Benchmarking of Different Optimizers in the Variational Quantum Algorithms for Applications in Quantum Chemistry

Abstract

Classical optimizers play a crucial role in determining the accuracy and convergence of variational quantum algorithms. In literature, many optimizers, each having its own architecture, have been employed expediently for different applications. In this work, we consider a few popular optimizers and assess their performance in variational quantum algorithms for applications in quantum chemistry in a realistic noisy setting. We benchmark the optimizers with critical analysis based on quantum simulations of simple molecules, such as Hydrogen, Lithium Hydride, Beryllium Hydride, water, and Hydrogen Fluoride. The errors in the ground-state energy, dissociation energy, and dipole moment are the parameters used as yardsticks. All the simulations were carried out with an ideal quantum circuit simulator, a noisy quantum circuit simulator, and a noisy simulator with noise embedded from the IBM Cairo quantum device to understand the performance of the classical optimizers in ideal and realistic quantum environments. We used the standard unitary coupled cluster (UCC) ansatz for simulations, and the number of qubits varied from two, starting from the Hydrogen molecule to ten qubits, in Hydrogen Fluoride. Based on the performance of these optimizers in the ideal quantum circuits, the conjugate gradient (CG), limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno bound (L_BFGS)B), and sequential least squares programming (SLSQP) optimizers are found to be the best-performing gradient-based optimizers. While constrained optimization by linear approximation (COBYLA) and POWELL perform most efficiently among the gradient-free methods. However, in noisy quantum circuit conditions, Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation (SPSA), POWELL, and COBYLA are among the best-performing optimizers.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.