Quantum versus classical annealing of Ising spin glasses

Science

Volumn 348, Issue 6231, 2015, Pages 215-217

  Heim, Bettina ^a   Rønnow, Troels F ^a   Isakov, Sergei V ^b   Troyer, Matthias ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b GOOGLE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANNEALING; GLASS; MEASUREMENT METHOD; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; QUANTUM MECHANICS; SIMULATION; TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

ARTICLE; GENERAL DEVICE; ISING SPIN GLASS; MAGNETIC FIELD; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTUM MECHANICS; SIMULATED ANNEALING; SIMULATED QUANTUM ANNEALING; SIMULATION;

EID: 84927647357     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4170     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. M. Radivojević, T. Rehren, J. Kuzmanović-Cvetković, M. Jovanović, J. P. Northover, Antiquity 87, 1030-1045 (2013).
2. S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt Jr., M. P. Vecchi, Science 220, 671-680 (1983).
3. F. Barahona, J. Phys. Math. Gen. 15, 3241-3253 (1982).
4. R. Graham, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 45, 1563-1581 (1966).
5. D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4, Fascicle 1: Bitwise Tricks & Techniques; Binary Decision Diagrams (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, ed. 12, 2009).
6. L.-P. Wong, M. Y.-H. Low, C. S. Chong, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 19, 305-334 (2010).
7. S. A. Cook, in Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1971), pp. 151-158.
8. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087-1092 (1953).
9. D. Bertsimas, J. Tsitsiklis, Stat. Sci. 8, 10-15 (1993).
10. P. Ray, B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11828-11832 (1989).
11. A. B. Finnila, M. A. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, J. D. Doll, Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343-348 (1994).
12. T. Kadowaki, H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E Stat. Phys. Plasmas Fluids Relat. Interdiscip. Topics 58, 5355-5363 (1998).
13. E. Farhi et al., Science 292, 472-475 (2001).
14. A. Das, B. K. Chakrabarti, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061-1081 (2008).
15. L. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 2, 46-51 (1932).
16. C. Zener, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 137, 696-702 (1932).
17. J. Brooke, D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum, G. Aeppli, Science 284, 779-781 (1999).
18. M. W. Johnson et al., Nature 473, 194-198 (2011).
19. G. E. Santoro, R. Martonák, E. Tosatti, R. Car, Science 295, 2427-2430 (2002).
20. R. Martoňák, G. E. Santoro, E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B 66, 094203 (2002).
21. M. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 56, 1454-1469 (1976).
22. See the supplementary materials on Science Online.
23. T. F. Rønnow et al., Science 345, 420-424 (2014).
24. H. Rieger, N. Kawashima, Eur. Phys. J. B 9, 233-236 (1999).
25. www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/spinglass/.
26. S. W. Shin, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, U. Vazirani, http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7087 (2014).
27. S. Boixo et al., Nat. Phys. 10, 218-224 (2014).
28. Y. Matsuda, H. Nishimori, H. G. Katzgraber, New J. Phys. 11, 073021 (2009).
29. E. Crosson, E. Farhi, C. Y.-Y. Lin, H.-H. Lin, P. Shor, http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7320 (2014).
30. H. G. Katzgraber, F. Hamze, R. S. Andrist, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021008 (2014).