How to recognize if a paper is talking about quantum annealing or gate logic?
$begingroup$
I am currently reading various survey papers in Quantum Machine Learning, such as "Quantum Machine Learning" by Biamonte, Wittek, Pancotti, Rebentrost, Wiebe, and Lloyd. To me, it is not clear when they are talking about Adiabatic Quantum Computing or the Logic Gate approach.
Example:
"The quantum basic linear algebra subroutines (BLAS)—Fourier transforms, finding eigenvectors and eigenvalues, solving linear equations—exhibit exponential quantum speedups over their best known classical counterparts [8, 9, 10]."
Question: Are these people always talking about one of the two technologies (if so, which?), or are they discussing them interchangeably?
quantum-gate adiabatic-model machine-learning
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am currently reading various survey papers in Quantum Machine Learning, such as "Quantum Machine Learning" by Biamonte, Wittek, Pancotti, Rebentrost, Wiebe, and Lloyd. To me, it is not clear when they are talking about Adiabatic Quantum Computing or the Logic Gate approach.
Example:
"The quantum basic linear algebra subroutines (BLAS)—Fourier transforms, finding eigenvectors and eigenvalues, solving linear equations—exhibit exponential quantum speedups over their best known classical counterparts [8, 9, 10]."
Question: Are these people always talking about one of the two technologies (if so, which?), or are they discussing them interchangeably?
quantum-gate adiabatic-model machine-learning
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am currently reading various survey papers in Quantum Machine Learning, such as "Quantum Machine Learning" by Biamonte, Wittek, Pancotti, Rebentrost, Wiebe, and Lloyd. To me, it is not clear when they are talking about Adiabatic Quantum Computing or the Logic Gate approach.
Example:
"The quantum basic linear algebra subroutines (BLAS)—Fourier transforms, finding eigenvectors and eigenvalues, solving linear equations—exhibit exponential quantum speedups over their best known classical counterparts [8, 9, 10]."
Question: Are these people always talking about one of the two technologies (if so, which?), or are they discussing them interchangeably?
quantum-gate adiabatic-model machine-learning
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
$endgroup$
I am currently reading various survey papers in Quantum Machine Learning, such as "Quantum Machine Learning" by Biamonte, Wittek, Pancotti, Rebentrost, Wiebe, and Lloyd. To me, it is not clear when they are talking about Adiabatic Quantum Computing or the Logic Gate approach.
Example:
"The quantum basic linear algebra subroutines (BLAS)—Fourier transforms, finding eigenvectors and eigenvalues, solving linear equations—exhibit exponential quantum speedups over their best known classical counterparts [8, 9, 10]."
Question: Are these people always talking about one of the two technologies (if so, which?), or are they discussing them interchangeably?
quantum-gate adiabatic-model machine-learning
quantum-gate adiabatic-model machine-learning
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
edited Feb 1 at 21:46
Blue♦
6,12831354
6,12831354
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
asked Feb 1 at 11:17
Thomas HubregtsenThomas Hubregtsen
1666
1666
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In this particular one (by quickly overlooking), they refer mostly to the logic gate approach. But nothing prevent them from talking about both. It depends on the algorithm and on which original model it was thought/designed on. Generally, if it is linear algebra based, it will be the logic gate approach. If they refer to optimization of a QUBO, they will talk about a D-Wave quantum annealer (should be mentionned in an introduction part), a specific case of quantum annealing.
If you want to be sure which one for each algorithm, the best way when it is not clear is looking at the references. That helped me a lot figure out details like that.
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've not looked at those papers specifically, but there are several different models for quantum computation (see here), including the gate model and the adiabatic model, which are polynomial time equivalent. That means if one has an exponential speedup, so does the other. The discussion should be interchangeable.
The title, if not the question body, also asks about quantum annealing. So, to summarise the comments:
- Adiabatic QC is a special case of quantum annealing. So, in that sense, since adiabatic is one of those interchangeable ones, so is quantum annealing.
- However, when people talk about quantum annealing, they are often thinking beyond the adiabatic case, with non-adiabatic trajectories, finite temperature etc. Here, the answer is simply we don't know if it is polynomial time equivalent with the other models. Many people believe that it has equivalent computational power, but it has not been proven.
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "694"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5346%2fhow-to-recognize-if-a-paper-is-talking-about-quantum-annealing-or-gate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In this particular one (by quickly overlooking), they refer mostly to the logic gate approach. But nothing prevent them from talking about both. It depends on the algorithm and on which original model it was thought/designed on. Generally, if it is linear algebra based, it will be the logic gate approach. If they refer to optimization of a QUBO, they will talk about a D-Wave quantum annealer (should be mentionned in an introduction part), a specific case of quantum annealing.
If you want to be sure which one for each algorithm, the best way when it is not clear is looking at the references. That helped me a lot figure out details like that.
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In this particular one (by quickly overlooking), they refer mostly to the logic gate approach. But nothing prevent them from talking about both. It depends on the algorithm and on which original model it was thought/designed on. Generally, if it is linear algebra based, it will be the logic gate approach. If they refer to optimization of a QUBO, they will talk about a D-Wave quantum annealer (should be mentionned in an introduction part), a specific case of quantum annealing.
If you want to be sure which one for each algorithm, the best way when it is not clear is looking at the references. That helped me a lot figure out details like that.
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In this particular one (by quickly overlooking), they refer mostly to the logic gate approach. But nothing prevent them from talking about both. It depends on the algorithm and on which original model it was thought/designed on. Generally, if it is linear algebra based, it will be the logic gate approach. If they refer to optimization of a QUBO, they will talk about a D-Wave quantum annealer (should be mentionned in an introduction part), a specific case of quantum annealing.
If you want to be sure which one for each algorithm, the best way when it is not clear is looking at the references. That helped me a lot figure out details like that.
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
$endgroup$
In this particular one (by quickly overlooking), they refer mostly to the logic gate approach. But nothing prevent them from talking about both. It depends on the algorithm and on which original model it was thought/designed on. Generally, if it is linear algebra based, it will be the logic gate approach. If they refer to optimization of a QUBO, they will talk about a D-Wave quantum annealer (should be mentionned in an introduction part), a specific case of quantum annealing.
If you want to be sure which one for each algorithm, the best way when it is not clear is looking at the references. That helped me a lot figure out details like that.
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
answered Feb 1 at 16:21
cnadacnada
2,365213
2,365213
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
$begingroup$
FYI: Selected this as the answer, as it provides a strategy to distinguish the technologies. Please do look at @DaftWullie his answer for interesting insights on the Big O implications when comparing these.
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 6 at 6:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've not looked at those papers specifically, but there are several different models for quantum computation (see here), including the gate model and the adiabatic model, which are polynomial time equivalent. That means if one has an exponential speedup, so does the other. The discussion should be interchangeable.
The title, if not the question body, also asks about quantum annealing. So, to summarise the comments:
- Adiabatic QC is a special case of quantum annealing. So, in that sense, since adiabatic is one of those interchangeable ones, so is quantum annealing.
- However, when people talk about quantum annealing, they are often thinking beyond the adiabatic case, with non-adiabatic trajectories, finite temperature etc. Here, the answer is simply we don't know if it is polynomial time equivalent with the other models. Many people believe that it has equivalent computational power, but it has not been proven.
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've not looked at those papers specifically, but there are several different models for quantum computation (see here), including the gate model and the adiabatic model, which are polynomial time equivalent. That means if one has an exponential speedup, so does the other. The discussion should be interchangeable.
The title, if not the question body, also asks about quantum annealing. So, to summarise the comments:
- Adiabatic QC is a special case of quantum annealing. So, in that sense, since adiabatic is one of those interchangeable ones, so is quantum annealing.
- However, when people talk about quantum annealing, they are often thinking beyond the adiabatic case, with non-adiabatic trajectories, finite temperature etc. Here, the answer is simply we don't know if it is polynomial time equivalent with the other models. Many people believe that it has equivalent computational power, but it has not been proven.
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've not looked at those papers specifically, but there are several different models for quantum computation (see here), including the gate model and the adiabatic model, which are polynomial time equivalent. That means if one has an exponential speedup, so does the other. The discussion should be interchangeable.
The title, if not the question body, also asks about quantum annealing. So, to summarise the comments:
- Adiabatic QC is a special case of quantum annealing. So, in that sense, since adiabatic is one of those interchangeable ones, so is quantum annealing.
- However, when people talk about quantum annealing, they are often thinking beyond the adiabatic case, with non-adiabatic trajectories, finite temperature etc. Here, the answer is simply we don't know if it is polynomial time equivalent with the other models. Many people believe that it has equivalent computational power, but it has not been proven.
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
$endgroup$
I've not looked at those papers specifically, but there are several different models for quantum computation (see here), including the gate model and the adiabatic model, which are polynomial time equivalent. That means if one has an exponential speedup, so does the other. The discussion should be interchangeable.
The title, if not the question body, also asks about quantum annealing. So, to summarise the comments:
- Adiabatic QC is a special case of quantum annealing. So, in that sense, since adiabatic is one of those interchangeable ones, so is quantum annealing.
- However, when people talk about quantum annealing, they are often thinking beyond the adiabatic case, with non-adiabatic trajectories, finite temperature etc. Here, the answer is simply we don't know if it is polynomial time equivalent with the other models. Many people believe that it has equivalent computational power, but it has not been proven.
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
edited Feb 4 at 8:33
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
answered Feb 1 at 11:59
DaftWullieDaftWullie
13.6k1539
13.6k1539
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
1
1
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
Thanks. Does this answer hold for both Quantum Annealing and Adiabatic computing with regards to Quantum Annealing?
$endgroup$
– Thomas Hubregtsen
Feb 1 at 14:10
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
I am not aware of it applying to quantum annealing, because I am not aware of any proofs, just hopes. As stated in one of the answers, quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/4228/1837, "There are no formal results about how quickly you can change your Hamiltonian to achieve this: the subject appears mostly to consist of experimenting with a heuristic to see what works in practise."
$endgroup$
– DaftWullie
Feb 1 at 16:01
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
$begingroup$
As stated in that answer, QA is a generalization of AQC; more specifically AQC is the closed-system limit of QA (no temperature, no noise). So yes, in principle the models are interchangeable. But in practice one cannot assume that a QA processor effectively implements AQC.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. King
Feb 1 at 16:12
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5346%2fhow-to-recognize-if-a-paper-is-talking-about-quantum-annealing-or-gate-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
