pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03147 · v1 · pith:4YJEQBBAnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum Optimization Algorithms for Strongly Correlated Many-Body Systems

G. E. L. Pexe , L. A. M. Rattighieri , P. M. Prado , A. R. Fritsch , F. F. Fanchini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 10:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum optimizationmany-body physicsvariational quantum eigensolverfeedback algorithmsbarren plateausphase transitionsNISQ
0
0 comments X

The pith

Feedback-based quantum algorithms provide more robust trajectories for optimizing strongly correlated many-body systems than gradient-based variational methods.

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

This perspective article examines the use of quantum optimization algorithms to explore phase transitions in quantum many-body systems on current noisy quantum hardware. It contrasts traditional variational approaches like the Variational Quantum Eigensolver with feedback-based methods such as FALQON. The authors argue that feedback mechanisms help avoid barren plateaus in the optimization landscape by providing deterministic guidance rather than relying on gradients. Such methods could make it feasible to study complex phenomena including deconfined quantum criticality and quantum spin liquids. Progress toward useful simulations will depend on integrating these algorithms with physics-informed circuit designs.

Core claim

Deterministic feedback-guided methods provide geometrically more robust trajectories for navigating the energy landscape of strongly correlated many-body systems, in contrast to traditional variational quantum algorithms that are hampered by expressibility- and noise-induced barren plateaus.

What carries the argument

Feedback-based Quantum Algorithms like FALQON that use deterministic feedback to steer the variational parameters through the energy landscape.

If this is right

  • These methods are applicable to studying deconfined quantum criticality, strange metals, many-body localization, topological phase transitions, and quantum spin liquids.
  • Hybridization with physics-informed circuit co-design will be essential for advancing toward fault tolerance.
  • Feedback methods mitigate the impact of barren plateaus that compromise gradient-based optimization in NISQ devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If feedback methods prove superior, they could enable quantum simulations of systems currently intractable due to the fermionic sign problem.
  • Comparing performance on benchmark many-body models would test the geometric robustness claim directly.
  • Physics-informed co-design might generalize to other quantum algorithms beyond optimization.

Load-bearing premise

That barren plateaus can be mitigated by feedback guidance and circuit co-design without introducing equivalent or worse optimization failures as systems scale.

What would settle it

Numerical simulations or experiments on a small many-body system like the transverse-field Ising model where FALQON fails to outperform VQE in convergence rate or final energy accuracy under realistic noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03147 by A. R. Fritsch, F. F. Fanchini, G. E. L. Pexe, L. A. M. Rattighieri, P. M. Prado.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phenomenological signatures of quantum phase transitions and strongly correlated states targeted for investigation via quantum algorithms in the NISQ regime. (a) Divergence of the correlation length ξ and (b) algebraic closing of the energy gap ∆ in the vicinity of a Deconfined Quantum Criticality (DQC) point gc. (c) Anomalous transport in the strange metal phase, evidenced by T-linear resistivity (ρ ∝ T),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representation of the fundamental challenges for variational quantum algorithms in condensed matter within the NISQ regime. (a) Visualization of a barren plateau, characterized by an exponentially flat cost landscape that renders gradient-based methods unfeasible. (b) Rugged cost landscape exhibiting multiple spurious local minima that trap classical optimizers. (c) Scaling of the gradient variance Var[∂θE… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This perspective article analyzes the potential and critical challenges of employing quantum optimization algorithms to investigate phase transitions in quantum many-body systems during the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum era. The simulation of strongly correlated systems is frequently intractable on classical computers due to the exponential growth of the Hilbert space and the fermionic sign problem. In this context, we review and compare the performance of traditional Variational Quantum Algorithms, such as the Variational Quantum Eigensolver and the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, against emerging heuristic approaches, specifically Feedback-based Quantum Algorithms, such as FALQON. We explore the applicability of these methods in the study of open phenomena in condensed matter physics, including Deconfined Quantum Criticality, strange metals, Many-Body Localization, topological phase transitions, and quantum spin liquids. We discuss how fundamental operational bottlenecks, notably expressibility- and noise-induced barren plateaus, severely compromise gradient-based optimization. We conclude that deterministic feedback-guided methods provide geometrically more robust trajectories for navigating the energy landscape of these systems, arguing that further advancement in the field will rely on deep hybridization and physics-informed circuit co-design towards fault tolerance.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. This perspective article analyzes the potential and critical challenges of employing quantum optimization algorithms to investigate phase transitions in quantum many-body systems during the NISQ era. It reviews and compares traditional variational quantum algorithms (VQE, QAOA) against feedback-based approaches such as FALQON, highlighting expressibility- and noise-induced barren plateaus as key bottlenecks for the former. The manuscript discusses applicability to condensed-matter phenomena including Deconfined Quantum Criticality, strange metals, Many-Body Localization, topological phase transitions, and quantum spin liquids. It concludes that deterministic feedback-guided methods provide geometrically more robust trajectories for navigating the energy landscape, with further progress depending on deep hybridization and physics-informed circuit co-design toward fault tolerance.

Significance. As an interpretive synthesis of existing literature rather than a source of new derivations or benchmarks, the paper offers a timely perspective that correctly identifies barren plateaus as a central limitation of gradient-based VQAs and frames feedback methods as a promising alternative based on reviewed performance comparisons. It appropriately presents hybridization as a future direction rather than a premise required for its current claims. The stress-test concern regarding new failure modes in hybridization does not undermine the manuscript because the text positions it explicitly as an open research avenue. The significance therefore lies in guiding the community toward robust optimization strategies for strongly correlated systems, provided the literature synthesis is accurate.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'reviewed performance comparisons for general cases' is used in the conclusion but the abstract does not indicate which specific comparisons or systems are synthesized to support the geometric-robustness claim.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement in the introduction or conclusion clarifying that the central claim is an extrapolation from general-case literature rather than a new quantitative result internal to the paper.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and accurate summary of our perspective article, as well as for the recommendation of minor revision. The assessment correctly identifies the manuscript as an interpretive synthesis focused on barren plateaus and the potential of feedback-based methods. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: qualitative review with no derivations

full rationale

The manuscript is a perspective/review article that synthesizes existing literature on VQAs versus feedback-based methods such as FALQON. No new mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential predictions appear in the abstract or described content. The central conclusion—that deterministic feedback-guided methods provide geometrically more robust trajectories—is presented as an interpretive synthesis of reviewed performance comparisons rather than a result derived internally via equations or self-citation chains. No load-bearing steps reduce to inputs by construction, satisfying the criteria for a score of 0 with an empty steps array.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new mathematical content, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the paper is a qualitative review of established concepts in quantum algorithms and condensed matter.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5750 in / 1006 out tokens · 22034 ms · 2026-06-28T10:04:57.387117+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Feynman R P 1982International Journal of Theoretical Physics21467–488

  2. [2]

    Lloyd S 1996Science2731073–1078

  3. [3]

    Troyer M and Wiese U J 2005Physical Review Letters94ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.170201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.170201

  4. [4]

    Schollw¨ ock U 2011Annals of Physics32696–192 ISSN 0003-4916 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012 2010

  5. [5]

    Or´ us R 2014Annals of Physics349117–158 ISSN 0003-4916 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013 2014

  6. [6]

    Preskill J 2018Quantum279 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  7. [7]

    Peruzzo A, McClean J, Shadbolt P, Yung M H, Zhou X Q, Love P J, Aspuru-Guzik A and O’Brien J L 2014Nature Communications5ISSN 2041-1723 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5213

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2041

  8. [8]

    Farhi E, Goldstone J and Gutmann S 2014arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Cerezo M, Arrasmith A, Babbush R, Benjamin S C, Endo S, Fujii K, McClean J R, Mitarai K, Yuan X, Cincio L and Coles P J 2021Nature Reviews Physics3625–644 ISSN 2522-5820 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

  10. [10]

    Magann A B, Rudinger K M, Grace M D and Sarovar M 2022Phys. Rev. Lett.129(25) 250502 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.250502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.250502

  11. [11]

    Tang H L, Shkolnikov V, Barron G S, Grimsley H R, Mayhall N J, Barnes E and Economou S E 2021PRX Quantum2ISSN 2691-3399 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020310

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020310

  12. [12]

    Grimsley H R, Economou S E, Barnes E and Mayhall N J 2019Nature Communications10 ISSN 2041-1723 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2 2041

  13. [13]

    Nakanishi K M, Mitarai K and Fujii K 2019Physical Review Research1ISSN 2643-1564 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033062

  14. [14]

    McClean J R, Boixo S, Smelyanskiy V N, Babbush R and Neven H 2018Nature Communications9ISSN 2041-1723 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4 2041

  15. [15]

    Tilly J, Chen H, Cao S, Picozzi D, Setia K, Li Y, Grant E, Wossnig L, Rungger I, Booth G H and Tennyson J 2022Physics Reports9861–128 ISSN 0370-1573 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003 11 G. E. L. Pexeet al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.08.003 2022

  16. [16]

    Bravyi S, Kliesch A, Koenig R and Tang E 2020Physical Review Letters125ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.260505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.260505

  17. [17]

    Herrman R, Lotshaw P C, Ostrowski J, Humble T S and Siopsis G 2021 Multi-angle quantum approximate optimization algorithm (Preprint2109.11455) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11455

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Wurtz J and Love P 2021Physical Review A103042612

  19. [19]

    Pexe G E L, Rattighieri L A M, Malvezzi A L and Fanchini F F 2024Phys. Rev. B110(22) 224422 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.224422

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.224422

  20. [20]

    Rattighieri L A M, Pexe G E L, Bernardo B L and Fanchini F F 2025Phys. Rev. A112(4) 042607 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/qc91-5mj2

    work page doi:10.1103/qc91-5mj2

  21. [21]

    Long T N V, Tran L N and Ho L B 2025 Imaginary-time-enhanced feedback-based quantum algorithms for universal ground-state preparation (Preprint2512.13044) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13044

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Senthil T, Vishwanath A, Balents L, Sachdev S and Fisher M P A 2004Science3031490–1494

  23. [23]

    Sandvik A W 2007Physical Review Letters98ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.227202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.227202

  24. [24]

    Shao H, Guo W and Sandvik A W 2016Science352213–216 ISSN 1095-9203 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5007

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aad5007

  25. [25]

    Sachdev S and Ye J 1993Physical Review Letters703339–3342 ISSN 0031-9007 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.3339

  26. [26]

    Altland A and Sonner J 2026 Quantum chaos and the holographic principle (Preprint 2604.12784) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Yuan X, Endo S, Zhao Q, Li Y and Benjamin S C 2019Quantum3191 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-10-07-191

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-10-07-191 2019

  28. [28]

    Maldacena J, Shenker S H and Stanford D 2016Journal of High Energy Physics2016ISSN 1029-8479 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2016)106

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2016)106 2016

  29. [29]

    Abanin D A, Altman E, Bloch I and Serbyn M 2019Reviews of Modern Physics91ISSN 1539-0756 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.021001

  30. [30]

    De Roeck W and Huveneers F 2017Physical Review B95ISSN 2469-9969 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.155129

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.95.155129

  31. [31]

    Higgott O, Wang D and Brierley S 2019Quantum3156 ISSN 2521-327X URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156 2019

  32. [32]

    Kitaev A 2003Annals of Physics3032–30 ISSN 0003-4916 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/s0003-4916(02)00018-0

  33. [33]

    Kitaev A and Preskill J 2006Physical Review Letters96ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110404

  34. [34]

    Trebst S, Werner P, Troyer M, Shtengel K and Nayak C 2007Physical Review Letters98ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.070602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.070602

  35. [35]

    Savary L and Balents L 2016Reports on Progress in Physics80016502 ISSN 1361-6633 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/80/1/016502

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/80/1/016502

  36. [36]

    Huang H Y, Kueng R and Preskill J 2020Nature Physics161050–1057 ISSN 1745-2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

  37. [37]

    Chiesa A, Tacchino F, Grossi M, Santini P, Tavernelli I, Gerace D and Carretta S 2019Nature Physics15455–459 ISSN 1745-2481 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0437-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0437-4

  38. [38]

    Holmes Z, Sharma K, Cerezo M and Coles P J 2022PRX Quantum3(1) 010313 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010313 12 G. E. L. Pexeet al

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.010313

  39. [39]

    Bittel L and Kliesch M 2021Phys. Rev. Lett.127(12) 120502 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.120502

  40. [40]

    Larsen J B, Grace M D, Baczewski A D and Magann A B 2024Phys. Rev. Res.6(3) 033336 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033336

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.033336

  41. [41]

    Wang S, Fontana E, Cerezo M, Sharma K, Sone A, Cincio L and Coles P J 2021Nature Communications12ISSN 2041-1723 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6 2041

  42. [42]

    Cai Z, Babbush R, Benjamin S C, Endo S, Huggins W J, Li Y, McClean J R and O’Brien T E 2023Rev. Mod. Phys.95(4) 045005 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.045005 13

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.045005