EQUAL: Improving the Fidelity of Quantum Annealers by Injecting Controlled Perturbations

• Main Authors: Ayanzadeh, Ramin, Das, Poulami, Tannu, Swamit S, Qureshi, Moinuddin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 24.08.2021
• Subjects: Computer Science - Emerging Technologies; Computer Science - Hardware Architecture; Physics - Quantum Physics
• DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2108.10964

Quantum computing is an information processing paradigm that uses quantum-mechanical properties to speedup computationally hard problems. Although promising, existing gate-based quantum computers consist of only a few dozen qubits and are not large enough for most applications. On the other hand, existing QAs with few thousand of qubits have the potential to solve some domain-specific optimization problems. QAs are single instruction machines and to execute a program, the problem is cast to a Hamiltonian, embedded on the hardware, and a single quantum machine instruction (QMI) is run. Unfortunately, noise and imperfections in hardware result in sub-optimal solutions on QAs even if the QMI is run for thousands of trials. The limited programmability of QAs mean that the user executes the same QMI for all trials. This subjects all trials to a similar noise profile throughout the execution, resulting in a systematic bias. We observe that systematic bias leads to sub-optimal solutions and cannot be alleviated by executing more trials or using existing error-mitigation schemes. To address this challenge, we propose EQUAL (Ensemble Quantum Annealing). EQUAL generates an ensemble of QMIs by adding controlled perturbations to the program QMI. When executed on the QA, the ensemble of QMIs steers the program away from encountering the same bias during all trials and thus, improves the quality of solutions. Our evaluations using the 2041-qubit D-Wave QA show that EQUAL bridges the difference between the baseline and the ideal by an average of 14% (and up to 26%), without requiring any additional trials. EQUAL can be combined with existing error mitigation schemes to further bridge the difference between the baseline and ideal by an average of 55% (and up to 68%).