What issues can D wave quantum processor solve ?

netqwe
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Is D wave 1024 qubit quantum processor can solve a
1024 cities 'travelling salesman problem' ?
And if not what are the abilities of it ?
Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The D-Wave machine is an adiabatic quantum annealer. Classical simulated annealing tries to minimize a cost function with respect to some variables by varying the variables in a semi-random way based on a "temperature". Quantum adiabatic annealing is based on slowly varying the Hamiltonian of your system so it goes from a simple Hamiltonian with a known ground state to a complicated Hamiltonian that represents your problem.

The specific type of cost function they can represent is something like ##a \cdot x_1 + b \cdot x_2 + c \cdot x_3 + d \cdot x_1 \cdot x_2 + e \cdot x_1 \cdot x_3 + f \cdot x_2 \cdot x_3##, where ##a##, ##b##, ..., ##f## are constants you set to define the problem and the variables for the machine to optimize are the ##x_{whatever}##s. In other words you can have scaling constants for the cost of each individual variable, and also for the pairing of variables. Apparently this is called an "Ising spin glass" problem. But note that the D-wave machine is limited in terms of which pairs can have a non-zero constant; it is restricted to coupling variables that are adjacent in a "chimera graph".

The D-Wave machine beats naive algorithms like classical simulated annealing on problem instances designed to show that advantage. But it's not known if the machine will ever be faster in practical cases, or if the obstacles of having to encode your problem into a chimera-graph subset of an ising spin glass problem and the issue that they don't really have any large-scale coherence will outweigh any benefits of small-scale quantum coherence they manage to achieve. My understanding is that, at the moment, there's a classical algorithm (it's called "Selby's algorithm" on Scott Aaronson's blog) that beats the d-wave machine on its own problem (i.e. the classical algorithm also takes the chimera-ising-whatever coupling constants as inputs, instead of a more direct representation of the problem to solve). That's kind of embarassing.

This recent interview from MIT is informative. Basically all the facts in this post are ultimately sourced to the person they're interviewing, but do keep in mind that he has achieved the de-facto title of "chief d-wave skeptic".
 
Last edited:
In terms of "practical" problems the machine has so far been used for e.g. image recognition (which presumably is the reason why Google is interested) and a bunch of optimization problems. The current architecture is basically optimized for solving optimization problems where you do not necessarily need the to find the global minima, but where finding one or several "deep" local minima is "good enough"; i.e. the solution is not always perfect but still useful. A typical example -used by D-Wave themselves- would be certain optimization problems in finance ("best stock portfolio") where you are working with inexact information anyway and you just want the computer to quickly give you some near-optimal solutions that you can use.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top