Comparison between a quantum annealer and a classical approximation algorithm for computing the ground state of an Ising spin glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding the ground state of an Ising spin glass on general graphs belongs to the class of NP-hard problems, widely believed to have no efficient polynomial-time algorithms to solve them. An approach developed in computer science for dealing with such problems is to devise approximation algorithms; these are algorithms, whose run time scales polynomially with the input size, that provide solutions with provable guarantees on their quality in terms of the optimal unknown solution. Recently, several algorithms for the Ising spin-glass problem on a bounded degree graph that provide different approximation guarantees were introduced. D-Wave, a Canadian-based company, has constructed a physical realization of a quantum annealer and has enabled researchers and practitioners to access it via their cloud service. D-Wave is particularly suited for computing an approximation for the ground state of an Ising spin glass on its Chimera and Pegasus graphs-both with a bounded degree. To assess the quality of D-Wave's solution, it is natural to compare it to classical approximation algorithms specifically designed to solve the same problem. In this work, we compare the performance of a recently developed approximation algorithm to solve the Ising spin-glass problem on graphs of bounded degree against the performance of the D-Wave computer. We also compared the performance of D-Wave's computer in the Chimera architecture against the performance of a heuristic tailored specifically to handle the Chimera graph. We found that the D-Wave computer was able to find better approximations for all the random instances of the problem we studied-Gaussian weights, uniform weights, and discrete binary weights. Furthermore, the convergence times of D-Wave's computer were also significantly better. These results indicate the merit of D-Wave's computer under certain specific instances. More broadly, our method is relevant to a wider class of performance comparison studies, and we suggest that it is important to compare the performance of quantum computers not only against exact classical algorithms with exponential run-time scaling, but also against approximation algorithms with polynomial run-time scaling and a provable guarantee of performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".