2
$\begingroup$

In QAOA algorithm, two terms are being discussed; 1) clause or cost (C) Hamiltonian and 2) mixer consisting of pauli X gates.

What is the role of this mixer? Not clear why it comes after the C. Doesn't it cause the state to flip after evaluating C?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The purpose of the mixer term is to make sure that if somehow your trial state is an eigenstate of the cost Hamiltonian $H_C$, that is $H_C|\psi (\theta) \rangle = E |\psi (\theta) \rangle$, then you can get out of this state. If you don't have this mixer, and you continue applying $e^{i\alpha_k H_C}$ to the state $|\psi \rangle$, you will remain in the state $|\psi\rangle$. And $H_C$ have many eigenstates so you might very well stuck in an undesirable eigenstate! In fact, you need to make sure the mixer Hamiltonian, $H_M$ anti-commute with $H_C$. Otherwise you will still be stuck... $\endgroup$ – KAJ226 May 18 at 23:13
  • $\begingroup$ The reason for this is because if $H_M$ and $H_C$ commute then they have common eigenstates... so the eigenstate of $H_C$ will be the eigenstate of $H_M$. That is why you often see QAOA picked their $H_M$ to be something like $\bigotimes\sigma_X$. But you can choose it to be whatever... as long as $H_M$ anti-commute with $H_C$. $\endgroup$ – KAJ226 May 18 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Kinda understood. sorry due to lack of experience. HC has many egienstates? why? because HC has many terms? $\endgroup$ – John Parker May 19 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ $H_C$ is some hermitian operator, in this case, a hermitian matrix, and and $n \times n$ hermitian matrix will have $n$ eigenvectors. $\endgroup$ – KAJ226 May 19 at 5:23
2
$\begingroup$

Probably the easiest way to understand this is to pretend that the mixer is NOT there and see what happens. So, let's assume you have some initial state $\lvert \psi \rangle = \sum_x \psi_x \lvert x \rangle$ and you want to use QAOA to find the ground state of some cost Hamiltonian $H_C$. I'm using the notation $\big\{\lvert x \rangle : x \in \{\pm 1\}^n \big\}$ for the $\sigma^z$-basis (the computational basis). Note that the cost Hamiltonian $H_C$ will be diagonal in this basis. $$ H_C = \sum_x E_x \lvert x \rangle \langle x \rvert $$ Applying the phase-shifter $U(\gamma) = \exp(-i \gamma H_C)$ to $\lvert \psi \rangle$ one obtains $$ \lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle \equiv U(\gamma) \lvert \psi \rangle = \sum_x e^{-i\gamma E_x} \psi_x \lvert x \rangle $$ Let's stop here for now. If you measure the new state $\lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle$ with respect to the computational basis you get a configuration $x \in \{\pm 1\}^n$ with probability $$ p_x = \lvert \langle x|\psi(\gamma) \rangle \rvert^2 = \lvert e^{-i\gamma E_x} \psi_x \rvert^2 = \lvert \psi_x \rvert^2 $$ which is exactly the probability you would have got if you had measured the state $\lvert \psi \rangle$ to begin with. Evolution with respect to $H_C$ has not changed this probability distribution so we haven't really gained anything.

Note that this implies that for any observable that is diagonal in the $\sigma^z$-basis, e.g. for the cost Hamiltonian $H_C$, we have $$ \langle \psi(\gamma) \rvert H_C \lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle = \langle \psi \rvert U^{\dagger}(\gamma) H_C U(\gamma) \lvert \psi \rangle = \langle \psi \rvert H_C \lvert \psi \rangle $$ since $\langle x \rvert H_C \lvert y \rangle = E_x \delta_{xy}$. This is bad since the average energy functional (here I'm suppressing the dependence on the mixing time $\beta$ since we're pretending we're not using a mixer) $$ f(\gamma) = \langle \psi(\gamma) \rvert H_C \lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle $$ is used by the classical optimization part of the QAOA in order to optimize the state $ \lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle$: you want to find a value $\gamma$ that minimizes $f(\gamma)$. But we just saw that $f(\gamma)$ is a constant function of $\gamma$ so there's nothing to optimize here. You can't go down in energy (that is, in "cost") by choosing different values of $\gamma$.

From a physical point of view this is perfectly obvious: the system is evolving under closed-system dynamics and the energy (represented here by $H_C$) is conserved.

All of this changes if you then apply a mixer (where e.g. $B= \sum_i \sigma_i^x$) $$ U(\beta) \equiv \exp(-i\beta B) $$ to your state $\lvert \psi(\gamma) \rangle$ so that you get $$ \lvert \psi(\gamma,\beta) \rangle \equiv \exp(-i\beta B)\exp(-i\gamma H_C) \lvert \psi \rangle $$ Since $H_C$ and $B$ do not commute, the dynamics generated by $B$ will not in general conserve the "energy" (i.e. the cost) $H_C$.

Now the (correct) QAOA energy functional $$ f(\gamma,\beta) = \langle \psi(\gamma,\beta) \rvert H_C \lvert \psi(\gamma,\beta) \rangle $$ is no longer a constant function of $\gamma,\beta$ and you can use your favourite classical optimizer to minimize its value. That is, you will (in general) be able to find values $\gamma^*,\beta^*$ such that $$ \langle \psi(\gamma^*,\beta^*) \rvert H_C \lvert \psi(\gamma^*,\beta^*) \rangle < \langle \psi \rvert H_C \lvert \psi \rangle. $$ The exact same argument applies to any depth $p$ of the QAOA variational Ansatz.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the great explanation!. One basic follow-up question, ⟨ψ|U†(γ)HCU(γ)|ψ⟩=⟨ψ|HC|ψ⟩ in this expression. Why U(γ)=exp(−iγHC) is moved out by passing HC in the middle? $\endgroup$ – John Parker May 20 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Glad you found it helpful. Because $H_C = \sum_x E_x \lvert x \rangle \langle x \rvert$ and $U(\gamma) = \sum_x e^{-i\gamma E_x} \lvert x \rangle \langle x \rvert$ commute due to the fact that they are diagonal in the same basis. Then you have $U^{\dagger}(\gamma)U(\gamma) = I$ since $U(\gamma)$ is a unitary operator. $\endgroup$ – Gianni Mossi May 20 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again. I got it. this means Hc consists of only with Pauli I and Z's. I assume if it has X or Y, it wouldn't work? Thank you again for your help! $\endgroup$ – John Parker May 20 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Well, the exact statement is as follows. For arbitrary Hermitian operators $H,Q$ define the quantity $q(t) \equiv \langle \psi \rvert \exp(iHt)\, Q \exp(-iHt) \lvert \psi \rangle$. If $[H,Q]=0$ then $q(t)$ is a constant function of $t$ because $Q$ and $\exp(-iHt)$ will commute. If $[H,Q] \neq 0$ then this will not happen and $q(t)$ will generically depend on $t$, even though you might find very specific choices of the initial state $\lvert \psi \rangle$ where it does not (e.g. the eigenvectors of $H$). $\endgroup$ – Gianni Mossi May 21 at 5:57
  • $\begingroup$ In my answer above we have $H = Q = H_C$ so $f(\gamma)$ does not depend on $\gamma$ simply because every operator commutes with itself: $[H_C, H_C]=0$. Note that the determining factor here is really commutativity between $H$ and $Q$, not whether they are made of different Pauli operators. For example $\bigotimes_i \sigma_i^x$ and two-spin interactions like $\sum_{ij} J_{ij}\sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z$ do commute, even though one is $\sigma^x$-diagonal and the other is $\sigma^z$-diagonal. $\endgroup$ – Gianni Mossi May 21 at 5:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.