arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 5 Jun 2013

Transcription

1 A note on QUBO instances defined on Chimera graphs Sanjeeb Dash IBM T. J. Watson Research Center arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 5 Jun 2013 May 9, 2017 Abstract McGeogh and Wang (2013) recently obtained optimal or near-optimal solutions to some quadratic unconstrained boolean optimization (QUBO) problems using a 439 qubit D-Wave quantum computer in much less time than with the IBM ILOG CPLEX mixed-integer quadratic programming solver. The problems studied by McGeogh et. al. are defined on subgraphs of 512 node Chimera graphs. We observe that after a standard reformulation of QUBO problems defined on 512 node Chimera graphs as mixedinteger linear programs (MILP), they can be solved to optimality with the CPLEX MILP solver in time comparable to the time reported by McGeogh and Wang for the D-wave quantum computer. 1 Introduction The quadratic unconstrained boolean optimization (QUBO) problem is the problem of minimizing a quadratic function of n {0, 1} variables, see [6] for applications. It is a special case of the mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP) problem. A QUBO instance on n variables is specified by a n n matrix Q: Min i,j Q ij x i x j subject to x {0,1} n. (1) A QUBO instance is associated with a weighted graph, G = {G = (V,E),w}, where G is an n-node unweighted graph with node set V and edge set E, w : V V R defines the weight of nodes and edges, w((i,j)) = Q ij +Q ji for all i j with (i,j) E, and w((i,i)) = Q ii for all i, and is zero otherwise. G is called the connectivity graph. The decision version of the QUBO problem is NP-complete even when G is a planar cubic graph [2], and NP-complete for graphs containing a planar cubic graph as a minor, such as 2D grid graphs or Chimera graphs (see below). In this note we study the case when G is a Chimera graph as described in [14]. A Chimera graph C k has 8k 2 vertices arranged in a grid-like pattern: each node in a k k grid graph is replaced by a complete bipartite graph K 4,4, and the nodes in the right partition are connected to the respective nodes in the right partitions of thek 4,4 s on the left and right (if they exist), and the nodes in the left partition are connected to the respective nodes in the left partitions of thek 4,4 s above and below. McGeogh and Wang [14] solve randomly generated QUBO problem instances where the connectivity graph has at most 439 nodes and is a subgraph of the Chimera graph C 8 (it has 512 nodes) on a D-Wave Two chip[12][9] and compare the running times to the time taken by the MIQP algorithm within IBM ILOG CPLEX [13] (henceforth called CPLEX). Letting Q = (Q+Q T )/2, the problem in (1) can be written as Min x T Qx subject to x {0,1} n. (2) 1

2 We call this formulation QUBO-miqp. An MIQP solver, such as the one in CPLEX, typically uses a branchand-bound algorithm, where lower bounds on QUBO-miqp are obtained by solving a quadratic programming (QP) relaxation of the form Min x T Qx subject to x [0,1] n. (3) If Q is not positive semidefinite, then the QP problem above is nonconvex and NP-hard. For QUBO instances, a simple transformation makes Q positive semidefinite without changing the optimal solution. Let D be an n diagonal matrix. Then Min x T ( Q+D)x n D ii x i subject to x {0,1} n, (4) i=1 is equivalent to QUBO-miqp. Whenx i = {0,1}, x 2 i = x i and therefore for everyx {0,1} n, the objective function in (4) has the same value as the objective function in (2). There are many choices of D such that Q+D is positive semidefinite: e.g., ifd = λ min ( Q)I whereλ min ( Q) is the minimum eigenvalue of Q and I is the identity matrix, or D is chosen so that Q+D is diagonally dominant. The choice of D influences the quality of the lower bound on the optimal solution value of (4) from its convex QP relaxation (obtained by setting x [0,1] n ), see [5]. An alternative approach to solving QUBO instances is via the following standard mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulation (here we assume, without loss of generality, that Q is upper triangular): Min i<j Q ijz ij + n i=1 Q iix i (5) subject to z ij x i i < j, (6) z ij x j i < j, (7) x i +x j z ij 1 i < j, (8) z ij 0 i < j (9) x {0,1} n. (10) We call this formulation QUBO-milp. For any fixedi,j, the constraints (6)-(9) forcez ij to equal x i x j when x i,x j {0,1}, and define the convex hull of {(x i,x j,x i x j ) : x i,x j {0,1}} [11]. It is well-known (see results below) that QUBO-milp can be solved quickly for sparse graphs with linear programming (LP) based branch-and-cut algorithms: LP relaxations yield bounds, and cutting planes are used to strengthen the LP relaxation of the MILP formulation. The QUBO problem maps, via a one-to-one linear transformation (and QUBO-milp maps to an MILP formulation) to the Ising Spin Model (ISM) problem with magnetic fields with the same connectivity graph, or to the Max Cut problem [7] on a graph with one extra node connected to all existing nodes. ISM instances (or equivalently QUBO instances) on 3D grid graphs were shown to be easy to solve [3] using LP relaxations combined with cycle inequalities [2] for the Max Cut problem. The same techniques combined with branchand-bound were used in [4] to solve randomly generated QUBO instances on sparse graphs with (n =) 100 nodes (and average node degree.0625n), and with additional cutting planes in [8] to solve ISM instances on D grid graphs. In [4], 160 out of 162 instances were solved by strengthening the LP relaxation with cycle inequalities and without branching; almost all instances in [8] were solved in this manner. It was shown in [5] that QUBO-milp instances based on sparse, randomly generated graphs G with 2

3 n 80 (average degree of a node is.2n or less) can be solved very quickly even with a general MILP solver, specifically CPLEX 8.1. They use edge weights in the range[ 50,50] and node weights in the range [ 100,100]. Depending on the sign of Q ij, some inequalities from (6)-(9) can be deleted (see [5]), though we do not do this here. The average node degree of a Chimera graph is between 5 and 6, and much less than the average degrees considered in [5]. In this note, motivated by the above results on sparse graphs, we run the CPLEX 12.3 (same version as in [14]) MILP solver on QUBO-milp for randomly generated QUBO instances on Chimera graphs. We observe that such instances are solved to optimality (up to the default optimality tolerance) in a small amount of time. On the average, the CPLEX MILP solver takes less than 0.2 seconds on a standard Microsoft Windows laptop with a 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 processor to solve instances on C 8 graphs with 512 nodes. To test the increase in difficulty with increasing graph size, we experiment with instances based on C 20 graphs with 3200 nodes, C 35 graphs with 9800 nodes, and C 50 graphs with 20,000 nodes, and obtain average solution times less than 2.4 seconds, 16.5 seconds and 51.5 seconds, respectively. We expect similar behaviour on the McGeogh-Wang instances (based on subgraphs of C 8 ), as removing edges/nodes usually makes a QUBO instance easier to solve. Furthermore, forc 4 graphs, we observe that solving QUBO-miqp via QP-based branch and bound (with CPLEX s MIQP solver) takes significantly more time than solving QUBO-milp via LP-based branch-andcut (with CPLEX s MILP solver). In other words, like McGeogh and Wang, we observe large computation times to solve QUBO-miqp. In the worst case, we observe a 10,000 fold slowdown compared with QUBOmilp, though the average slowdown is less; see the next section for a partial explanation. In other words, it seems that Chimera graph based QUBO instances similar to the ones studied by McGeogh and Wang are actually easy to solve with classical computers, even for much larger graphs. 2 Details of computational experiments We generate two groups of random QUBO instances on Chimera graphs C k with varying k. In the first group, each node or edge weight is chosen uniformly at random from { 1,1} as in McGeogh and Wang; what they do differently is that they choose subgraphs of the Chimera graph C 8, whereas we always work with the complete Chimera graph. In the second group, each node or edge weight is an integer chosen uniformly at random from the interval [-100, 100]. We generate 50 instances for each group forc 8,C 20,C 35 and C 50. The C 8 (and C 4 ) instances (as weighted graphs), CPLEX readable inputs for QUBO-miqp and QUBO-milp, and cplex output and logs for our tests on these instances (only for QUBO-milp for C 8 ) are available at In Table 1, we report running times. In the first column we specify the group of instances, in the second column we give the graph. In the third and fourth columns, we give the number of nodes and edges. In the sixth and seventh columns, respectively, we give the arithmetic mean and geometric mean of the running times across the 50 randomly generated instances. The remaining columns give the minimum, maximum and standard deviation of the running times across all 50 instances. All instances are solved with IBM ILOG CPLEX 12.3 running on an 8-core Windows 7 laptop (with a 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7 vpro chip). All runs are executed on a single core with default settings and no specialized code (such as cut callbacks). The running times are the times in seconds reported by CPLEX. The second group of instances seem slightly easier than the first. The maximum time to solve any instance is 73.6 seconds. All but 6 of the 400 instances in this table are solved without branching and the total number of branch-and-bound nodes across all instances is 345; the LP relaxation of QUBO-milp augmented with cutting planes is enough to solve almost all instances, just as in [3], [4] and [8]. Now CPLEX does not 3

4 Graph nodes edges Mean G. Mean Min Max Std. Dev. Group 1 C C C C Group 2 C C C C Table 1: Run times for QUBO instances on different graph sizes generate cycle inequalities specifically; however it generates zero-half cuts [10] and Gomory fractional cuts, which generalize cycle inequalities. Indeed, these are the only two classes of cutting planes generated by CPLEX in our tests and seem essential. The first group of C 8 instances are all solved within 6.99 seconds and in 0.6 seconds on the average with pure branch-and-bound and no cutting planes (the second group takes less time), but larger instances are hard to solve in this way. Finally, we also compare the solution times for QUBO-miqp and QUBO-milp solved with the respective solvers of CPLEX. Even for instances based on small graphs such as C 4, the difference in time can be significant. The mean solution time for QUBO-milp is 0.03 seconds, the maximum solution time is 0.09 seconds, and the standard deviation in solution times is The corresponding numbers for QUBO-miqp are seconds, seconds, and Therefore, in the worst case, the running time for QUBOmiqp is over 10,000 times the running time for QUBO-milp (qchim4.12.lp versus chim4.12.lp in our data set, available at the link above). Why does this happen? We believe it is more because of formulation differences rather than differences in solver quality (though CPLEX-MILP is much more mature, given its relative importance for practical applications). Firstly, even though the QP relaxation of QUBO-miqp is stronger than the LP relaxation of QUBO-milp, after modifying Q as in (4) to make it positive semidefinite, the associated convex QP relaxation yields nontrivially worse lower bounds for many of our instances. Secondly, QUBO-milp is an extended formulation with extra variables (representing x i x j ). One can derive new linear constraints (e.g., cycle inequalities) to get a better approximation of conv(xx T : x {0,1} n ) than conv(xx T : x [0,1] n ). This is not possible in QUBO-miqp. That said, QUBO-miqp may be much better for dense graphs [5]. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Francisco Barahona for helpful discussions on solution techniques for sparse QUBO instances. References [1] F. Barahona, On the computational complexity of Ising spin glass models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15(10) (1982). [2] F. Barahona, A.R. Mahjoub, On the cut polytope, Mathematical Programming (1986). [3] F. Barahona, E. Maccioni, On the exact ground states of three-dimensional Ising spin glasses, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, (1982). 4

5 [4] F. Barahona, M. Jünger, G. Reinelt, Experiments in quadratic 01 programming, Mathematical Programming 44, (1989). [5] A. Billionnet and S.Elloumi, Using a mixed integer quadratic programming solver for the unconstrained quadratic 0-1 problem, Mathematical Programming 109, (2007). [6] E. Boros, P. Hammer and G. Tavares, Local search heuristics for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), Journal of Heuristics 13, (2007). [7] C. De Simone, The cut polytope and the Boolean quadric polytope Discrete Mathematics 79(1), (1990). [8] C. De Simone, M. Diehl, M. Jünger, P. Mutzel, G. Reinelt, and G. Rinaldi, Exact ground states of Ising spin glasses: New experimental results with a branch-and-cut algorithm Journal of Statistical Physics 80(1-2), (1995). [9] D-Wave Systems Inc., 4401 Still Creek Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5C 6G9 [10] A. Caprara and M. Fischetti, 0, 1/2-Chvtal-Gomory cuts, Mathematical Programming 74, (1996). [11] R. Fortet, Applications de l algebre de Boole en recherche opérationelle. Revue Française de Recherche Opérationelle 4(14), (1960). [12] R. Harris, M. W. Johnson, T. Lanting, A. J. Berkley, J. Johanson, P. Bunyk, E. Tolkacheva, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, et. al., Experimental investigation of an eight-qubit unit cell in a superconducting optimization processor, Phys. Rev. B (2010). [13] IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer, www-01.ibm.com/software/commerce/optimization/cplex-optimizer [14] C. C. McGeoch and C. Wang, Experimental Evaluation of an adiabatic quantum system for combinatorial optimization, Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Computing Frontiers 2013, Ischia, Italy. 5