A Predictive Approach for Selecting the Best Quantum Solver for an Optimization Problem

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2408.03613
• Title: A Predictive Approach for Selecting the Best Quantum Solver for an Optimization Problem
• Authors: Deborah Volpe, Nils Quetschlich, Mariagrazia Graziano, Giovanna Turvani, Robert Wille
• Classification: quant-ph cs.ET
• Publication Date: August 7, 2024 (arXiv)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03613

Abstract

Quantum computing holds tremendous potential for solving optimization problems, but utilizing quantum solvers requires converting optimization problems into QUBO (Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization) form and selecting appropriate solvers with suitable parameter configurations for specific applications. This demands profound expertise in quantum computing, QUBO modeling, and quantum solver knowledge. This paper proposes a predictive selection method that models the solver selection task as a classification problem, employing supervised machine learning to automatically select the optimal quantum solver. Experimental evaluation based on over 500 distinct QUBO problems demonstrates that the method selects the best solver in over 70% of cases and the top two solvers in approximately 90% of problems.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

1. Core Challenge: Selecting quantum optimization solvers is extremely difficult for non-expert users, requiring deep quantum computing knowledge
2. Practical Need: Different optimization problems require different quantum solvers to achieve optimal performance, consistent with the "No Free Lunch" theorem
3. Existing Limitations: While QUBO modeling tools exist, automated support for solver selection is lacking

Importance Analysis

• Broad Applications: Quantum optimization has significant application value in finance, resource allocation, scheduling, and other domains
• Technical Barriers: Current complexity of quantum optimization technology impedes wider adoption
• Cost Considerations: Executing all solvers for comparison is infeasible in terms of time and economic costs

Research Motivation

Automating the solver selection process through machine learning reduces the barrier to entry for quantum optimization, enabling domain experts to leverage quantum optimization techniques without requiring deep quantum computing knowledge.

Core Contributions

1. First to propose a machine learning-based framework for automatic quantum solver selection
2. Establish a comprehensive evaluation dataset containing 500+ distinct QUBO problems
3. Develop QUBO problem feature extraction methods for solver performance prediction
4. Design automatic solver parameter configuration strategies
5. Integrate into the MQT Quantum Auto Optimizer framework, providing open-source implementation
6. Validate selection of the best solver in 70%+ cases and top two solvers in 90% of cases

Methodology Details

Task Definition

• Input: Mathematical representation of QUBO problems
• Output: The most suitable quantum solver for the problem and its parameter configuration
• Objective: Maximize solution quality while minimizing computational cost

Solver Coverage

This paper considers the following solvers:

1. Quantum Annealer (QA): Dedicated quantum annealing devices
2. Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA): Hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithm
3. Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE): Variational quantum eigensolver
4. Grover Adaptive Search (GAS): Adaptive algorithm based on Grover search
5. Simulated Annealing (SA): Classical simulated annealing as a control baseline

Feature Extraction Method

Nine features are extracted from QUBO problems:

• Number of variables
• Quantity and statistical properties of non-zero first-order terms (mean, variance)
• Quantity and statistical properties of non-zero second-order terms (mean, variance)
• Statistical properties of all coefficients (mean, variance)

Evaluation Metric Design

A comprehensive scoring system is proposed:

Fs = -αps + β(Eopt-Eref) + γ(Eavg-Eref) + δEvar - ηpv

Where:

• ps: Percentage of achieving optimal solution
• Eopt: Best value obtained
• Eref: Reference optimal value of the problem
• Eavg: Average value
• Evar: Variance
• pv: Percentage of solutions satisfying constraints

Machine Learning Models

Ten classifiers are evaluated using five-fold cross-validation:

• Ada Boost, Decision Tree, Gradient Boosting
• k-nearest neighbors (KNN), Logistic Regression
• Naive Bayes, Neural Network, Random Forest
• Support Vector Machine (SVM), XGBoost

Automatic Parameter Configuration Strategy

Quantum Annealer:

TTTS = 10^(b√N), b = 0.7

QAOA:

reps = ⌈2√N⌉

GAS:

threshold = 2N

VQE: Standard ansatz configuration

Simulated Annealing: Time complexity scaling similar to QA

Experimental Setup

Dataset Construction

• Scale: 500+ QUBO problems
• Sources:
  • Classical optimization benchmark sets
  • Generated problems with varying scales, densities, and coefficient ranges
  • Portfolio optimization problems
  • Linear regression problems based on Iris dataset

Data Preprocessing

• Class Imbalance Handling: QAOA comprises approximately 50%, QA and VQE each approximately 20%, GAS and SA each approximately 10%
• Feature Scaling: Standardization to common range
• Dimensionality Reduction Techniques:
  • PCA: 2, 3, 4, 9 principal components
  • LDA: 2, 3, 4 discriminant components

Evaluation Metrics

• Accuracy: Percentage of correct predictions
• Top-2 Accuracy: Proportion of correctly predicting top two solvers
• Average ps Error: Difference in success probability between best and predicted solvers

Experimental Results

Main Results

Random Forest Performs Best:

• Accuracy: 73.18%
• Top-2 Accuracy: 91.12%
• Average ps Error: 2.16%

Model Comparison

Dimensionality Reduction Analysis

• Random Forest: Dimensionality reduction techniques do not significantly improve performance
• SVM/Naive Bayes: Dimensionality reduction techniques provide clear benefits
• Neural Network: Performance improves under certain dimensionality reduction configurations

Solver Performance Analysis

Different problem types exhibit different optimal solvers:

• Set Packing: QA performs best
• K-clique: QAOA performs best
• Portfolio Optimization: VQE performs best
• Max Cut: GAS performs best
• Minimum Vertex Cover: SA performs best

Related Work

QUBO Modeling Tools

Existing libraries include: pyqubo, qubovert, dimod, Qiskit-optimization, Fixstarts Amplify, openQAOA, etc.

Automation Frameworks

• AutoQUBO: Focuses on QUBO formulation
• QUBO.jl: QUBO tools for Julia ecosystem
• MQT QAO: Comprehensive optimization framework

Research Gap

This paper is the first to systematically address the automatic quantum solver selection problem, filling an important gap in the field.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Feasibility Verification: Machine learning methods can effectively predict optimal quantum solvers
2. Practicality Demonstration: Random Forest correctly selects the best solver in 73.18% of cases
3. Robustness Demonstration: Top two solvers are selected in over 90% of cases

Limitations

1. Dataset Scale: Larger training datasets are needed to improve prediction reliability
2. Problem Scale Restrictions: Limited by quantum simulators, unable to handle large-scale problems
3. Parameter Settings: Primarily based on empirical derivation, requiring further optimization
4. Time Complexity: Insufficient consideration of execution time differences among solvers

Future Directions

1. Dataset Expansion: Include more diverse optimization problems
2. Parameter Optimization: Use machine learning methods to optimize solver parameters
3. Multi-label Approaches: Handle cases where solver performance is comparable
4. Reinforcement Learning: Explore alternatives to supervised learning

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Innovation: First systematic application of machine learning to quantum solver selection
2. High Practical Value: Significantly reduces barriers to quantum optimization adoption
3. Comprehensive Experiments: Evaluation based on 500+ problems, results are credible
4. Open-Source Contribution: Integration into MQT framework promotes community development
5. Systematic Methodology: Complete pipeline from feature extraction to model selection

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: Lacks deep theoretical explanation for why certain features are effective
2. Scalability Limitations: Constrained by current quantum hardware, difficult to verify effectiveness on large-scale problems
3. Benchmark Limitations: Primarily based on classical optimization problems, insufficient coverage of quantum advantage problems
4. Simplified Parameter Configuration: Solver parameter configuration strategies are relatively simple

Impact

1. Academic Value: Opens new directions for quantum computing automation
2. Practical Significance: Enables non-quantum experts to utilize quantum optimization techniques
3. Industrial Application: Likely to promote widespread adoption of quantum optimization in practical applications
4. Reproducibility: Open-source implementation ensures research reproducibility

Applicable Scenarios

1. Education and Training: Quantum computing courses and training programs
2. Prototype Development: Rapid feasibility assessment of quantum optimization
3. Interdisciplinary Research: Helps domain experts explore quantum solutions
4. Industrial Applications: Provides solver selection guidance for practical optimization problems

References

The paper cites 68 relevant references covering important works in quantum computing, optimization algorithms, machine learning, and other domains, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Overall Assessment: This is a research work of significant practical value that systematically addresses the automatic quantum solver selection problem for the first time. While it has certain limitations in theoretical depth and scalability, its innovation, practicality, and open-source contributions make it an important advance in quantum computing automation. This work is expected to significantly reduce the barrier to entry for quantum optimization technology and promote its application in broader domains.