledge, ND-VQA with This work was done during T.L.P.’s internship at n = 512 is the largest simulation of successful global NVIDIA. At CalTech, A.A. is supported in part by the quantum optimization algorithms yet conducted. Bren endowed chair, and Microsoft, Google, Adobe fac- ulty fellowships. S.F.Y. thanks the AFOSR and the NSF for funding through the CUA-PFC grant. The authors DISCUSSION would like to thank Brucek Khailany, Johnnie Gray, Gar- net Chan, Andreas Hehn, and Adam Jedrych for conver- In this manuscript, we introduced the novel NP-VQA sations. and ND-VQA algorithms. With shallow circuit-depths, their performance on the examined graphs exceed that of traditional VQAs. Both of these algorithms provide AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS meaningful efficiency improvements and thus lower the overhead of demonstrating quantum advantage for classi- T.L.P. and J.K. contributed to all aspects of the work. cal optimization problems. These improvements include A.A. contributed context on machine learning and clas- up to a polynomial reduction in circuit measurements, sical algorithms. S.F.Y. contributed context on quan- as well as a factor of two speedup for NP-VQA, and a tum information-related physics. A.A. and S.F.Y. con- factor of two reduction in quantum resources for ND- tributed guidance on the research and manuscript. VQA. In actuality, both encoding methods are part of a broader framework of multi-axis qubit encodings, which include any nonlinear renormalization of quantum ob- servables that permits the optimization of multiple, mu- COMPETING INTERESTS tually regularizing observables on a single qubit. These findings are likely to spur additional research in efficient The authors claim no competing interests. qubit encoding or the application or our techniques to related algorithms. Since deeper circuits would be at- tainable with more efficient tensor contraction methods or distributed computing efforts, this work encourages ∗ [email protected] further development of large-scale quantum simulation [1] Li, W. et al. Parameterized algorithms of fundamental with tensor methods. Most critically, as these simula- np-hard problems: a survey. Human-centric Computing tions are ultimately memory-bound, the implementation and Information Sciences 10, 29 (2020). URL https: of these algorithms at-scale constitutes a strong and novel //doi.org/10.1186/s13673-020-00226-w. 9

[2] Lucas, A. Ising formulations of many np problems. [18] H˚astad,J. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. Frontiers in Physics 2, 5 (2014). URL https://www. ACM 48, 798–859 (2001). URL https://doi.org/10. frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005. 1145/502090.502098. [3] Wecker, D., Hastings, M. B. & Troyer, M. Progress to- [19] Khot, S., Kindler, G., Mossel, E. & O’Donnell, R. Op- wards practical quantum variational algorithms. Phys. timal inapproximability results for max-cut and other Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015). URL https://link.aps.org/ 2-variable csps? SIAM 37, 319 (2005). URL https: doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042303. //www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/papers/maxcut.pdf. [4] McClean, J. R., Romero, J., Babbush, R. & Aspuru- [20] Preskill, J. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and Guzik, A. The theory of variational hybrid quantum- beyond. Quantum 2, 79 (2018). URL https://doi.org/ classical algorithms. New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79. (2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630% [21] McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V. N., Bab- 2F18%2F2%2F023023. bush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neu- [5] Cerezo, M. et al. Variational quantum algorithms (2020). ral network training landscapes. Nature Communica- 2012.09265. tions 9, 4812 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ [6] Peruzzo, A. et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on s41467-018-07090-4. a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communica- [22] Patti, T. L., Najafi, K., Gao, X. & Yelin, S. F. En- tions 5, 4213 (2014). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ tanglement devised barren plateau mitigation (2020). ncomms5213. 2012.12658. [7] Kandala, A. et al. Hardware-efficient Quantum Opti- [23] Marrero, C. O., Kieferov´a,M. & Wiebe, N. Entanglement mizer for Small Molecules and Quantum Magnets. Na- Induced Barren Plateaus (2020). URL https://arxiv. ture Publishing Group 549, 242–246 (2017). URL http: org/abs/2010.15968. 2010.15968. //arxiv.org/abs/1704.05018. 1704.05018. [24] Wiersema, R. et al. Exploring entanglement and opti- [8] Lee, J., Magann, A. B., Rabitz, H. A. & Arenz, C. To- mization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz. PRX wards favorable landscapes in quantum combinatorial op- Quantum 1, 020319 (2020). URL https://link.aps. timization (2021). 2105.01114. org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020319. [9] Farhi, E., Goldstone, J. & Gutmann, S. A quan- [25] Holmes, Z., Sharma, K., Cerezo, M. & Coles, P. J. Con- tum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv (2014). necting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and 1411.4028. barren plateaus (2021). 2101.02138. [10] Harrigan, M. P. et al. Quantum approximate optimiza- [26] Cerezo, M., Sone, A., Volkoff, T., Cincio, L. & Coles, tion of non-planar graph problems on a planar supercon- P. J. Cost-function-dependent barren plateaus in shallow ducting processor. Nature Physics 3, 1745 (2021). URL quantum neural networks (2020). URL https://arxiv. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01105-y. org/abs/2001.00550. 2001.00550. [11] Guerreschi, G. G. & Matsuura, A. Y. Qaoa for max- [27] Amaro, D. et al. Filtering variational quan- cut requires hundreds of qubits for quantum speed-up. tum algorithms for combinatorial optimization (2021). Scientific Reports 9, 6903 (2019). URL https://doi. 2106.10055. org/10.1038/s41598-019-43176-9. [28] Fishman, M., White, S. R. & Stoudenmire, E. M. The [12] Pagano, G. et al. Quantum approximate optimiza- itensor software library for tensor network calculations tion of the long-range ising model with a trapped-ion (2020). 2007.14822. quantum simulator. Proceedings of the National [29] Or´us, R. A practical introduction to tensor net- Academy of Sciences 117, 25396–25401 (2020). works: Matrix product states and projected entan- URL https://www.pnas.org/content/117/41/25396. gled pair states. Annals of Physics 349, 117– https://www.pnas.org/content/117/41/25396.full.pdf. 158 (2014). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ [13] Zhou, L., Wang, S.-T., Choi, S., Pichler, H. & science/article/pii/S0003491614001596. Lukin, M. D. Quantum approximate optimization al- [30] Bridgeman, J. C. & Chubb, C. T. Hand-waving and in- gorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementa- terpretive dance: an introductory course on tensor net- tion on near-term devices. Phys. Rev. X 10, 021067 works. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ ical 50, 223001 (2017). PhysRevX.10.021067. [31] Huggins, W., Patil, P., Mitchell, B., Whaley, K. B. & [14] Kim, I. H. & Swingle, B. Robust entanglement renormal- Stoudenmire, E. M. Towards quantum machine learning ization on a noisy quantum computer (2017). 1711.07500. with tensor networks. Quantum Science and Technol- [15] Wang, Z., Rubin, N. C., Dominy, J. M. & Rieffel, E. G. ogy 4, 024001 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ xy mixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quan- 2058-9565/aaea94. tum alternating operator ansatz. Phys. Rev. A 101, [32] Zhou, Y., Stoudenmire, E. M. & Waintal, X. What limits 012320 (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. the simulation of quantum computers? Phys. Rev. X 1103/PhysRevA.101.012320. 10, 041038 (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [16] Fuchs, F. G., Kolden, H., Øie, A., Henrik, N. & Sartor, 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041038. G. Efficient encoding of the weighted max k-cut on a [33] Fried, E. S. et al. qtorch: The quantum tensor con- quantum computer using qaoa. SN Computer Science traction handler. PLOS ONE 13, 1–20 (2018). URL 2, 2661–8907 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208510. s42979-020-00437-z. [34] Lykov, D., Schutski, R., Galda, A., Vinokur, V. & Alex- [17] Goemans, M. X. & Williamson, D. P. Improved approx- eev, Y. Tensor network quantum simulator with step- imation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability dependent parallelization (2020). 2012.02430. problems using semidefinite programming. J. of the ACM [35] Huang, C. et al. Alibaba cloud quantum development 42, 1115 (1995). platform: Applications to quantum algorithm design 10

(2019). 1909.02559. [51] Jain, P. & Kar, P. Non-convex optimization for machine [36] Commander, C. W. Maximum cut problem, MAX- learning. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learn- CUTMaximum Cut Problem, MAX-CUT, 1991–1999 ing 10, 142–363 (2017). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009). URL https://doi. 1561/2200000058. org/10.1007/978-0-387-74759-0_358. [52] Hadfield, S. et al. From the quantum approximate op- [37] Patti, T. L., Kossaifi, J. & Anandkumar, A. Tensorly- timization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator quantum: Tensor-based quantum machine learning ansatz. Algorithms 12 (2019). URL https://www.mdpi. (2021). URL https://github.com/tensorly/quantum. com/1999-4893/12/2/34. [38] Kossaifi, J., Panagakis, Y., Anandkumar, A. & Pantic, [53] Zhu, L. et al. An adaptive quantum approximate op- M. Tensorly: Tensor learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. timization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems Res. 20, 925–930 (2019). on a quantum computer (2020). 2005.10258. [39] Karp, R. M. (1972). [54] Cook, J., Eidenbenz, S. & B¨artschi, A. The quantum [40] White, S. R. Density matrix formulation for quan- alternating operator ansatz on maximum k-vertex cover tum renormalization groups. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, (2020). 1910.13483. 2863–2866 (1992). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [55] Paszke, A. et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863. performance deep learning library. In Wallach, H. [41] Wurtz, J. & Love, P. Maxcut quantum approximate op- et al. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Process- timization algorithm performance guarantees for p > 1. ing Systems, vol. 32 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019). Phys. Rev. A 103, 042612 (2021). URL https://link. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/ aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042612. file/bdbca288fee7f92f2bfa9f7012727740-Paper.pdf. [42] Shen, H., Zhang, P., You, Y.-Z. & Zhai, H. Information [56] a. Smith, D. G. & Gray, J. opt einsum - a python package scrambling in quantum neural networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. for optimizing contraction order for einsum-like expres- 124, 200504 (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ sions. Journal of Open Source Software 3, 753 (2018). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.200504. URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00753. [43] Aardal, K. & Weismantel, R. Polyhedral combinatorics [57] Wiegele, A. Biq mac library – a collection of max-cut : an annotated bibliography. Universiteit Utrecht. UU- and quadratic 0-1 programming instances of medium size. CS, Department of Computer Science (Utrecht Univer- Tech. Rep. (2007). sity, Netherlands, 1996). [58] Dborin, J., Barratt, F., Wimalaweera, V., Wright, L. [44] Raussendorf, R. & Briegel, H. J. A one-way quan- & Green, A. G. Matrix product state pre-training for tum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188–5191 quantum machine learning (2021). 2106.05742. (2001). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [59] to be Inserted by Publisher, L. PhysRevLett.86.5188. [60] Wang, T. & Roychowdhury, J. Oim: Oscillator-based [45] Raussendorf, R., Browne, D. E. & Briegel, H. J. ising machines for solving combinatorial optimisation Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster problems (2019). 1903.07163. states. Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003). URL https: [61] Goto, H., Tatsumura, K. & Dixon, A. R. //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022312. Combinatorial optimization by simulating adia- [46] Ferguson, R. R. et al. Measurement-based varia- batic bifurcations in nonlinear hamiltonian sys- tional quantum eigensolver. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, tems. Science Advances 5 (2019). URL https: 220501 (2021). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. //advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav2372. 1103/PhysRevLett.126.220501. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav2372.full.pdf. [47] Verteletskyi, V., Yen, T.-C. & Izmaylov, A. F. Mea- [62] Crosson, E. & Harrow, A. W. Simulated quantum an- surement optimization in the variational quantum eigen- nealing can be exponentially faster than classical simu- solver using a minimum clique cover. J. Chem. Phys. 152 lated annealing. 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5141458. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (2016). URL [48] Shehab, O. et al. Noise reduction using past causal cones http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2016.81. in variational quantum algorithms (2019). 1906.00476. [63] he dimacs library of mixed semidefinite-quadratic- [49] Wootters, W. K. Entanglement of formation and concur- linear programs. URL http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/ rence. Quantum Info. Comput. 1, 27–44 (2001). Challenges/Seventh/Instances/. [50] Gao, X., Sergio, A., Chen, K., Fei, S. & Li-Jost, X. [64] Burer, S., Monteiro, R. D. C. & Zhang, Y. Rank- Entanglement of formation and concurrence for mixed two relaxation heuristics for max-cut and other binary states. Front. Comput. Sci-Chi 2, 114 (2008). quadratic programs. SIAM J. Optim. (2001).