skip to main content

Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph isomorphism and token swapping

Published:10 October 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In 2016, the first quantum processors have been made available to the general public. The possibility of programming an actual quantum device has elicited much enthusiasm. Yet, such possibility also brought challenges. One challenge is the so called Qubit Allocation problem: the mapping of a virtual quantum circuit into an actual quantum architecture. There exist solutions to this problem; however, in our opinion, they fail to capitalize on decades of improvements on graph theory. In contrast, this paper shows how to model qubit allocation as the combination of Subgraph Isomorphism and Token Swapping. This idea has been made possible by the publication of an approximative solution to the latter problem in 2016. We have compared our algorithm against five other qubit allocators, all independently designed in the last two years, including the winner of the IBM Challenge. When evaluated in "Tokyo", a quantum architecture with 20 qubits, our technique outperforms these state-of-the-art approaches in terms of the quality of the solutions that it finds and the amount of memory that it uses, while showing practical runtime.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a120-siraichi

Presentation at OOPSLA '19

References

  1. Matthew Amy, Dmitri Maslov, Michele Mosca, and Martin Roetteler. 2013. A Meet-in-the-Middle Algorithm for Fast Synthesis of Depth-Optimal Quantum Circuits. Trans. Comp.-Aided Des. Integ. Cir. Sys. 32, 6 (jun 2013), 818–830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriano Barenco, Charles H Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Tycho Sleator, John A Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter. 1995. Elementary gates for quantum computation. Physical review A 52, 5 (1995), 3457.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richard Bellman. 1958. On a Routing Problem. Quart. Appl. Math. 16 (1958), 87–90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Alexandre Blais. 2001. Quantum network optimization. Phys. Rev. A 64 (Jul 2001), 022312. Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gregory J. Chaitin, Marc A. Auslander, Ashok K. Chandra, John Cocke, Martin E. Hopkins, and Peter W. Markstein. 1981. Register Allocation via Coloring. Comput. Lang. 6, 1 (1981), 47–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stephen A. Cook. 1971. The Complexity of Theorem-proving Procedures. In STOC. ACM, NY, USA, 151–158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dean Copsey, Mark Oskin, Tzvetan Metodiev, Frederic T. Chong, Isaac Chuang, and John Kubiatowicz. 2003. The Effect of Communication Costs in Solid-state Quantum Computing Architectures. In SPAA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65–74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L. P. Cordella, P. Foggia, C. Sansone, and M. Vento. 2004. A (sub)graph isomorphism algorithm for matching large graphs. TPAMI 26, 10 (Oct 2004), 1367–1372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Andrew W. Cross, Lev S. Bishop, John A. Smolin, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2017. Open Quantum Assembly Language. IBM, Armonk, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aidan Dang, Charles D. Hill, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg. 2019. Optimising Matrix Product State Simulations of Shor’s Algorithm. CoRR 3 (2019), 116–125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Simon J. Devitt. 2016. Performing quantum computing experiments in the cloud. Phys. Rev. A 94, 3 (2016), 032329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Michel H Devoret, Andreas Wallraff, and John M Martinis. 2004. Superconducting qubits: A short review. arXiv 0411174 (2004), 1–41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. Erdös and A. Rényi. 1959. On Random Graphs I. Publicationes Mathematicae 6 (1959), 290–297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jay M Gambetta, Jerry M Chow, and Matthias Steffen. 2017. Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system. NPJ Quantum Mechanics 3, Article 2 (2017), 7 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dario Gil. 2017. The Future of Computing: AI and Quantum. Online video.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Alexander S Green, Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine, Neil J Ross, Peter Selinger, and Benoît Valiron. 2013. Quipper: a scalable quantum programming language. In SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 48. ACM, NY, USA, 333–342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Wook-Shin Han, Jinsoo Lee, and Jeong-Hoon Lee. 2013. Turboiso: Towards Ultrafast and Robust Subgraph Isomorphism Search in Large Graph Databases. In SIGMOD. ACM, NY, USA, 337–348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Thomas Häner, Damian S. Steiger, Krysta M. Svore, and Matthias Troyer. 2016. A Software Methodology for Compiling Quantum Programs. CoRR abs/1604.01401 (2016), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. IBM. 2016. IBM QX Devices. https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/devicesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Toshinari Itoko, Rudy Raymond, Takashi Imamichi, Atsushi Matsuo, and Andrew W. Cross. 2019. Quantum Circuit Compilers Using Gate Commutation Rules. In ASPDAC. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191–196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ali Javadi-Abhari, Shruti Patil, Daniel Kudrow, Jeff Heckey, Alexey Lvov, Frederic T Chong, and Margaret Martonosi. 2014. ScaffCC: a framework for compilation and analysis of quantum computing programs. In Computing Frontiers. ACM, NY, USA, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jun Kawahara, Toshiki Saitoh, and Ryo Yoshinaka. 2017. The Time Complexity of the Token Swapping Problem and Its Parallel Variants. In WALCOM. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 448–459.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Yu Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I.-C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis. 2014. State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantum circuit. CoRR arXiv:1411.7403 (2014), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. L. Lao, B. van Wee, I. Ashraf, J. van Someren, N. Khammassi, K. Bertels, and C. G. Almudever. 2018. Mapping of Lattice Surgery-based Quantum Circuits on Surface Code Architectures. arXiv: arXiv:1805.11127Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. 2018. Tackling the Qubit Mapping Problem for NISQ-Era Quantum Devices. arXiv: arXiv:1809.02573 To appear in ASPLOS’19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C. C. Lin, S. Sur-Kolay, and N. K. Jha. 2015. PAQCS: Physical Design-Aware Fault-Tolerant Quantum Circuit Synthesis. TVLSI 23, 7 (2015), 1221–1234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Y. Lin, B. Yu, M. Li, and D. Z. Pan. 2018. Layout Synthesis for Topological Quantum Circuits With 1-D and 2-D Architectures. TCAD 37, 8 (2018), 1574–1587.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Paul Magnard, Philipp Kurpiers, Baptiste Royer, Theo Walter, Jean-Claude Besse, Simone Gasparinetti, Marek Pechal, Johannes Heinsoo, Simon Storz, Alexandre Blais, and Andreas Wallraff. 2018. Fast and Unconditional All-Microwave Reset of a Superconducting Qubit. CoRR arXiv:1801.07689 (2018), 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Igor L. Markov, Aneeqa Fatima, Sergei V. Isakov, and Sergio Boixo. 2018. Quantum Supremacy Is Both Closer and Farther than It Appears. CoRR arXiv:1807.10749 (2018), 1–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Maslov, S. M. Falconer, and M. Mosca. 2008. Quantum Circuit Placement. TCAD 27, 4 (2008), 752–763.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Tillmann Miltzow, Lothar Narins, Yoshio Okamoto, Günter Rote, Antonis Thomas, and Takeaki Uno. 2016. Approximation and Hardness of Token Swapping. In ESA. Schloss Dagstuhl, Dagstuhl, Germany, 66:1–66:15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. M. Oskin, F. T. Chong, and I. L. Chuang. 2002. A practical architecture for reliable quantum computers. Computer 35, 1 (Jan 2002), 79–87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Edwin Pednault, John A. Gunnels, Giacomo Nannicini, Lior Horesh, Thomas Magerlein, Edgar Solomonik, Erik W. Draeger, Eric T. Holland, and Robert Wisnieff. 2018. Breaking the 49-Qubit Barrier in the Simulation of Quantum Circuits. CoRR arXiv:1710.05867 (2018), 1–29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Pedram and A. Shafaei. 2016. Layout Optimization for Quantum Circuits with Linear Nearest Neighbor Architectures. Circuits and Systems Magazine 16, 2 (2016), 62–74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira and Jens Palsberg. 2005. Register Allocation Via Coloring of Chordal Graphs. In APLAS. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 315–329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. A. Saito, K. Kioi, Y. Akagi, N. Hashizume, and K. Ohta. 2000. Actual computational time-cost of the Quantum Fourier Transform in a quantum computer using nuclear spins. arXiv: quant-ph/0001113Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Daniel Sank, Evan Jeffrey, J.Y. Mutus, T.C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Megrant A. Dunsworth, P.J.J. O’Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A.N. Cleland, and J.M. Martinis. 2014. Fast Scalable State Measurement with Superconducting Qubits. CoRR arXiv:1401.0257 (2014), 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. A. Shafaei, M. Saeedi, and M. Pedram. 2014. Qubit placement to minimize communication overhead in 2D quantum architectures. In ASP-DAC. IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 495–500.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. R. Shrivastwa, K. Datta, and I. Sengupta. 2015. Fast Qubit Placement in 2D Architecture Using Nearest Neighbor Realization. In iNIS. IEEE, NY, USA, 95–100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Marcos Yukio Siraichi, Vinícius Fernandes dos Santos, Caroline Collange, and Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira. 2018. Qubit Allocation. In CGO. ACM, NY, USA, 113?125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Pavel Surynek. 2018. Finding Optimal Solutions to Token Swapping by Conflict-based Search and Reduction to SAT. arXiv: arXiv:1806.09487Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Krysta M. Svore, Alfred V. Aho, Andrew W. Cross, Isaac Chuang, and Igor L. Markov. 2006. A Layered Software Architecture for Quantum Computing Design Tools. Computer 39, 1 (2006), 74–83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Krysta Marie Svore, A. Cross, and I-Hsun Chuang. 2004. Toward a Software Architecture for Quantum Computing Design Tools.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Swamit Tannu and Moinuddin Qureshi. 2019. A Case for Variability-Aware Policies for NISQ-Era Quantum Computers. In ASPLOS. ACM, NY, USA, To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuhn H. W. 1955. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 2, 1-2 (1955), 83–97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. R. Wille, D. Große, L. Teuber, G. W. Dueck, and R. Drechsler. 2008. RevLib: An Online Resource for Reversible Functions and Reversible Circuits. In ISMVL. IEEE, NY, USA, 220–225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek. 1982. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature 299 (oct 1982), 802–803. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Katsuhisa Yamanaka, Erik D. Demaine, Takashi Horiyama, Akitoshi Kawamura, Shin-ichi Nakano, Yoshio Okamoto, Toshiki Saitoh, Akira Suzuki, Ryuhei Uehara, and Takeaki Uno. 2017. Sequentially Swapping Colored Tokens on Graphs. In WALCOM: Algorithms and Computation, Sheung-Hung Poon, Md. Saidur Rahman, and Hsu-Chun Yen (Eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 435–447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Katsuhisa Yamanaka, Erik D. Demaine, Takehiro Ito, Jun Kawahara, Masashi Kiyomi, Yoshio Okamoto, Toshiki Saitoh, Akira Suzuki, Kei Uchizawa, and Takeaki Uno. 2014. Swapping Labeled Tokens on Graphs. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 364–375.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Peixiang Zhao and Jiawei Han. 2010. On Graph Query Optimization in Large Networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 3, 1-2 (2010), 340–351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Alwin Zulehner, Alexandru Paler, and Robert Wille. 2018. Efficient mapping of quantum circuits to the IBM QX architectures. In DATE. IEEE, NY, USA, 1135–1138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Alwin Zulehner and Robert Wille. 2019. Compiling SU(4) Quantum Circuits to IBM QX Architectures. In ASPDAC. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 185–190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Qubit allocation as a combination of subgraph isomorphism and token swapping

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!