pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.08153 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

Going off Pattern? QAOA Parameter Heuristics and Potentials of Parsimony

Vincent Eichenseher , Maja Franz , Christian Wolff , Wolfgang Mauerer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 09:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords QAOAvariational quantum algorithmsparameter optimizationNISQ devicescircuit depthheuristic methodsquantum optimizationparameter patterns
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-quality QAOA parameters often deviate from expected regular patterns, and a simple iterative fixing method matches or beats standard selection strategies at shallow depths.

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

The paper investigates the behavior of variational parameters in QAOA across varying circuit depths using numerical simulations. It establishes that good parameters frequently stray from the predictable patterns suggested in earlier work, especially for low-depth circuits. Performance grows less dependent on the exact choice of parameters as depth increases. An iterative component-wise fixing heuristic achieves results on par with or better than several established parameter-selection approaches when circuits remain shallow. These findings matter because they point toward more practical ways to set parameters on near-term quantum hardware where noise constrains depth.

Core claim

High-quality parameters often deviate substantially from expected patterns; QAOA performance becomes progressively less sensitive to specific parameter choices as depth increases; and iterative component-wise fixing performs on par with, and at shallow depth may even outperform, several established parameter-selection strategies. The work also identifies conditions under which structured parameter patterns emerge and when deviations warrant further consideration.

What carries the argument

The iterative component-wise fixing heuristic, which optimizes parameters one at a time while holding the others fixed, to locate effective variational values for low-depth QAOA circuits.

If this is right

  • Structured parameter patterns appear only under specific conditions tied to problem class and depth.
  • Deviations from those patterns become important to account for when targeting optimal performance at shallow depths.
  • Reduced sensitivity to parameter values at greater depths offers a route to more robust operation despite hardware imperfections.
  • The fixing heuristic supplies a computationally lightweight alternative for practical parameter setting on near-term devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduced sensitivity at depth holds, it may simplify error-mitigation strategies that tolerate small parameter drifts.
  • The same iterative fixing idea could be tested as a starting point for other variational quantum algorithms beyond QAOA.
  • Hardware experiments that deliberately introduce controlled noise levels would clarify how far the simulation results generalize.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen problem instances and noise-free simulation model reflect the behavior that QAOA will show on actual noisy NISQ hardware for the target optimization problems.

What would settle it

Executing the proposed iterative fixing heuristic on real quantum hardware for the same problem instances and comparing the achieved approximation ratios against the noise-free simulation predictions would directly test whether the observed parameter insensitivity and heuristic performance persist under hardware noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08153 by Christian Wolff, Maja Franz, Vincent Eichenseher, Wolfgang Mauerer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIGURE 1: Proposed sequential parameter initialisation method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIGURE 2: Symmetries specific to MaxCut (lhs) and general QAOA (rhs) illustrated by a single 16-vertex, 3-regular instance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIGURE 3: Average residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4: Standard deviation of the residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5: Average and standard deviation of the approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6: Average residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7: Standard deviation of the residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIGURE 8: Average and standard deviation of the approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIGURE 9: Average residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIGURE 10: Standard deviation of the residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIGURE 11: Average and standard deviation of the approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIGURE 12: Average residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIGURE 13: Standard deviation of the residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIGURE 14: Average and standard deviation of the approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIGURE 15: Parameter components of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIGURE 16: Average residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIGURE 17: Standard deviation of the residual energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIGURE 18: Average and standard deviation of the approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIGURE 19: Energy expectation landscapes for one MaxCut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIGURE 21: Energy landscapes for the same 3-regular 16-vertex graph instance shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIGURE 22: Approximation quality and arrangement of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIGURE 24: Approximation quality and arrangement of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIGURE 26: Approximation quality and arrangement of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIGURE 25: Energy landscapes for one 21-qubit Max3SAT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Structured variational quantum algorithms such as the Quantum Approximate Optimisation Algorithm (QAOA) have emerged as leading candidates for exploiting advantages of near-term quantum hardware. They interlace classical computation, in particular optimisation of variational parameters, with quantum-specific routines, and combine problem-specific advantages -- sometimes even provable -- with adaptability to the constraints of noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices. While circuit depth can be parametrically increased and is known to improve performance in an ideal (noiseless) setting, on realistic hardware greater depth exacerbates noise: The overall quality of results depends critically on both, variational parameters and circuit depth. Although identifying optimal parameters is NP-hard, prior work has suggested that they may exhibit regular, predictable patterns for increasingly deep circuits and depending on the studied class of problems. In this work, we systematically investigate the role of classical parameters in QAOA performance through extensive numerical simulations and suggest a simple, yet effective heuristic scheme to find good parameters for low-depth circuits. Our results demonstrate that: (i) high-quality parameters often deviate substantially from expected patterns; (ii) QAOA performance becomes progressively less sensitive to specific parameter choices as depth increases; and (iii) iterative component-wise fixing performs on par with, and at shallow depth may even outperform, several established parameter-selection strategies. We identify conditions under which structured parameter patterns emerge, and when deviations from the patterns warrant further consideration. These insights for low-depth circuits may inform more robust pathways to harnessing QAOA in realistic quantum computing scenarios.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports extensive numerical simulations of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) examining the behavior of its variational parameters. It claims that (i) high-quality parameters frequently deviate substantially from previously reported regular patterns, (ii) performance becomes progressively less sensitive to exact parameter values as circuit depth increases, and (iii) a simple iterative component-wise fixing heuristic performs on par with or better than several established parameter-selection strategies at shallow depths. The authors also identify conditions under which structured patterns emerge and discuss implications for low-depth QAOA on NISQ hardware.

Significance. If the numerical observations hold, the work would offer practical value by reducing the classical optimization burden for QAOA through a parsimonious heuristic and by highlighting robustness to parameter choice at moderate depths. The finding that deviations from expected patterns are common challenges prior heuristics and could guide more adaptive parameter strategies. The emphasis on low-depth regimes aligns with current NISQ constraints, though the noiseless setting limits immediate hardware relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical experiments section] Numerical experiments section: All reported results, including the progressive decrease in parameter sensitivity (claim ii) and the performance of the iterative fixing heuristic (claim iii), are obtained from ideal noiseless simulations. The abstract and introduction explicitly position these insights as relevant to realistic NISQ scenarios where noise accumulates with depth, yet no noisy simulations or error-model analysis are provided to test whether the observed landscape flattening or heuristic advantage survives gate errors and decoherence.
  2. [Results on heuristic comparisons] Results on heuristic comparisons (around the discussion of iterative component-wise fixing): The claim that the proposed heuristic matches or outperforms established strategies at shallow depth depends on the specific problem instances and the definition of 'high-quality' parameters. The manuscript summarizes but does not fully detail instance selection criteria, ensemble sizes, or statistical controls, making it difficult to assess whether the reported advantage is robust or instance-dependent.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the iterative fixing procedure is introduced without a compact algorithmic description or pseudocode, which would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Several figures comparing parameter landscapes would benefit from explicit error bars or shading indicating variability across instances.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important aspects of scope and presentation that we will address in the revision. We respond to each major comment below and indicate planned changes to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical experiments section] Numerical experiments section: All reported results, including the progressive decrease in parameter sensitivity (claim ii) and the performance of the iterative fixing heuristic (claim iii), are obtained from ideal noiseless simulations. The abstract and introduction explicitly position these insights as relevant to realistic NISQ scenarios where noise accumulates with depth, yet no noisy simulations or error-model analysis are provided to test whether the observed landscape flattening or heuristic advantage survives gate errors and decoherence.

    Authors: We agree that all numerical results are obtained under ideal noiseless conditions and that this constitutes a limitation when the abstract and introduction frame the findings as relevant to NISQ hardware. The study was intentionally restricted to the noiseless setting to isolate the intrinsic behavior of QAOA parameters and the proposed heuristic without the confounding effects of specific noise models. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly acknowledges this limitation, provides a qualitative discussion of how gate errors and decoherence could interact with the observed parameter robustness and landscape flattening, and clarifies that the reported advantages are demonstrated in the ideal case. We will also insert a brief qualifying statement in the abstract and introduction. Comprehensive noisy simulations lie outside the primary scope of the present work due to the additional computational cost and the need to select particular error models; we therefore do not plan to include them in this revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on heuristic comparisons] Results on heuristic comparisons (around the discussion of iterative component-wise fixing): The claim that the proposed heuristic matches or outperforms established strategies at shallow depth depends on the specific problem instances and the definition of 'high-quality' parameters. The manuscript summarizes but does not fully detail instance selection criteria, ensemble sizes, or statistical controls, making it difficult to assess whether the reported advantage is robust or instance-dependent.

    Authors: We accept that greater transparency regarding the experimental setup is necessary for readers to evaluate the robustness of the heuristic comparisons. In the revised version we will expand the Numerical Experiments section to specify: the precise criteria used to generate and select problem instances (including graph sizes and MaxCut instance families), the number of independent instances per ensemble and per depth, and the statistical procedures employed (including the number of optimization runs per instance, averaging method, and reporting of standard deviations or confidence intervals). These additions will enable clearer assessment of whether the observed performance advantage is consistent across the tested ensemble. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct outputs of numerical simulations

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on extensive numerical simulations that directly compare QAOA performance metrics and parameter sensitivities against established strategies across problem instances. No mathematical derivation, prediction, or first-principles result is presented that reduces by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The observations on pattern deviations, depth-dependent sensitivity, and heuristic performance are empirical outputs rather than tautological renamings or forced extrapolations from the paper's own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the work relies on standard quantum-circuit simulation assumptions and numerical optimization routines.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5810 in / 1078 out tokens · 40886 ms · 2026-05-18T09:19:07.364020+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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 · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Rajeev Acharya et al. “Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold”. In:Nature638 (2025), pp. 920–926.DOI: 10 . 1038 / s41586 - 024 - 08449-y. 15

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Benjamin, Suguru Endo, William J

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. “Adiabatic quantum computation”. In:Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (1 Jan. 2018), p. 015002.DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys. 90.015002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2018

  3. [3]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti et al. “Noisy intermediate-scale quan- tum algorithms”. In:Rev. Mod. Phys.94 (1 Feb. 2022), p. 015004.DOI: 10 . 1103 / RevModPhys . 94 . 015004

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Training Varia- tional Quantum Algorithms Is NP-Hard

    Lennart Bittel and Martin Kliesch. “Training Varia- tional Quantum Algorithms Is NP-Hard”. In:Phys- ical Review Letters127.12 (Sept. 2021). Publisher: American Physical Society, p. 120502.DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.120502

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    Kostas Blekos et al. “A review on Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm and its variants”. In: Physics Reports. A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants 1068 (June 2024), pp. 1–66.DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002 2024

  6. [6]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brandao et al.For Fixed Control Parameters the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm’s Objective Function Value Concentrates for Typical Instances. arXiv:1812.04170 [quant-ph]. Dec. 2018.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.04170

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04170 2018

  7. [7]

    Obstacles to Variational Quan- tum Optimization from Symmetry Protection

    Sergey Bravyi et al. “Obstacles to Variational Quan- tum Optimization from Symmetry Protection”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (26 Dec. 2020), p. 260505.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.260505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.260505 2020

  8. [8]

    Challenges for Quantum Software Engineering: An Industrial Application Scenario Perspective,

    Cecilia Carbonelli et al. “Challenges for Quantum Software Engineering: An Industrial Application Sce- nario Perspective”. In:Quantum Software: Aspects of Theory and System Design. Ed. by Iaakov Exman et al. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 311–335.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7_12 2024

  9. [9]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Na- ture Rev

    M. Cerezo et al. “Variational Quantum Algorithms”. In:Nature Reviews Physics3.9 (Aug. 2021), pp. 625– 644.DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  10. [10]

    Warm-starting quantum optimization

    Daniel J. Egger, Jakub Mare ˇcek, and Stefan Woerner. “Warm-starting quantum optimization”. In:Quantum 5 (June 2021), p. 479.DOI: 10.22331/q-2021-06-17- 479

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-17- 2021

  11. [11]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Farhi and A

    Edward Farhi and Aram W. Harrow.Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Op- timization Algorithm. arXiv:1602.07674 [quant-ph]. Oct. 2019

    work page arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    A study of the per- formance of classical minimizers in the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Mario Fernández-Pendás et al. “A study of the per- formance of classical minimizers in the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. In:Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics404 (Apr. 2022), p. 113388.DOI: 10.1016/j.cam.2021.113388

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2021.113388 2022

  14. [14]

    Scalable Quantum Al- gorithms for Noisy Quantum Computers

    Gacon, Julien Sebastian. “Scalable Quantum Al- gorithms for Noisy Quantum Computers”. en. In: (2024).DOI: 10.5075/EPFL-THESIS-11132

    work page doi:10.5075/epfl-thesis-11132 2024

  15. [15]

    Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Oct

    Alexey Galda et al.Transferability of optimal QAOA parameters between random graphs. Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Oct. 2021.DOI: 10.1109/QCE52317.2021. 00034

    work page doi:10.1109/qce52317.2021 2021

  16. [16]

    Defects in Quantum Com- puters

    Bartłomiej Gardas et al. “Defects in Quantum Com- puters”. en. In:Scientific Reports8.1 (Mar. 2018). Publisher: Nature Publishing Group, p. 4539.DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22763-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22763-2 2018

  17. [17]

    Quantum Data Encoding Patterns and their Conse- quences

    Martin Gogeissl, Hila Safi, and Wolfgang Mauerer. “Quantum Data Encoding Patterns and their Conse- quences”. In:Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Quantum Computing and Quantum-Inspired Tech- nology for Data-Intensive Systems and Applications. Q-Data ’24. Santiago, AA, Chile: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, pp. 27–37.DOI: 10 . 1145/3665225.3665446

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz,

    Stuart Hadfield et al. “From the Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alter- nating Operator Ansatz”. In:Algorithms12.2 (2019). DOI: 10.3390/a12020034

    work page doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  19. [19]

    Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA performance for con- strained optimization

    Zichang He et al. “Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA performance for con- strained optimization”. en. In:npj Quantum Informa- tion9.1 (Nov. 2023). Publisher: Nature Publishing Group, pp. 1–11.DOI: 10.1038/s41534-023-00787- 5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00787- 2023

  20. [20]

    Bartlett

    Nishant Jain et al. “Graph neural network initial- isation of quantum approximate optimisation”. In: Quantum6 (Nov. 2022), p. 861.DOI: 10.22331/q- 2022-11-17-861

    work page doi:10.22331/q- 2022

  21. [21]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari et al.Quantum computing with Qiskit. 2024.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  22. [22]

    Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems

    Richard M. Karp. “Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems”. In:Complexity of Computer Computa- tions. Springer US, 1972, pp. 85–103.DOI: 10.1007/ 978-1-4684-2001-2_9

    work page 1972

  23. [23]

    C., Barends, R., Biswas, R., Boixo, S., Brandao, F

    Youngseok Kim et al. “Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance”. en. In: Nature618.7965 (June 2023). Publisher: Nature Pub- lishing Group, pp. 500–505.DOI: 10.1038/s41586- 023-06096-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586- 2023

  24. [24]

    Richer, Junae Kim, and Damian Marriott

    Vladimir Kremenetski et al.Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz (QAOA) Phase Diagrams and Ap- plications for Quantum Chemistry. arXiv:2108.13056 [quant-ph]. Oct. 2021.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2108. 13056

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108 2021

  25. [25]

    2024.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06493

    Tom Krüger and Wolfgang Mauerer.Out of the Loop: Structural Approximation of Optimisation Landscapes and non-Iterative Quantum Optimisation. 2024.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06493

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.06493 2024

  26. [26]

    Quantum Annealing-Based Software Components: An Exper- imental Case Study with SAT Solving

    Tom Krüger and Wolfgang Mauerer. “Quantum Annealing-Based Software Components: An Exper- imental Case Study with SAT Solving”. In:Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Con- ference on Software Engineering Workshops. IC- SEW’20. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Association for 16 Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 445–450.DOI: 10. 1145/3387940.3391472

    work page arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    A Depth-Progressive Initialization Strategy for Quantum Approximate Optimization Al- gorithm

    Xinwei Lee et al. “A Depth-Progressive Initialization Strategy for Quantum Approximate Optimization Al- gorithm”. en. In:Mathematics11.9 (Jan. 2023). Num- ber: 9 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 2176.DOI: 10.3390/math11092176

    work page doi:10.3390/math11092176 2023

  28. [28]

    Los Alamitos, CA, USA, Oct

    Xinwei Lee et al. “Parameters Fixing Strategy for Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. en. In:2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). Oct. 2021.DOI: 10.1109/QCE52317.2021.00016

    work page doi:10.1109/qce52317.2021.00016 2021

  29. [29]

    Empirical performance bounds for quantum approximate optimization

    Phillip C. Lotshaw et al. “Empirical performance bounds for quantum approximate optimization”. In: Quantum Information Processing20.12 (Dec. 2021), p. 403.DOI: 10.1007/s11128-021-03342-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03342-3 2021

  30. [30]

    1-2-3 Reproducibility for Quantum Software Experiments

    Wolfgang Mauerer and Stefanie Scherzinger. “1-2-3 Reproducibility for Quantum Software Experiments”. In:2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 2022, pp. 1247–1248.DOI: 10.1109/SANER53432. 2022.00148

    work page doi:10.1109/saner53432 2022

  31. [31]

    Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems

    David Mitchell, Bart Selman, and Hector Levesque. “Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems”. In: Proceedings of the tenth national conference on Ar- tificial intelligence. AAAI’92. San Jose, California: AAAI Press, July 1992, pp. 459–465

    work page 1992

  32. [32]

    To- ward a linear-ramp QAOA protocol: evidence of a scaling advantage in solving some combinatorial optimization problems

    J. A. Montañez-Barrera and Kristel Michielsen. “To- ward a linear-ramp QAOA protocol: evidence of a scaling advantage in solving some combinatorial optimization problems”. In:npj Quantum Information 11.1 (Aug. 2025).DOI: 10.1038/s41534-025-01082- 1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01082- 2025

  33. [33]

    Transfer learning of optimal QAOA pa- rameters in combinatorial optimization

    J. A. Montañez-Barrera, Dennis Willsch, and Kristel Michielsen. “Transfer learning of optimal QAOA pa- rameters in combinatorial optimization”. In:Quantum Information Processing24.5 (May 2025).DOI: 10. 1007/s11128-025-04743-4

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    and Raymond, R

    Maniraman Periyasamy et al. “Guided-SPSA: Simul- taneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation As- sisted by the Parameter Shift Rule”. In:2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). V ol. 01. 2024, pp. 1504–1515. DOI: 10.1109/QCE60285.2024.00177

    work page doi:10.1109/qce60285.2024.00177 2024

  35. [35]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo et al. “A variational eigen- value solver on a quantum processor”. In:Nature Communications5.1 (July 2014). arXiv:1304.3061 [physics, physics:quant-ph], p. 4213.DOI: 10.1038/ ncomms5213

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation

    M. J. D. Powell. “A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation”. en. In: Book Ti- tle: Advances in Optimization and. Springer Nether- lands, 1994.DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5_4 1994

  37. [37]

    by Shaukat Ali et al

    Hila Safi, Karen Wintersperger, and Wolfgang Mauerer. “Influence of HW-SW-Co-Design on Quan- tum Computing Scalability”. In:2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Quantum Software (QSW). 2023, pp. 104–115.DOI: 10.1109/QSW59989.2023. 00022

    work page doi:10.1109/qsw59989.2023 2023

  38. [38]

    Path matters: Industrial data meet quantum optimization,

    Lukas Schmidbauer et al.Path Matters: Industrial Data Meet Quantum Optimization. 2025.DOI: 10 . 48550/arXiv.2504.16607

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Quantum-Inspired Digital Annealing for Join Ordering

    Manuel Schönberger, Immanuel Trummer, and Wolf- gang Mauerer. “Quantum-Inspired Digital Annealing for Join Ordering”. In:Proc. VLDB Endow.17.3 (Nov. 2023), pp. 511–524.DOI: 10.14778/3632093. 3632112

    work page doi:10.14778/3632093 2023

  40. [40]

    Training the quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm without ac- cess to a quantum processing unit

    Michael Streif and Martin Leib. “Training the quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm without ac- cess to a quantum processing unit”. In:Quantum Science and Technology5.3 (May 2020), p. 034008. DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ab8c2b

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ab8c2b 2020

  41. [41]

    Parameter-setting heuristic for the quantum alternating operator ansatz

    James Sud et al. “Parameter-setting heuristic for the quantum alternating operator ansatz”. In:Phys. Rev. Res.6 (2 May 2024), p. 023171.DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevResearch.6.023171

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Warm-Started QAOA with Cus- tom Mixers Provably Converges and Computationally Beats Goemans-Williamson’s Max-Cut at Low Cir- cuit Depths

    Reuben Tate et al. “Warm-Started QAOA with Cus- tom Mixers Provably Converges and Computationally Beats Goemans-Williamson’s Max-Cut at Low Cir- cuit Depths”. In:Quantum7 (Sept. 2023), p. 1121. DOI: 10.22331/q-2023-09-26-1121

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-09-26-1121 2023

  43. [43]

    Approximatesolutionsofcombinatorialprob- lemsviaquantumrelaxations

    Simone Tibaldi et al. “Bayesian Optimization for QAOA”. In:IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engi- neering4 (2023). Conference Name: IEEE Transac- tions on Quantum Engineering.DOI: 10.1109/TQE. 2023.3325167

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe 2023

  44. [44]

    An expressive ansatz for low-depth quantum approximate optimisation

    V Vijendran et al. “An expressive ansatz for low-depth quantum approximate optimisation”. In: Quantum Science and Technology9.2 (Feb. 2024), p. 025010.DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/ad200a

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad200a 2024

  45. [45]

    2021.DOI: 10.1109/ TQE.2021.3122568

    Jonathan Wurtz and Peter Love.Classically optimal variational quantum algorithms. 2021.DOI: 10.1109/ TQE.2021.3122568

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    MaxCut quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm performance guarantees forp>1

    Jonathan Wurtz and Peter Love. “MaxCut quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm performance guarantees forp>1”. In:Physical Review A103.4 (Apr. 2021). Publisher: American Physical Society, p. 042612.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042612

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042612 2021

  47. [47]

    Counterdiabatic- ity and the quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm

    Jonathan Wurtz and Peter J. Love. “Counterdiabatic- ity and the quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm”. In:Quantum6 (Jan. 2022), p. 635.DOI: 10. 22331/q-2022-01-27-635

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Jonathan Wurtz and Danylo Lykov.Fixed-angle con- jectures for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on regular MaxCut graphs. Nov. 2021. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052419

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.052419 2021

  49. [49]

    Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implemen- tation on Near-Term Devices

    Leo Zhou et al. “Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implemen- tation on Near-Term Devices”. In:Physical Review X10.2 (June 2020). Publisher: American Physical 17 Society, p. 021067.DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevX . 10 . 021067. APPENDIX A. LANDSCAPE EVALUATION ALGORITHM Algorithm 1Landscape scan with iteratively increasing d...

    work page 2020