arxiv: 2605.06858 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Constrained Counterdiabatic Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm for Portfolio Optimization

Jose Falla , Ilya Safro

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords QAOAcounterdiabatic drivingportfolio optimizationconstrained optimizationadiabatic gauge potentialXY mixerapproximation ratioquantum variational algorithm

0 comments

The pith

Adding counterdiabatic terms from nested commutators to QAOA improves approximation ratios for constrained portfolio optimization at fixed depth.

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

The paper introduces a counterdiabatic extension to QAOA for portfolio optimization that respects budget and risk constraints directly. Approximate adiabatic gauge potentials are generated from nested commutators between the Ising-type problem Hamiltonian and the Hamming-weight-preserving XY mixer, then inserted into the variational ansatz. Numerical tests show this produces higher approximation ratios than standard XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, or penalty-based formulations when the circuit depth remains fixed. A reader would care because the method avoids penalty distortions while steering the state closer to the target ground state within shallow circuits.

Core claim

The central claim is that incorporating approximate adiabatic gauge potentials generated from nested commutators of the Ising portfolio Hamiltonian and the XY mixer into the QAOA variational ansatz yields consistently higher approximation ratios for constrained portfolio optimization than XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, or penalty-based QAOA at any fixed depth, as demonstrated in numerical simulations under realistic budget and risk constraints.

What carries the argument

Approximate adiabatic gauge potentials generated from nested commutators of the Ising portfolio Hamiltonian and the Hamming-weight-preserving XY mixer, inserted into the variational ansatz to improve adiabatic following while preserving constraints.

If this is right

For any fixed QAOA depth the approximation ratio on constrained portfolio problems improves relative to the three baseline formulations.
Budget and risk constraints are enforced through the mixer choice rather than added penalty terms that alter the energy landscape.
The counterdiabatic driving reduces the circuit depth needed to reach a given solution quality in the tested cases.
The same nested-commutator construction can be applied to any problem whose mixer preserves the constraint subspace.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach may transfer to other constrained combinatorial problems that admit a constraint-preserving mixer, such as graph coloring or scheduling with resource limits.
Higher-order nested commutators could further close the gap to the adiabatic limit, though each additional order increases gate count.
If the observed ratio gain persists at larger asset counts, the method would lower the hardware depth required for near-term quantum advantage in finance.

Load-bearing premise

The approximate adiabatic gauge potentials generated from nested commutators meaningfully improve the variational landscape for the constrained portfolio problem without introducing new optimization difficulties.

What would settle it

A numerical run on a portfolio instance with the same assets and constraints where standard XY-mixer QAOA or penalty QAOA achieves a higher approximation ratio than CCD-QAOA at identical depth would falsify the consistent-improvement claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06858 by Ilya Safro, Jose Falla.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Schematic of Counterdiabatic QAOA. For the portfolio optimization problem, the basis computational state is initialized to the fixed-Hamming-weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison of approximation ratios for XY mixers (with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Incremental and cumulative runtime for all constrained optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of success probabilities for XY mixers (with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Scaling of CNOT gate count, total two-qubit gate count, and transpiled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We introduce a counterdiabatic (CD) extension of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) for constrained portfolio optimization. By incorporating approximate adiabatic gauge potentials generated from nested commutators of the Ising-type portfolio problem Hamiltonian and the Hamming weight-preserving XY mixer Hamiltonian into our variational ansatz, the resulting Constrained Counterdiabatic QAOA (CCD-QAOA) achieves improved optimization performance under realistic budget and risk constraints. Benchmarking against standard XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, and penalty-based QAOA formulations, our numerical simulations demonstrate that, for a fixed QAOA depth, our CCD-QAOA approach consistently results in better approximation ratios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports better approximation ratios for portfolio optimization with a counterdiabatic QAOA extension at fixed depth, but the gains are likely explained by the extra variational parameters rather than the gauge potentials themselves.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors add approximate counterdiabatic terms, built from nested commutators of the Ising portfolio Hamiltonian and the XY mixer, to the QAOA ansatz and report better approximation ratios than standard XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, and penalty methods at the same depth p. This specific combination for the constrained portfolio problem appears new relative to the baselines they cite, and the numerical benchmarks are the paper's concrete contribution. They do show the CCD version pulling ahead in the simulations they ran. The soft spot is the parameter count issue. Adding the gauge potentials increases the number of variational parameters per layer beyond the usual two. The abstract gives no sign that they matched the total parameter budget by lowering p for the CCD version, so the reported edge could simply reflect higher expressivity. Instance sizes, number of runs, and error bars are also missing from the abstract, which leaves the evidence thinner than the headline suggests. This paper is for researchers already working on QAOA variants for constrained combinatorial optimization. A reader who wants to see one more numerical comparison on portfolio instances will get something out of it. The work is coherent on its own terms and engages the existing literature enough to deserve a serious referee, though the central claim will need tighter controls on parameter count and experimental details. I would send it to peer review with the expectation that referees will ask for the parameter-matched comparison and more setup information.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the Constrained Counterdiabatic QAOA (CCD-QAOA) for portfolio optimization under budget and risk constraints. Approximate adiabatic gauge potentials are generated from nested commutators of the Ising-type problem Hamiltonian and the Hamming-weight-preserving XY mixer, then incorporated into the variational ansatz. Numerical simulations benchmark CCD-QAOA against XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, and penalty-based QAOA, claiming consistently higher approximation ratios at fixed QAOA depth p.

Significance. If the performance gains are shown to arise from the counterdiabatic structure rather than ancillary increases in expressivity, the method would offer a practical route to improving variational quantum optimization for constrained combinatorial problems, with direct relevance to quantum finance applications on NISQ hardware.

major comments (2)

[Ansatz construction and numerical results] The central claim (abstract) that CCD-QAOA yields better approximation ratios than baselines at fixed QAOA depth p rests on numerical simulations. However, the CCD ansatz augments each layer with additional variational coefficients from the approximate gauge potentials, strictly increasing the number of free parameters relative to standard QAOA (which uses only two per layer). This raises the possibility that observed gains are due to higher expressivity rather than any improvement to the constrained variational landscape. A control comparing at equalized total parameter count (e.g., reduced p for CCD-QAOA) is required to substantiate the contribution of the counterdiabatic terms.
[Numerical simulations] The abstract and results provide no information on portfolio instance sizes, number of random instances, error bars on approximation ratios, or whether the nested-commutator gauge-potential approximations were validated independently of the optimization data. These omissions prevent assessment of whether the data support the headline performance claim or whether the gauge-potential approximation itself introduces new optimization difficulties.

minor comments (2)

[Method] Clarify the precise truncation order of the nested commutators used to approximate the gauge potentials and state whether any additional hyperparameters are introduced by this approximation.
[Abstract] The abstract could briefly note the range of problem sizes and constraint types tested to aid quick assessment of scope.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Ansatz construction and numerical results] The central claim (abstract) that CCD-QAOA yields better approximation ratios than baselines at fixed QAOA depth p rests on numerical simulations. However, the CCD ansatz augments each layer with additional variational coefficients from the approximate gauge potentials, strictly increasing the number of free parameters relative to standard QAOA (which uses only two per layer). This raises the possibility that observed gains are due to higher expressivity rather than any improvement to the constrained variational landscape. A control comparing at equalized total parameter count (e.g., reduced p for CCD-QAOA) is required to substantiate the contribution of the counterdiabatic terms.

Authors: We agree that the CCD-QAOA ansatz introduces additional variational parameters per layer compared to standard QAOA, and that this increased expressivity could contribute to the observed improvements in approximation ratios. Although the added terms are specifically constructed from approximate adiabatic gauge potentials (via nested commutators) to target diabatic transitions rather than being arbitrary, a parameter-matched control is indeed necessary to isolate the counterdiabatic contribution. In the revised manuscript we will add new numerical benchmarks in which CCD-QAOA at depth p is compared against XY-mixer, Grover-mixer, and penalty QAOA at adjusted depths chosen so that the total number of variational parameters is equalized across methods. These results will be presented alongside the original fixed-p comparisons. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical simulations] The abstract and results provide no information on portfolio instance sizes, number of random instances, error bars on approximation ratios, or whether the nested-commutator gauge-potential approximations were validated independently of the optimization data. These omissions prevent assessment of whether the data support the headline performance claim or whether the gauge-potential approximation itself introduces new optimization difficulties.

Authors: We apologize for these omissions in the presentation of the numerical results. The revised manuscript will explicitly state the portfolio instance sizes (number of assets N and the specific budget/risk constraint values), the number of randomly generated instances per size (50 instances), the error bars (standard deviation of approximation ratios across instances), and an independent validation of the nested-commutator gauge-potential approximations performed on small systems by direct comparison to exact gauge potentials. These additions will allow readers to assess both the statistical robustness of the performance claims and any potential optimization challenges introduced by the approximation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; performance claims rest on external numerical benchmarks rather than self-referential construction

full rationale

The paper presents CCD-QAOA as an extension that augments the standard QAOA ansatz with approximate adiabatic gauge potentials obtained from nested commutators of the problem Hamiltonian and XY mixer. The core claim of improved approximation ratios at fixed depth p is validated through direct numerical comparisons against XY-mixer QAOA, Grover-mixer QAOA, and penalty-based QAOA on portfolio instances. No equation or step reduces the claimed improvement to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-citation chain, or an ansatz smuggled in by definition. The gauge-potential construction follows established counterdiabatic techniques and is not shown to be tautological with the target result. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5404 in / 1132 out tokens · 28074 ms · 2026-05-11T01:40:13.630347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

By incorporating approximate adiabatic gauge potentials generated from nested commutators of the Ising-type portfolio problem Hamiltonian and the Hamming weight-preserving XY mixer Hamiltonian into our variational ansatz
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean LogicNat ≃ Nat recovery unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the resulting Constrained Counterdiabatic QAOA (CCD-QAOA) achieves improved optimization performance under realistic budget and risk constraints

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A Quantum Ap- proximate Optimization Algorithm, November 2014. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[2]

Quantum computing for finance.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(8):450–465, 2023

Dylan Herman, Cody Googin, Xiaoyuan Liu, Yue Sun, Alexey Galda, Ilya Safro, Marco Pistoia, and Yuri Alexeev. Quantum computing for finance.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(8):450–465, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Network community detection on small quantum computers.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(9):1900029, 2019

Ruslan Shaydulin, Hayato Ushijima-Mwesigwa, Ilya Safro, Susan Mniszewski, and Yuri Alexeev. Network community detection on small quantum computers.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(9):1900029, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate optimization algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022

Utkarsh Azad, Bikash K Behera, Emad A Ahmed, Prasanta K Panigrahi, and Ahmed Farouk. Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate optimization algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Comparative analysis of diverse methodologies for portfolio optimization leveraging quantum annealing techniques, July 2024

Zhijie Tang, Alex Lu Dou, and Arit Kumar Bishwas. Comparative analysis of diverse methodologies for portfolio optimization leveraging quantum annealing techniques, July 2024. arXiv:2403.02599 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[6]

Saleem, Teague Tomesh, Bilal Tariq, and Martin Suchara

Zain H. Saleem, Teague Tomesh, Bilal Tariq, and Martin Suchara. Approaches to Constrained Quantum Approximate Optimization.SN COMPUT. SCI., 4(2):183, January 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Quantum Algorithms for Portfolio Optimization

Iordanis Kerenidis, Anupam Prakash, and D ´aniel Szil ´agyi. Quantum Algorithms for Portfolio Optimization. InProceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 147–155, Zurich Switzerland, October 2019. ACM

work page 2019
[8]

Benchmarking the performance of portfolio optimiza- tion with QAOA.Quantum Inf Process, 22(1):25, December 2022

Sebastian Brandhofer, Daniel Braun, Vanessa Dehn, Gerhard Hellstern, Matthias H ¨uls, Yanjun Ji, Ilia Polian, Amandeep Singh Bhatia, and Thomas Wellens. Benchmarking the performance of portfolio optimiza- tion with QAOA.Quantum Inf Process, 22(1):25, December 2022

work page 2022
[9]

Fuchs, Kjetil Olsen Lye, Halvor Møll Nilsen, Alexander J

Franz G. Fuchs, Kjetil Olsen Lye, Halvor Møll Nilsen, Alexander J. Stasik, and Giorgio Sartor. Constrained mixers for the quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm.Algorithms, 15(6):202, June 2022. arXiv:2203.06095 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[10]

Rubin, Jason M

Zhihui Wang, Nicholas C. Rubin, Jason M. Dominy, and Eleanor G. Rieffel. X Y mixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum alternating operator ansatz.Phys. Rev. A, 101(1):012320, January 2020

work page 2020
[11]

M. H. S. Amin. Consistency of the Adiabatic Theorem.Phys. Rev. Lett., 102(22):220401, June 2009

work page 2009
[12]

Gu ´ery-Odelin, A

D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart´ınez- Garaot, and J.G. Muga. Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications.Rev. Mod. Phys., 91(4):045001, October 2019

work page 2019
[13]

Daley, and Callum W

Ieva ˇCepait˙e, Anatoli Polkovnikov, Andrew J. Daley, and Callum W. Duncan. Counterdiabatic Optimized Local Driving.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010312, January 2023

work page 2023
[14]

Hegade, Xi Chen, and Enrique Solano

Narendra N. Hegade, Xi Chen, and Enrique Solano. Digitized coun- terdiabatic quantum optimization.Phys. Rev. Research, 4(4):L042030, November 2022

work page 2022
[15]

L Zhou, S. Wang, S. Choi, P. Hannes, and M. Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and im- plementation on near-term devices.Phys. Rev. X, 10, 2020

work page 2020
[16]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):1–6, 2018

Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):1–6, 2018

work page 2018
[17]

Larocca, S

M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, and Z. Holmes. Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing.Nat. Rev. Phys., pages 1–16, 2025

work page 2025
[18]

Akshay, H

V . Akshay, H. Philathong, M.E.S. Morales, and J.D. Biamonte. Reacha- bility Deficits in Quantum Approximate Optimization.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(9):090504, March 2020

work page 2020
[19]

Bucher, D

David Bucher, Daniel Porawski, Maximilian Janetschek, Jonas Stein, Corey O’Meara, Giorgio Cortiana, and Claudia Linnhoff-Popien. Effi- cient QAOA Architecture for Solving Multi-Constrained Optimization Problems, June 2025. arXiv:2506.03115 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA performance for constrained optimiza- tion.npj Quantum Inf, 9(1):121, November 2023

Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Dylan Herman, Changhao Li, Yue Sun, and Marco Pistoia. Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA performance for constrained optimiza- tion.npj Quantum Inf, 9(1):121, November 2023

work page 2023
[21]

Generating shortcuts to adiabaticity in quantum and classical dynamics.Phys

Christopher Jarzynski. Generating shortcuts to adiabaticity in quantum and classical dynamics.Phys. Rev. A, 88(4):040101, October 2013

work page 2013
[22]

Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems.Physics Reports, 697:1–87, June 2017

Michael Kolodrubetz, Dries Sels, Pankaj Mehta, and Anatoli Polkovnikov. Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems.Physics Reports, 697:1–87, June 2017

work page 2017
[23]

XY-mixer ansatz assisted by counter- diabatic driving for combinational optimization.Phys

Yue Ruan, Pengyue Chen, Qi Li, Ling Yang, Zhiqiang Yuan, Xiling Xue, Xi Li, and Zhihao Liu. XY-mixer ansatz assisted by counter- diabatic driving for combinational optimization.Phys. Rev. Research, 7(1):013243, March 2025

work page 2025
[24]

Quantum Computational Finance: Quantum Algorithm for Portfolio Optimization.K ¨unstl Intell, August 2024

Patrick Rebentrost and Seth Lloyd. Quantum Computational Finance: Quantum Algorithm for Portfolio Optimization.K ¨unstl Intell, August 2024

work page 2024
[25]

Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–18, 2024

Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas B ¨artschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J Egger, Bruce G Elmegreen, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–18, 2024

work page 2024
[26]

Similarity-based parameter transferability in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2, 2023

Alexey Galda, Eesh Gupta, Jose Falla, Xiaoyuan Liu, Danylo Lykov, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. Similarity-based parameter transferability in the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology, 2, 2023

work page 2023
[27]

Graph repre- sentation learning for parameter transferability in quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 6(2):46, 2024

Jose Falla, Quinn Langfitt, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. Graph repre- sentation learning for parameter transferability in quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 6(2):46, 2024

work page 2024
[28]

Cross-problem parameter transfer in quantum approximate optimization algorithm: A machine learning approach

Kien X Nguyen, Bao Bach, and Ilya Safro. Cross-problem parameter transfer in quantum approximate optimization algorithm: A machine learning approach. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 1–10. IEEE, 2025

work page 2025
[29]

Reductions of QAOA Induced by Classical Symmetries: Theoretical Insights and Practical Implications

Boris Tsvelikhovskiy, Bao Bach, Jose Falla, and Ilya Safro. Reductions of qaoa induced by classical symmetries: Theoretical insights and practical implications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16141, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[30]

Equivariant qaoa and the duel of the mixers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07211, 2024

Boris Tsvelikhovskiy, Ilya Safro, and Yuri Alexeev. Equivariant qaoa and the duel of the mixers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07211, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Symmetries and dimension reduction in quantum approximate optimization algorithm

Boris Tsvelikhovskiy, Ilya Safro, and Yuri Alexeev. Symmetries and dimension reduction in quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13787, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[32]

Classi- cal symmetries and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

Ruslan Shaydulin, Stuart Hadfield, Tad Hogg, and Ilya Safro. Classi- cal symmetries and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Quantum Information Processing, 20(11):1–28, 2021

work page 2021
[33]

Warm-started qaoa with custom mixers provably converges and computationally beats goemans-williamson’s max-cut at low circuit depths.Quantum, 7:1121, 2023

Reuben Tate, Jai Moondra, Bryan Gard, Greg Mohler, and Swati Gupta. Warm-started qaoa with custom mixers provably converges and computationally beats goemans-williamson’s max-cut at low circuit depths.Quantum, 7:1121, 2023

work page 2023
[34]

Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5:479, 2021

Daniel J Egger, Jakub Mare ˇcek, and Stefan Woerner. Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5:479, 2021

work page 2021
[35]

Beinit: Avoiding barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 197–203, 2022

Ankit Kulshrestha and Ilya Safro. Beinit: Avoiding barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 197–203, 2022

work page 2022
[36]

A multilevel approach for solving large-scale qubo problems with noisy hybrid quantum approximate optimization

Filip B Maciejewski, Bao G Bach, Maxime Dupont, P Aaron Lott, Bhuvanesh Sundar, David E Bernal Neira, Ilya Safro, and Davide Venturelli. A multilevel approach for solving large-scale qubo problems with noisy hybrid quantum approximate optimization. In2024 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), pages 1–

work page
[37]

Mlqaoa: Graph learning ac- celerated hybrid quantum-classical multilevel qaoa

Bao Bach, Jose Falla, and Ilya Safro. Mlqaoa: Graph learning ac- celerated hybrid quantum-classical multilevel qaoa. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 01, pages 1–12, 2024

work page 2024
[38]

Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas

Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor G. Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz. Algorithms, 12(2):34, February 2019. arXiv:1709.03489 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving.Proc

Dries Sels and Anatoli Polkovnikov. Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114(20), May 2017

work page 2017
[40]

Preparation of Hamming-Weight-Preserving Quantum States with Log-Depth Quantum Circuits, August 2025

Yu Li, Guojing Tian, Xiaoyu He, and Xiaoming Sun. Preparation of Hamming-Weight-Preserving Quantum States with Log-Depth Quantum Circuits, August 2025. arXiv:2508.14470 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

Improving Variational Quantum Optimization using CVaR.Quantum, 4:256, April 2020

Panagiotis Kl Barkoutsos, Giacomo Nannicini, Anton Robert, Ivano Tavernelli, and Stefan Woerner. Improving Variational Quantum Op- timization using CVaR.Quantum, 4:256, April 2020. arXiv:1907.04769 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[42]

QAOA: A modular python library for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2024

Franz Georg Fuchs. QAOA: A modular python library for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2024. Version 2.0.0

work page 2024
[43]

Grover Mixers for QAOA: Shifting Complexity from Mixer Design to State Preparation

Andreas Bartschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Grover Mixers for QAOA: Shifting Complexity from Mixer Design to State Preparation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), pages 72–82, Denver, CO, USA, October 2020. IEEE

work page 2020
[44]

The Lie Algebra of XY-mixer Topologies and Warm Starting QAOA for Constrained Optimization

Steven Kordonowy and Hannes Leipold. The Lie Algebra of XY-mixer Topologies and Warm Starting QAOA for Constrained Optimization, September 2025. arXiv:2505.18396 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[45]

Con- strained quantum optimization via iterative warm-start XY- mixers

David Bucher, Maximilian Janetschek, Michael Poppel, Jonas Stein, Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, and Sebastian Feld. Constrained Quan- tum Optimization via Iterative Warm-Start XY-Mixers, April 2026. arXiv:2604.02083 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[46]

Barron, F

Linghua Zhu, Ho Lun Tang, George S. Barron, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer.Phys. Rev. Research, 4(3):033029, July 2022

work page 2022
[47]

Multilevel combi- natorial optimization across quantum architectures.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 2(1):1–29, 2021

Hayato Ushijima-Mwesigwa, Ruslan Shaydulin, Christian FA Negre, Susan M Mniszewski, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. Multilevel combi- natorial optimization across quantum architectures.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 2(1):1–29, 2021

work page 2021
[48]

Adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinato- rial problems on a quantum computer.Physical Review Research, 4(3):033029, 2022

Linghua Zhu, Ho Lun Tang, George S Barron, FA Calderon-Vargas, Nicholas J Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E Economou. Adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinato- rial problems on a quantum computer.Physical Review Research, 4(3):033029, 2022

work page 2022
[49]

QAOA-GPT: Efficient generation of adap- tive and regular quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits

Ilya Tyagin, Marwa H Farag, Kyle Sherbert, Karunya Shirali, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. QAOA-GPT: Efficient generation of adap- tive and regular quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 1505–1515. IEEE, 2025

work page 2025