Iordanis Kerenidis
Abstract
We present a quantum interior point method (IPM) for semi-definite programs that has a worst-case running time of Õ(n2.5 / ξ2 μ κ 3 log(1/ϵ)). The algorithm outputs a pair of matrices (S,Y) that have objective value within ϵ of the optimal and satisfy the constraints approximately to error xi. The parameter mu is at most √2n while kappa is an upper bound on the condition number of the intermediate solution matrices arising in the classical IPM. For the case where κ ≪ n5/6, our method provides a significant polynomial speedup over the best-known classical semi-definite program solvers that have a worst-case running time of Õ(n6). For linear programs, our algorithm has a running time of Õ(n1.5 / ξ2 μ κ 3 log (1/ϵ)) with the same guarantees and with parameter μ < √2n. Our technical contributions include an efficient quantum procedure for solving the Newton linear systems arising in the classical IPMs, an efficient pure state tomography algorithm, and an analysis of the IPM where the linear systems are solved approximately. Our results pave the way for the development of quantum algorithms with significant polynomial speedups for applications in optimization and machine learning.
- Dana Angluin and Leslie G. Valiant. 1977. Fast probabilistic algorithms for Hamiltonian circuits and matchings. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 30--41.Google Scholar
- Joran van Apeldoorn and András Gilyén. 2019. Improvements in quantum SDP-solving with applications. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’19).Google Scholar
- Joran van Apeldoorn and András Gilyén. 2019. Quantum algorithms for zero-sum games. arXiv:1904.03180.Google Scholar
- Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf. 2017. Quantum SDP-solvers: Better upper and lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 2017 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 403--414.Google Scholar
- Sanjeev Arora, Elad Hazan, and Satyen Kale. 2005. Fast algorithms for approximate semidefinite programming using the multiplicative weights update method. In Proceedings of the 2005 46th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’05). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 339--348.Google Scholar
- Sanjeev Arora, Elad Hazan, and Satyen Kale. 2012. The multiplicative weights update method: A meta-algorithm and applications. Theory of Computing 8, 1 (2012), 121--164.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aharon Ben-Tal and Arkadi Nemirovski. 2001. Lectures on Modern Convex Optimization: Analysis, Algorithms, and Engineering Applications. SIAM.Google Scholar
- Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Amir Kalev, Tongyang Li, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, Krysta M. Svore, and Xiaodi Wu. 2019. Quantum SDP solvers: Large speed-ups, optimality, and applications to quantum learning. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’19).Google Scholar
- Fernando G. S. L. Brandão and Krysta M. Svore. 2017. Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs. In Proceedings of the 2017 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 415--426.Google Scholar
- Sébastien Bubeck. 2015. Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 8, 3--4 (2015), 231--357.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joo-Siong Chai and Kim-Chuan Toh. 2007. Preconditioning and iterative solution of symmetric indefinite linear systems arising from interior point methods for linear programming. Computational Optimization and Applications 36, 2--3 (2007), 221--247.Google Scholar
- Shantanav Chakraborty, András Gilyén, and Stacey Jeffery. 2019. The power of block-encoded matrix powers: Improved regression techniques via faster Hamiltonian simulation. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’19).Google Scholar
- Nai-Hui Chia, Tongyang Li, Han-Hsuan Lin, and Chunhao Wang. 2019. Quantum-inspired classical sublinear-time algorithm for solving low-rank semidefinite programming via sampling approaches. arXiv:1901.03254.Google Scholar
- Michael B. Cohen, Yin Tat Lee, and Zhao Song. 2019. Solving linear programs in the current matrix multiplication time. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 938--942.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hilary Dollar. 2005. Iterative Linear Algebra for Constrained Optimization. Ph.D. Dissertation. Keble College, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
- H. Sue Dollar, Nicholas I. M. Gould, Wil H. A. Schilders, and Andy J. Wathen. 2007. Using constraint preconditioners with regularized saddle-point problems. Computational Optimization and Applications 36, 2--3 (2007), 249--270.Google Scholar
- Dan Garber and Elad Hazan. 2011. Approximating semidefinite programs in sublinear time. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1080--1088.Google Scholar
- András Gilyén, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. 2019. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 193--204.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michel X. Goemans and David P. Williamson. 1995. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. Journal of the ACM 42, 6 (1995), 1115--1145.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, Steven T. Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert. 2010. Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing. Physical Review Letters 105, 15 (2010), 150401.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Narendra Karmarkar. 1984. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 302--311.Google Scholar
- Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash. 2017. Quantum recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference.Google Scholar
- Iordanis Kerenidis and Anupam Prakash. 2020. Quantum gradient descent for linear systems and least squares. Physical Review A 101, 2 (2020), 022316.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iordanis Kerenidis, Anupam Prakash, and Daniel Szilagyi. 2019. Quantum algorithms for second-order cone programming and support vector machines. arXiv:1908.06720.Google Scholar
- Michael Keyl. 2006. Quantum state estimation and large deviations. Reviews in Mathematical Physics 18, 01 (2006), 19--60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leonid G. Khachiyan. 1980. Polynomial algorithms in linear programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 20, 1 (1980), 53--72.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yin Tat Lee and Aaron Sidford. 2015. Efficient inverse maintenance and faster algorithms for linear programming. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 230--249.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yin Tat Lee, Aaron Sidford, and Sam Chiu-Wai Wong. 2015. A faster cutting plane method and its implications for combinatorial and convex optimization. In Proceedings of the 2015 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’15). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1049--1065.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yurii Nesterov and Arkadi Nemirovski. 1994. Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Programming. Vol. 13. SIAM.Google Scholar
- Ryan O’Donnell and John Wright. 2016. Efficient quantum tomography. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, NY, 899--912.Google Scholar
- Pravin M. Vaidya. 1989. Speeding-up linear programming using fast matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the 1989 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’89). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 332--337.Google Scholar
- Pravin M. Vaidya. 1990. An algorithm for linear programming which requires O((m + n) n2 + (m + n)1.5n)L) arithmetic operations. Mathematical Programming 47, 1--3 (1990), 175--201.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A Quantum Interior Point Method for LPs and SDPs
Recommendations
Extending the QCR method to general mixed-integer programs
Let (MQP) be a general mixed integer quadratic program that consists of minimizing a quadratic function subject to linear constraints. In this paper, we present a convex reformulation of (MQP), i.e. we reformulate (MQP) into an equivalent program, with ...
Branching on hyperplane methods for mixed integer linear and convex programming using adjoint lattices
We present branching-on-hyperplane methods for solving mixed integer linear and mixed integer convex programs. In particular, we formulate the problem of finding a good branching hyperplane using a novel concept of adjoint lattice. We also reformulate ...
An interior point method for solving systems of linear equations and inequalities
A simple interior point method is proposed for solving a system of linear equations subject to nonnegativity constraints. The direction of update is defined by projection of the current solution on a linear manifold defined by the equations. ...
Comments