Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Training the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm without access to a Quantum Processing Unit

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The optimal parameters for QAOA on a problem class can be found by classically simulating the infinite regular tree of the corresponding graph degree, so the quantum processor is needed only to sample from the final state.

desk verdict The tree-QAOA idea is new and the theory is sound, but the numerical evidence is gathered in the regime where the tree-limit approximation cannot hold, so the transfer claim rests on extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08862 v1 pith:L4UZYJHC submitted 2019-08-23 quant-ph

Michael Streif , Martin Leib This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords QuantumApproximateOptimizationAlgorithmQAOAtensornetworksparameterconcentrationMax-Cutspinglassesannealingvariationalalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to eliminate the classical outer learning loop of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) by showing that its variational parameters can be inferred classically from the topology of the problem graph. The central observation is that optimal QAOA parameters concentrate for a given problem class and depend on local graph degree rather than instance size. The authors therefore optimize the parameters on an infinite regular tree with the same degree, using tensor-network contraction that costs polynomially in qubit number and exponentially in circuit depth. These tree-optimal parameters are then applied to finite instances, and the quantum processor is used only to sample from the output state. If this works, QAOA loses its main per-instance training cost, which would make it substantially more practical on near-term devices.

What carries the argument

The reverse causal cone of a correlation function: for the expectation value of an edge operator, only gates within $p$ layers of that edge can contribute, and on large random fixed-degree graphs this support is typically a tree of the same degree as the problem graph. Tree-QAOA evaluates the infinite-tree correlation function by building a tensor network in the superoperator picture, decomposing each two-qubit $\sigma_z\sigma_z$ gate into rank-3 tensors, and contracting along the qubit lines. Since a tree has treewidth 1, the contraction complexity scales with the exponential of the treewidth times the number of blocks, i.e. exponentially in $p$ but only polynomially in the number of qubits.

What would settle it

Take a fixed-degree random graph family and a fixed depth $p$, and check whether the spread of per-instance optimal QAOA parameters shrinks as the system size grows while the per-edge energy approaches the infinite-tree correlation function of Eq. (9). Concretely, on 3-regular Max-Cut with $p=8$, compare the residual energy delivered by tree-QAOA parameters against full per-instance training on instances with $N\geq 100$ qubits; a systematic gap in favor of instance-trained parameters would falsify the claim that the QPU is unnecessary for parameter updates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for QAOA on a problem class with fixed local structure, the per-edge energy of any large instance is governed by the infinite regular tree of the corresponding vertex degree. Concretely, the paper defines tree-QAOA: classically optimize the parameters of a QAOA circuit placed on this infinite tree, using a tensor network whose contraction cost scales polynomially in the number of qubits and exponentially in the number of QAOA blocks $p$. The same parameters are then used for all finite instances of the class, with the QPU reduced to preparing and sampling the final state. Numerically, for Max-Cut on 3-regular graphs and spin glasses on square grids, tree-QAOA attains residual energies comparable to or better than vanilla QAOA trained instance by instance, and the parameters remain useful under analog control noise.

Load-bearing premise

A single set of QAOA parameters found on the infinite regular tree works well for all finite instances of the same problem class, because optimal parameters concentrate and the tree's energy landscape approximates large finite instances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed problem class, one classical tree optimization replaces per-instance QPU training; the quantum processor is only needed to sample from the prepared QAOA state.
  • The classical preprocessing cost is polynomial in qubit number and exponential in circuit depth, so the method is aimed at shallow NISQ circuits where the training loop would otherwise dominate.
  • On the tested Max-Cut and spin-glass instances, tree parameters match or beat instance-trained QAOA, and the paper expects the advantage to become more pronounced on larger instances.
  • Tree-QAOA parameters remain useful under analog control errors up to roughly 20 percent disorder, staying well above random guessing.
  • Interpolating the tree-QAOA parameters into a smooth annealing schedule improves ground-state population over a linear ramp in small quantum-annealing simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the tree limit holds beyond the tested sizes, QAOA for any bounded-local-structure problem class could ship with precomputed parameter tables, removing the variational loop from deployment entirely.
  • The gap between tree-optimal and per-instance-optimal residual energy could serve as a diagnostic: a problem class where instance optima do not approach the tree optimum is likely to resist parameter transfer, so tree-QAOA could be validated on small classical simulations before trusting it on a QPU.
  • The annealing-schedule transfer suggests that schedules for analog annealers could be designed from local tree structure without knowing the spectral gap; testing on other spin-glass families with planted hard instances would show whether this is generic.
  • Because the paper reports the tree optimization landscape as noticeably less rugged than the finite-instance landscape, tree parameters could initialize per-instance variational training and potentially avoid poor local optima.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes tree-QAOA, a classical method for determining QAOA parameters for a problem class without calling the QPU for parameter updates. The central idea is to compute the per-edge energy expectation value on an infinite regular tree of the relevant degree via tensor-network contraction (Eq. (9)), optimize the QAOA angles on this tree classically, and then reuse those angles for all finite instances of the same degree. The method is tested on Max-Cut on 3-regular graphs and on spin glasses on square grids, and the resulting residual energies are compared against per-instance training with L-BFGS-B and Adam. The authors also study robustness to gate errors and translate the tree-optimized QAOA angles into a quantum-annealing schedule that is compared with a linear ramp.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper addresses a significant practical bottleneck of QAOA on NISQ devices: eliminating the QPU calls used for the variational parameter-update loop. The reverse-causal-cone derivation leading to Eq. (9) is conceptually sound, and the tensor-network contraction on a tree is a valid and potentially scalable way to evaluate the infinite-tree objective, with an exponential-in-depth but polynomial-in-system-size cost. The concrete falsifiable prediction that classically computed tree parameters transfer to finite instances of the same degree is of broad interest. However, the numerical validation currently does not test this prediction in the regime where Eq. (9) is supposed to hold, so the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 4, Eq. (9)] The numerical experiments are performed in a regime that violates the paper's own condition for the tree limit. For p=8 the tree-QAOA circuit contains 2^{10}-2=1022 qubits, while the test instances have N=10-20, so the p-neighborhood of every edge is the entire cyclic graph rather than a proper tree subgraph. Consequently Fig. 4(a) and (b) cannot validate the local-tree-limit mechanism; they test an extrapolation that Eq. (9) explicitly excludes. The authors should either simulate instances with N much larger than 2^{p+2} in the valid regime or provide and validate a separate concentration/transfer argument that justifies the extrapolation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The spin-glass benchmarks on square grids use a problem graph that is not locally tree-like at any scale, because the grid contains 4-cycles. Replacing the grid by a degree-4 tree therefore is not justified by Eq. (9). The observation that tree-QAOA still performs 'much better than random guessing' on the small grids is an empirical heuristic result, not evidence for the tree-limit mechanism. The paper should either clearly separate this as a robustness test of the heuristic or provide an alternative theoretical rationale for why the tree approximation applies to non-tree locally cyclic graphs.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Figs. 4 and 5] No error bars, variances, or confidence intervals are reported for the M=100 averages. Since the vanilla QAOA training is performed with a single random initialization per instance, the claim that 'tree-QAOA performs comparable or even better' than per-instance training is not statistically supported. Please report the standard error or the full distribution of residual energies, and state the number of random restarts used for the optimizers.
  4. [Sec. 5, Fig. 7] The annealing-schedule result is not fully supported as presented. The polynomial fit is described as degree 6 but the coefficients are not given, no error bars are shown for the averaged ground-state population, and the comparison is only made for 10-spin instances over a limited range of total annealing times. Moreover, the connection between optimal discrete QAOA angles and a continuous annealing schedule is heuristic and would need at least a specification of the fit and a broader numerical study to establish the claimed 'applicability beyond QAOA'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 2.3] The phrase 'eliminate the classical outer learning loop' is overstated because the tree parameters are still found by classical optimization (L-BFGS-B) in Sec. 3.1. Please clarify that the QPU is removed from the update loop, not that all optimization is eliminated.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The claim that the optimization landscape for the infinite-size instance 'is much easier to navigate' is made without quantitative support. Consider showing a comparison of the landscapes or labeling this as an informal observation.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence describing the initialization of parameters for p>1 is grammatically unclear: 'we use the found parameters of p−1 blocks together new parameters which we add such that both {γi} and {βi} form a linear schedule.' Please rephrase for clarity.
  4. [Sec. 5] The numerical values of the tree-QAOA parameters and the polynomial coefficients used to construct the annealing schedule are not provided, so the annealing experiment cannot be reproduced. Please include them in a table or supplementary material.
  5. [Fig. 4(a)] The caption does not state that the plotted values are averages over M=100 instances, nor the number of optimizer runs per instance. Please add this information to the caption.
  6. [Sec. 2.2] When Eq. (9) is introduced, the text should more explicitly connect it to the concentration result of Ref. [23], clarifying the distinction between concentration of the objective value and concentration of the optimal parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: tree-QAOA parameters are optimized on an infinite regular-tree objective and then transferred to finite instances; they are not fitted to the benchmark data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The tree-QAOA parameters are obtained by classically optimizing the objective eg on an infinite regular tree, as defined in Eq. (9) and computed in Sec. 2.3, and are then transferred to finite Max-Cut and spin-glass instances. The tree objective is not fitted to the finite benchmark data, and the finite-instance residual energies are evaluated with those same transferred tree parameters; no parameter is adjusted on the test instances. The concentration argument in Sec. 2.2 is presented as an empirical motivation (Fig. 1), and the paper explicitly treats transferability as an assumption rather than as a proved consequence. In Sec. 6 the authors state the scaling for larger instances 'remains an open question and has to be proven experimentally.' The annealing schedule in Sec. 5 is a degree-6 polynomial fitted to the already-computed tree-QAOA parameters, not to the annealing success probabilities, so the comparison with the linear schedule is not a self-fulfilling prediction. Self-citations, such as Ref. [17], are contextual and not load-bearing. The fact that the N=10-20 benchmarks with p up to 8 may not satisfy the paper's own 'large compared to the number of blocks' condition is a scope and validity concern about how well the tree limit transfers, but it is not circularity: the prediction is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities, but it rests on two statistical-physics assumptions: parameter concentration and the local-tree limit. The only fitted numbers are the tree-QAOA angles (outputs) and the degree-6 polynomial coefficients for the annealing demonstration. The transfer argument is the main pillar supporting the method and is not derived from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • Tree-QAOA angles {gamma, beta} = Numerically optimized via L-BFGS-B on tree
    The central method produces these parameters by minimizing the per-edge energy on the infinite regular tree. They are not derived from first principles but are the output of a classical optimization on the tree model.
  • Polynomial fit coefficients (degree 6) = Fit to tree-QAOA parameters for p up to 8
    Used in Sec. 5 to translate discrete QAOA parameters into a continuous annealing schedule. The degree is chosen ad hoc; the fit is to the method's own parameters, not to annealing data.
  • Tree degree d = 3 for Max-Cut 3-regular, 4 for 2D grids
    The tree is constructed with the average degree of the problem class. This choice comes from the topology assumption and is not fitted, but it is a modeling choice that determines the tree parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optimal QAOA parameters concentrate around instance-independent values for a given problem class.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 and Fig. 1; based on empirical evidence and Brandao et al. [23]. Without concentration, parameters from the tree cannot be expected to transfer to finite instances.
  • domain assumption For large random graphs of fixed degree, the reverse causal cone of an edge is a tree with probability approaching one.
    Used in Sec. 2.2 to justify replacing the finite problem graph by an infinite regular tree (Eq. 9). Standard local-tree-limit result for expander-like random graphs, but stated without proof.
  • domain assumption The per-edge energy of QAOA on large finite instances converges to the tree correlation function.
    The paper takes the limit in Eq. (9). This assumes the thermodynamic limit exists and is captured by the tree. It is a physical-statistical assumption, not proven.
  • standard math Tensor network contraction cost scales exponentially with treewidth (Markov and Shi [26]).
    Used in Sec. 2.3 to argue the tree contraction is efficient (polynomial in tree size, exponential in depth).
  • domain assumption The optimization landscape on the tree is easy enough for L-BFGS-B to find good parameters.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1 as a numerical observation ('it was easier to find good parameters for tree-QAOA'). This is an empirical claim about the loss landscape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Training the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm without access to a Quantum Processing Unit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4UZYJHC

@misc{pith2026190808862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Training the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm without access to a Quantum Processing Unit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4UZYJHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08862}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we eliminate the classical outer learning loop of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and present a strategy to find good parameters for QAOA based on topological arguments of the problem graph and tensor network techniques. Starting from the observation of the concentration of control parameters of QAOA, we find a way to classically infer parameters which scales polynomially in the number of qubits and exponentially with the depth of the circuit. Using this strategy, the quantum processing unit (QPU) is only needed to infer the final state of QAOA. This method paves the way for a variation-free version of QAOA and makes QAOA more practical for applications on NISQ devices. Moreover, we show the applicability of our method beyond the scope of QAOA, in improving schedules for quantum annealing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of the optimal parameters when training a vanilla QAOA setup with p = 3 QAOA blocks for 4-regular graphs with interaction strengths Jij = {−1, 1}. When increasing the system size, the distributions get narrower. once and reuse them for all instances, thereby eliminating the computational cost per instance of finding the optimal parameters. In addition to that one can find the optimal parameters without an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) A tensor representing a scalar, a vector and a matrix. (b) A tensor representation of a standard matrix product P j Ai,jBj,k. (c) A tensor network with two dangling bonds, which results in a rank-2-tensor after the contraction. The generalization of the matrix product is called tensor contraction and has a nice graphical representation: If one wants to symbolize the operation of summing two tensors over a common… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example how to generate the QAOA circuit and its tensor network representation from an initial problem graph. (a) A (binary) tree graph of degree 3. White circles represent vertices, black lines represent connections between vertices. (b) The resulting tree-QAOA circuit for p = 1. All qubits are initialized in the |+i state. (c) The tensor network representing the tree-QAOA circuit. Initially the maximal rank of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The residual energy r as defined in Eq. (17) obtained with tree-QAOA averaged over M = 100 Max-Cut problems on 3-regular instances for various system sizes N = {10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20} in dependence of the number of QAOA blocks p. (b) A comparison of the averaged r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The residual energy r averaged over M = 100 2D spin glasses obtained with tree-QAOA and Adam-QAOA for (a) a 3 × 3 square grid and (b) a 4 × 4 square grid. guesses. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The influence of different disorder levels on tree-QAOA for Max-Cut problems on 3-regular graphs with N = 16 vertices. The disorder is drawn from a normal distribution with mean µ = 0 and standard deviation σ. implemented without using swap gates. Therefore this setup …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) A trivial (linear) annealing schedule in comparison to an annealing schedule induced by the tree-QAOA parameters for regular Max-Cut on 3-regular graphs. (b) The ground state population at the end of the annealing run in dependence of the total annealing time T ave…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Measurements Number Scaling in the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm for MaxCut: A Statistical Analysis

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Under extensivity and local-structure assumptions, the shot budget for fixed relative QAOA MaxCut performance scales as 1/m while SGD iterations stay size-independent.

  2. Alibaba Cloud Quantum Development Platform: Applications to Quantum Algorithm Design

    quant-ph 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tensor-network-based QAOA simulator is shown to evaluate energies on 1000-vertex regular graphs, and QAOA energies are used to separate non-isomorphic graphs and expose graph structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    However, Shor’s and Grover’s algorithm require ten thousands of qubits

    Introduction The development of Shor’s algorithm for integer factorization [1] and Grover’s algorithm for searching an unstructured database [2], with proven exponential and polynomial speed-up over their classical counterparts respectively, sparked the run on building first quantum processing units (QPUs) and culminated recently in first devices with up to...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Theory 2.1. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm The landscape of quantum algorithms is to date divided into two areas: algorithms like the ones invented by Shor and Grover with provable speedup that however only can be executed on fully error corrected QPUs and quantum heuristics, without a proof of speedup, that are believed to optimally lever...

    work page

  3. [3]

    and error correction techniques. To achieve useful quantum computation already in the next decade it is necessary to develop algorithms which exploit the full power of these Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices without relying on error correction codes. Variational quantum algorithms, which are parameterized quantum circuits updated in classica...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Numerical results In this section, we apply our method to two problems: Max-Cut problems on 3-regular graphs and spin glasses on square grids. Both of these problems possess individual characteristics: the Max-Cut problems on regular graphs exactly fit to the assumptions we made for tree-QAOA, whereas the spin glasses with non-fixed degree enables us Traini...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Especially for variational algorithms, where the parameter optimization relies on the accurate evaluation of the loss function, such effects can corrupt the result

    Performance under the influence of disorder In realistic experiments, the performance of quantum algorithms will be influenced by analog control errors. Especially for variational algorithms, where the parameter optimization relies on the accurate evaluation of the loss function, such effects can corrupt the result. In this section we show that tree-QAOA is ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    As for QAOA, the objective of QA is to find low-lying energy states of classical problem Hamiltonians HP

    Translating tree-QAOA parameters into a quantum annealing schedule The similarities between QAOA and Quantum Annealing (QA) lead to the question whether good QAOA parameters could also be used to produce good annealing schedules. As for QAOA, the objective of QA is to find low-lying energy states of classical problem Hamiltonians HP. In contrast to the str...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Conclusion and outlook In this paper, we have introduced a new strategy for inferring control parameters of QAOA. The main advantage of this method is that it does not rely on repetitive calls of the QPU for making parameter updates, but can be simulated with Tensor Networks efficiently on classical hardware and thus embodies a first version of QAOA that doe...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring

    Peter W Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science , pages 124–134. IEEE, 1994

    work page 1994

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. arXiv preprint quant- ph/9605043, 1996

    1996

  2. [10]

    Layered architecture for quantum computing

    N Cody Jones, Rodney Van Meter, Austin G Fowler, Peter L McMahon, Jungsang Kim, Thaddeus D Ladd, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto. Layered architecture for quantum computing. Physical Review X , 2(3):031007, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L Obrien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5:4213, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Quantum circuit learning

    Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii. Quantum circuit learning. Physical Review A , 98(3):032309, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Continuous-variable quantum neural networks

    Nathan Killoran, Thomas R Bromley, Juan Miguel Arrazola, Maria Schuld, Nicol´ as Quesada, and Seth Lloyd. Continuous-variable quantum neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06871 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm applied to a bounded occurrence constraint problem. arXiv preprint arXiv::1412.6062, Dec 2014. Training QAOA without access to a QPU 18

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A quantum algorithm to train neural networks using low-depth circuits

    Guillaume Verdon, Michael Broughton, and Jacob Biamonte. A quantum algorithm to train neural networks using low-depth circuits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05304 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi and Aram W Harrow. Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07674 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Near-optimal quantum circuit for grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field

    Zhang Jiang, Eleanor G Rieffel, and Zhihui Wang. Near-optimal quantum circuit for grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field. Physical Review A , 95(6):062317, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01041 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bench- marking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Madita Willsch, Dennis Willsch, Fengping Jin, Hans De Raedt, and Kristel Michielsen. Bench- marking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02359 , 2019

    1907 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum annealing: a journey through digitalitalization, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes

    Glen Bigan Mbeng, Rosario Fazio, and Giuseppe Santoro. Quantum annealing: a journey through digitalitalization, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08948, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bang-bang control as a design principle for classical and quantum optimization algorithms

    Aniruddha Bapat and Stephen Jordan. Bang-bang control as a design principle for classical and quantum optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.02746 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Classical and quantum bounded depth approximation algorithms

    Matthew B Hastings. Classical and quantum bounded depth approximation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07047, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Comparison of QAOA with quantum and simulated annealing

    Michael Streif and Martin Leib. Comparison of QAOA with quantum and simulated annealing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.01903 , 2019

    1901 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks

    Guillaume Verdon, Michael Broughton, Jarrod R McClean, Kevin J Sung, Ryan Babbush, Zhang Jiang, Hartmut Neven, and Masoud Mohseni. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.05415 , 2019

    1907 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Optimizing quantum heuristics with meta-learning

    Max Wilson, Sam Stromswold, Filip Wudarski, Stuart Hadfield, Norm M Tubman, and Eleanor Rieffel. Optimizing quantum heuristics with meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03185 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Quantum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors

    Edward Farhi and Hartmut Neven. Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06002 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ising formulations of many np problems

    Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many np problems. Frontiers in Physics , 2:5, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances

    Fernando GSL Brandao, Michael Broughton, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04170 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states

    Rom´ an Or´ us. A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Annals of Physics , 349:117–158, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    qtorch: The quantum tensor contraction handler

    E Schuyler Fried, Nicolas PD Sawaya, Yudong Cao, Ian D Kivlichan, Jhonathan Romero, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. qtorch: The quantum tensor contraction handler. PLOS one , 13(12):e0208510, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks

    Igor L Markov and Yaoyun Shi. Simulating quantum computation by contracting tensor networks. SIAM Journal on Computing , 38(3):963–981, 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization

    Dong C Liu and Jorge Nocedal. On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization. Mathematical programming, 45(1-3):503–528, 1989

    1989

  27. [35]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    opt \ einsum-a python package for optimizing contraction order for einsum-like expressions

    Daniel Smith and Johnnie Gray. opt \ einsum-a python package for optimizing contraction order for einsum-like expressions. J. Open Source Software , 3(26):753, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models

    Francisco Barahona. On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 15(10):3241, 1982

    1982

  30. [38]

    Algorithm engineering for a quantum annealing Training QAOA without access to a QPU 19 platform

    Andrew D King and Catherine C McGeoch. Algorithm engineering for a quantum annealing Training QAOA without access to a QPU 19 platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2628 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling

    Yu Chen, C Neill, P Roushan, N Leung, M Fang, R Barends, J Kelly, B Campbell, Z Chen, B Chiaro, et al. Qubit architecture with high coherence and fast tunable coupling. Physical review letters, 113(22):220502, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits

    Shantanu Debnath, Norbert M Linke, Caroline Figgatt, Kevin A Landsman, Kevin Wright, and Christopher Monroe. Demonstration of a small programmable quantum computer with atomic qubits. Nature, 536(7614):63, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems

    J Robert Johansson, Paul D Nation, and Franco Nori. Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications , 184(4):1234–1240, 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Making trotters sprint: A variational imaginary time ansatz for quantum many-body systems

    Matthew JS Beach, Roger G Melko, Tarun Grover, and Timothy H Hsieh. Making trotters sprint: A variational imaginary time ansatz for quantum many-body systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00019, 2019

    1904 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.