Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:50:08.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing planning problem compilation approaches for quantum annealing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2017

Bryan O’Gorman ,
Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel ,
Minh Do ,
Davide Venturelli  and
Jeremy Frank
Bryan O’Gorman
Affiliation:
QuAIL, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc. 7701 Greenbelt Road, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel
Affiliation:
QuAIL, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Minh Do
Affiliation:
Intelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA; e-mail: [email protected] Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc. 7701 Greenbelt Road, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Davide Venturelli
Affiliation:
QuAIL, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Universities Space Research Association 615 National Avenue, Suite 220 Mountain View, CA 94043, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Jeremy Frank
Affiliation:
Intelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One approach to solving planning problems is to compile them to other problems for which powerful off-the-shelf solvers are available; common targets include SAT, CSP, and MILP. Recently, a novel optimization technique has become available: quantum annealing (QA). QA takes as input problem instances of quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem. Early quantum annealers are now available, though their constraints restrict the types of QUBOs they can take as input. Here, we introduce the planning community to the key steps in compiling planning problems to QA hardware: a hardware-independent step, mapping, and a hardware-dependent step, embedding. After describing two approaches to mapping general planning problems to QUBO, we describe preliminary results from running an early quantum annealer on a parametrized family of hard planning problems. The results show that different mappings can substantially affect performance, even when many features of the resulting instances are similar. We conclude with insights gained from this early study that suggest directions for future work.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Special Issue 5: Constraint Satisfaction for Planning and Scheduling , November 2016 , pp. 465 - 474
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achlioptas, D. & Friedgut, E. 1999. A sharp threshold for k-colorability. Random Structures and Algorithms 14(1), 63–70.Google Scholar
Achlioptas, D. & Moore, C. 2003. Almost all graphs with average degree 4 are 3-colorable. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 67(2), 441–471.Google Scholar
Babbush, R., O’Gorman, B. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2013. Resource efficient gadgets for compiling adiabatic quantum optimization problems. Annalen der Physik 525(10–11), 877–888.Google Scholar
Blum, A. & Furst, M. 1997. Planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence Journal 90, 281–330.Google Scholar
Boros, E. & Hammer, P. L. 2002. Pseudo-boolean optimization. Discrete Applied Mathematics 123(1), 155–225.Google Scholar
Cai, J., Macready, B. & Roy, A. 2014. A practical heuristic for finding graph minors. arXiv:1406:2741.Google Scholar
Chien, S., Johnston, M., Frank, J., Giuliano, M., Kavelaars, A., Lenzen, C., Policella, N. & Verfailie, G. 2012. A generalized timeline representation, services, and interface for automating space mission operations. In 12th International Conference on Space Operations.Google Scholar
Coja-Oghlan, A. 2013. Upper-bounding the k-colorability threshold by counting covers. arXiv:1305.0177.Google Scholar
Culberson, J., Beacham, A. & Papp, D. 1995. Hiding our colors. In Proceedings of the CP95 Workshop on Studying and Solving Really Hard Problems. 31–42.Google Scholar
Das, A. & Chakrabarti, B. K. 2008. Colloquium: quantum annealing and analog quantum computation. Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1061–1081.Google Scholar
Do, M. B. & Kambhampati, S. 2001. Planning as constraint satisfaction: solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP. Artificial Intelligence Journal 132(2), 151–1182.Google Scholar
Dubois, O. & Mandler, J. 2002. On the non-3-colourability of random graphs. arXiv:math/0209087.Google Scholar
Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Sipser, M. 2000. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. arXiv:quant-ph/0001106.Google Scholar
Fikes, R. E. & Nilsson, N. J. 1972. STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2(3), 189–208.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. & Traverso, P. 2004. Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Elsevier.Google Scholar
International Planning Competition 2004. The International Planning Competition Website. http://icaps-conference.org/index.php/Main/Competitions.Google Scholar
Kautz, H. 2004. SATPLAN04: planning as satisfiability. Working Notes on the Fourth International Planning Competition (IPC-2004), 44–45.Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A. & Selman, B. 1999. Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In Proceedings of IJCAI'1999.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. & Chuang, I. L. 2001. Quantum Computing and Quantum Information, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Fluegemann, J., Biswas, R. & Smelyanskiy, V. N. 2015. A performance estimator for quantum annealers: gauge selection and parameter setting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01083.Google Scholar
Rieffel, E. G. & Polak, W. 2011. A Gentle Introduction to Quantum Computing, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rieffel, E. G., Venturelli, D., Hen, I., Do, M. & Frank, J. 2014. Parametrized families of hard planning problems from phase transitions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-14). 2337–2343.Google Scholar
Rieffel, E. G., Venturelli, D., O’Gorman, B., Do, M. B., Prystay, E. M. & Smelyanskiy, V. N. 2015. A case study in programming a quantum annealer for hard operational planning problems. Quantum Information Processing 14(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Smelyanskiy, V. N, Rieffel, E. G, Knysh, S. I, Williams, C. P, Johnson, M. W., Thom, M. C., Macready, W. G. & Pudenz, K. L. 2012. A near-term quantum computing approach for hard computational problems in space exploration. arXiv:1204.2821.Google Scholar