Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 51 references

Pauli-Sparse regularised Counterdiabatic Shortcuts for Linear-Ramp QAOA

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A Pauli-sparse regularized counterdiabatic correction enhances linear-ramp QAOA on instances with small spectral gaps.

desk verdict The paper gives a workable sparse counterdiabatic fix for linear-ramp QAOA on small-gap instances, but the numerical support is still thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.28536 v1 pith:MOTEJ2EU submitted 2026-06-26 quant-ph math.OC

Stefano Cipolla , Fabio Durastante This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.OC
keywords QAOAcounterdiabaticdrivingadiabaticgaugepotentialquantumapproximateoptimizationPauliexpansionregularizationspectralgapscombinatorial
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

The paper develops a method to add counterdiabatic shortcuts to linear-ramp QAOA by approximately solving a regularized equation for the adiabatic gauge potential in the Pauli basis. This regularization with parameter η allows ignoring very small energy differences while keeping larger ones, making the approach practical for problems where full adiabatic evolution would require resolving exponentially small gaps. By using an inexact conjugate-gradient method with truncation, the correction remains implementable with limited gates. Tests on ferromagnetic chain and MaxCut problems demonstrate higher approximation ratios than the standard linear ramp QAOA, especially in difficult regimes.

What carries the argument

The regularised adiabatic gauge potential, obtained by solving the linear equation involving the commutator superoperator L_H with regularization η, truncated to Pauli strings for implementability.

What would settle it

Running the proposed LR-CD-QAOA on the Ferromagnetic Chain or MaxCut instances and observing no consistent improvement in approximation ratios compared to standard LR-QAOA across multiple η values would falsify the improvement claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Solving the regularized adiabatic gauge potential equation (L_H^{2} + ηI) A = -i L_H (∂_λ H) approximately in Pauli coordinates via conjugate gradient, with Pauli truncation, Galerkin refit, and residual certification, produces a sparse set of rotations that improve QAOA performance by mitigating diabatic transitions without needing to resolve tiny splittings in the low-energy manifold.

Load-bearing premise

The regularization parameter η can be chosen to suppress transitions below √η while retaining larger-gap transitions, thereby avoiding the need to resolve exponentially small splittings inside a low-energy solution manifold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The resulting LR-CD-QAOA ansatz improves approximation ratios over uncorrected linear ramp QAOA.
  • It broadens practical applicability to QUBO optimization problems with near-degenerate low-energy structures.
  • The method provides a gate-budget-aware selection of counterdiabatic terms.
  • Certification by a posteriori residual bound ensures the approximation quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This approach might be adaptable to other quantum annealing or variational algorithms facing similar gap issues.
  • Choosing η based on problem-specific gap estimates could further optimize performance.
  • Scaling the method to larger qubit numbers could be tested by monitoring the sparsity of the selected Pauli terms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Pauli-sparse regularized counterdiabatic extension to linear-ramp QAOA. It solves a regularized AGP equation (L_H^2 + η I) A_λ^(η) = -i L_H (∂_λ H) approximately via inexact conjugate-gradient in Pauli coordinates, with truncation, Galerkin refit, and residual bound. The regularization η is presented as an energy-resolution scale that suppresses small-gap transitions. Numerical experiments on ferromagnetic chain and perturbed FC-MaxCut/MarketSplit instances are reported to yield higher approximation ratios than uncorrected linear-ramp QAOA, particularly when the latter remains far from optimum.

Significance. If the reported numerical gains hold under rigorous statistical controls, the framework would offer a practical route to improve QAOA robustness on instances with near-degenerate low-energy manifolds and small gaps, without requiring resolution of exponentially small splittings. The explicit regularization, Pauli-truncation pipeline, and a-posteriori residual bound constitute concrete, implementable strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section: the central claim of improved approximation ratios rests on reported gains for FC and perturbed MaxCut/MarketSplit instances, yet the provided text supplies neither error bars, number of random instances or seeds, nor explicit comparison to standard QAOA baselines with matched gate budgets; this renders the quantitative support for the claim unverifiable from the given description.
  2. [Abstract / η discussion] Abstract and § on role of η: the statement that η 'suppresses transitions below √η while retaining larger-gap transitions' follows from the resolvent scaling, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen η values avoid the exponentially small splittings inside the solution manifold on the tested instances; a concrete check against the actual gap spectrum of the FC and MaxCut Hamiltonians is needed to confirm the mechanism.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation: the superoperator L_H is defined but its action on the specific Pauli basis used for the conjugate-gradient iteration should be stated explicitly to allow reproduction.
  2. [Figures] Figure clarity: any plots of approximation ratio versus depth or η should include the uncorrected LR-QAOA curve with the same color scale and gate-count normalization for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the numerical results and the discussion of the regularization parameter.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Numerical experiments section: the central claim of improved approximation ratios rests on reported gains for FC and perturbed MaxCut/MarketSplit instances, yet the provided text supplies neither error bars, number of random instances or seeds, nor explicit comparison to standard QAOA baselines with matched gate budgets; this renders the quantitative support for the claim unverifiable from the given description.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the numerical experiments lacks sufficient statistical detail for full verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will report error bars obtained from multiple independent runs, specify the precise number of random instances and random seeds employed for each problem family, and include direct comparisons against standard linear-ramp QAOA executed with an identical total gate budget. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and § on role of η: the statement that η 'suppresses transitions below √η while retaining larger-gap transitions' follows from the resolvent scaling, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen η values avoid the exponentially small splittings inside the solution manifold on the tested instances; a concrete check against the actual gap spectrum of the FC and MaxCut Hamiltonians is needed to confirm the mechanism.

    Authors: The scaling argument for η follows directly from the resolvent of the regularized Liouvillian. We acknowledge that an explicit verification on the gap spectra of the concrete instances would make the mechanism more transparent. We will add a supplementary analysis that computes the relevant low-lying gaps for the ferromagnetic-chain and perturbed MaxCut Hamiltonians and confirms that the chosen η values lie above the exponentially small splittings within the solution manifold. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's derivation begins with the explicit regularized AGP equation (L_H^2 + ηI)A = -i L_H(∂_λ H), which is a standard resolvent regularization whose √η scale is the direct mathematical consequence of the superoperator definition rather than a fitted quantity. The subsequent Pauli-truncation, inexact CG solve, Galerkin refit, and residual bound are standard inexact-solver techniques applied to obtain a sparse implementable operator; none of these steps redefine the target approximation ratio or claim a prediction that is forced by construction from the inputs. Numerical experiments on FC and perturbed MaxCut/MarketSplit instances report concrete improvements over the uncorrected linear ramp without the reported gain being equivalent to a parameter fit or self-citation chain. The central claim therefore remains independent of its own fitted values and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the standard quantum-mechanical definition of the adiabatic gauge potential and the assumption that a truncated Pauli expansion plus Galerkin refit yields a sufficiently accurate implementable operator; η is introduced as a tunable resolution scale without independent calibration data shown in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • regularization parameter η
    Introduced as an energy-resolution scale that suppresses transitions below √η; its specific value is chosen per instance but not derived from first principles.
assumptions (1)
  • standard math The adiabatic gauge potential satisfies the regularized Lyapunov equation (L_H² + η I) A_λ^(η) = -i L_H (∂_λ H)
    Invoked directly in the abstract as the starting point for the counterdiabatic correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pauli-Sparse regularised Counterdiabatic Shortcuts for Linear-Ramp QAOA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOTEJ2EU

@misc{pith2026260628536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pauli-Sparse regularised Counterdiabatic Shortcuts for Linear-Ramp QAOA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOTEJ2EU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28536}
}
abstract

Combinatorial optimization is a leading target for quantum algorithms, but finite-depth QAOA can suffer from strong diabatic errors when the interpolation Hamiltonian has small, or exponentially small, spectral gaps. We propose a Pauli-sparse counterdiabatic extension of linear-ramp QAOA based on the regularised adiabatic gauge potential \[ \bigl(\mathcal L_H^2+\eta I\bigr)A_\lambda^{(\eta)} = -\mathrm{i}\mathcal L_H(\partial_\lambda H), \qquad \mathcal L_H(X)=[H,X]. \] Instead of computing a dense AGP, we solve this equation approximately by an inexact conjugate-gradient method in Pauli coordinates, truncating the Pauli expansion during the iteration to obtain a gate-budget-aware set of implementable rotations. The selected support is then improved by a Galerkin refit and certified by an a posteriori residual bound. The regularization parameter \(\eta\) acts as an energy-resolution scale: it suppresses transitions below \(\sqrt{\eta}\) while retaining larger-gap transitions. Thus, the method can avoid resolving exponentially small splittings inside a low-energy solution manifold while reducing leakage away from it. Numerical experiments on Ferromagnetic Chain (FC) and perturbed FC--MaxCut/MarketSplit instances show that the resulting LR-CD-QAOA ansatz improves approximation ratios over the uncorrected linear ramp, especially in regimes where LR-QAOA remains far from the optimum. Overall, the proposed regularized LR-CD-QAOA framework substantially broadens the practical applicability of QAOA to QUBO optimization by improving its robustness across heterogeneous problem landscapes, including instances with near-degenerate low-energy structures and small spectral gaps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28536 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Matrix-free validation of the regularised AGP theory for the ordered-Ising interpolation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral structure of 𝐻(𝜆). The ground-doublet splitting decays rapidly with system size, while the outer excitation gap remains order one. This creates a broad window in which √ 𝜂 can suppress doublet-resolving components without washing out the gap separating the ordered manifold from excited states. 6.1.1 Regularised AGP Theory validation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Theory-validation experiments for the ferromagnetic chain endpoint. Left: ordered-manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence of the sparse conjugate-gradient (CG) construction of the regularized adiabatic gauge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Approximation ratio on the FC perturbed MaxCut (upper panel) and MarketSplit (lower panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    and Venturelli, Davide and Biswas, Rupak , title =

    Hadfield, Stuart and Wang, Zhihui and O'Gorman, Bryan and Rieffel, Eleanor G. and Venturelli, Davide and Biswas, Rupak , title =. Algorithms , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  2. [6]

    Physics Reports , volume =

    Kolodrubetz, Michael and Sels, Dries and Mehta, Pankaj and Polkovnikov, Anatoli , title =. Physics Reports , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  3. [8]

    Frontiers in Physics , volume =

    Lucas, Andrew , title =. Frontiers in Physics , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =

    Sels, Dries and Polkovnikov, Anatoli , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  5. [13]

    Physical Review X , volume =

    Takahashi, Kazutaka and del Campo, Adolfo , title =. Physical Review X , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  6. [16]

    , title =

    Zhou, Leo and Wang, Sheng-Tao and Choi, Soonwon and Pichler, Hannes and Lukin, Mikhail D. , title =. Physical Review X , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  7. [19]

    and Johnson, Charles R

    Horn, Roger A. and Johnson, Charles R. , TITLE =. 2013 , PAGES =

    2013

  8. [22]

    2025 , eprint=

    An Introduction to the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [23]

    2026 , eprint=

    Continuous-time quantum control across an exponentially small bottleneck in a frustrated Ising ring model , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  2. [25]

    2025 , eprint=

    Evaluating the performance of quantum processing units at large width and depth , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  3. [27]

    2026 , eprint=

    Weighted Nested Commutators for Scalable Counterdiabatic State Preparation , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  4. [34]

    Abbas, Amira and Ambainis, Andris and Augustino, Brandon and others , title =. Nat. Rev. Phys. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  5. [36]

    1997 , eprint=

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction , author=. 1997 , eprint=

    1997

  6. [38]

    and Chen, Ying and Cortiana, Giorgio and Egger, Daniel J

    Koch, Thorsten and Bernal Neira, David E. and Chen, Ying and Cortiana, Giorgio and Egger, Daniel J. and Heese, Raoul and Hegade, Narendra N. and Gomez Cadavid, Alejandro and Huang, Rhea and Itoko, Toshinari and Kleinert, Thomas and Maciel Xavier, Pedro and Mohseni, Naeimeh and...

    2026

  7. [39]

    (2024) Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization

    Abbas A, Ambainis A, Augustino B, et al. (2024) Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization. Nat. Rev. Phys. 6:718--735, ://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9

    2024 doi

  8. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03215 ://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03215

    Apers S, Gribling S (2023) Quantum speedups for linear programming via interior point methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03215 ://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03215

    2023

  9. [41]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07168

    Arezzo VR, Thengil K, Santoro G (2026) Continuous-time quantum control across an exponentially small bottleneck in a frustrated ising ring model. ://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07168

    2026 arXiv

  10. [42]

    Bucci A, Palitta D, Robol L (2025) Randomized sketched TT - GMRES for linear systems with tensor structure. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 47(5):A2801--A2827, ISSN 1064-8275,1095-7197, ://dx.doi.org/10.1137/24M1694999

    2025 doi

  11. [43]

    Dalal A, Montalban I, Hegade NN, Cadavid AG, Solano E, Awasthi A, Vodola D, Jones C, Weiss H, F\"uchsel G (2024) Digitized counterdiabatic quantum algorithms for logistics scheduling. Phys. Rev. Appl. 22:064068, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.064068

    2024 doi

  12. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08577 ://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08577

    Dehn V, Zaefferer M, Hellstern G, Reiter F, Wellens T (2025) Extrapolation method to optimize linear-ramp qaoa parameters: Evaluation of qaoa runtime scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08577 ://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08577

    2025 arXiv

  13. [45]

    Russian J

    Dolgov SV (2013) T T - GMRES : solution to a linear system in the structured tensor format. Russian J. Numer. Anal. Math. Modelling 28(2):149--172, ISSN 0927-6467,1569-3988, ://dx.doi.org/10.1515/rnam-2013-0009

    2013 doi

  14. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 ://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    Farhi E, Goldstone J, Gutmann S (2014) A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 ://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    2014 arXiv

  15. [47]

    Fin z z gar JR, Notarnicola S, Cain M, Lukin MD, Sels D (2025) Counterdiabatic driving with performance guarantees. Phys. Rev. Lett. 135:180602, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/pqhl-nbtk

    2025 doi

  16. [48]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18377

    Giovagnoli A (2025) An introduction to the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. ://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18377

    2025

  17. [49]

    Golub GH, Ye Q (1999/00) Inexact preconditioned conjugate gradient method with inner-outer iteration. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 21(4):1305--1320, ISSN 1064-8275,1095-7197, ://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S1064827597323415

    1999 doi

  18. [50]

    Algorithms 12(2):34, ://dx.doi.org/10.3390/a12020034

    Hadfield S, Wang Z, O'Gorman B, Rieffel EG, Venturelli D, Biswas R (2019) From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz. Algorithms 12(2):34, ://dx.doi.org/10.3390/a12020034

    2019 doi

  19. [51]

    Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57(10):102001, ://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ad38f1

    Hatomura T (2024) Shortcuts to adiabaticity: theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and versatile approximations. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57(10):102001, ://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ad38f1

    2024 doi

  20. [52]

    Hegade NN, Chen X, Solano E (2022) Digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization. Phys. Rev. Res. 4:L042030, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L042030

    2022 doi

  21. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18281 ://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18281

    Henderson ER, Nagarajan H, Coffrin C (2023) Exploring non-linear programming formulations in quantumcircuitopt for optimal circuit design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18281 ://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18281

    2023

  22. [54]

    Horn RA, Johnson CR (2013) Matrix analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), second edition, ISBN 978-0-521-54823-6

    2013

  23. [55]

    Joly P, Meurant G (1993) Complex conjugate gradient methods. Numer. Algorithms 4(4):379--406, ISSN 1017-1398,1572-9265, ://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02145754

    1993 doi

  24. [56]

    C EMRACS 2013---modelling and simulation of complex systems: stochastic and deterministic approaches , volume 48 of ESAIM Proc

    Khoromskij BN (2015) Tensor numerical methods for multidimensional PDE s: theoretical analysis and initial applications. C EMRACS 2013---modelling and simulation of complex systems: stochastic and deterministic approaches , volume 48 of ESAIM Proc. Surveys, 1--28 (EDP Sci., Le...

    2015 doi

  25. [57]

    Nature Computational Science ISSN 2662-8457, ://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43588-026-00991-1

    Koch T, Bernal Neira DE, Chen Y, Cortiana G, Egger DJ, Heese R, Hegade NN, Gomez Cadavid A, Huang R, Itoko T, Kleinert T, Maciel Xavier P, Mohseni N, Montanez-Barrera JA, Nakano K, Nannicini G, O'Meara C, Pauckert J, Proissl M, Ramesh A, Schicker M, Shimada N, Takeori M, Valls...

    2026 doi

  26. [58]

    Physics Reports 697:1--87, ://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.001

    Kolodrubetz M, Sels D, Mehta P, Polkovnikov A (2017) Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems. Physics Reports 697:1--87, ://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.001

    2017 doi

  27. [59]

    SciPost Phys

    Lawrence E, Schmid SFJ, Čepaitė I, Kirton P, Duncan CW (2025) A numerical approach for calculating exact non-adiabatic terms in quantum dynamics. SciPost Phys. 18:014, ://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.18.1.014

    2025 doi

  28. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06813 ://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06813

    Lotshaw PC, Humble TS, Herrman R, Ostrowski J, Siopsis G (2021) Empirical performance bounds for quantum approximate optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06813 ://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06813

    2021

  29. [61]

    Frontiers in Physics 2:5, ://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    Lucas A (2014) Ising formulations of many np problems. Frontiers in Physics 2:5, ://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    2014 doi

  30. [62]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24580 ://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24580

    McDowall K, Georgopoulos K, Wallden P (2026) A spectral gap informed parameter schedule for qaoa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24580 ://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24580

    2026 arXiv

  31. [63]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06471

    Montanez-Barrera JA, Michielsen K, Neira DEB (2025) Evaluating the performance of quantum processing units at large width and depth. ://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06471

    2025

  32. [64]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01952 ://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01952

    Morawetz S, Polkovnikov A (2025 a ) Universal counterdiabatic driving in krylov space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01952 ://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01952

    2025

  33. [65]

    PRX Quantum 6:040320, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/wbbs-s8fs

    Morawetz S, Polkovnikov A (2025 b ) Universal counterdiabatic driving in krylov space. PRX Quantum 6:040320, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/wbbs-s8fs

    2025 doi

  34. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11674 ://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11674

    Nagarajan H, Lockwood O, Coffrin C (2021) Quantumcircuitopt: An open-source framework for provably optimal quantum circuit design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11674 ://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11674

    2021

  35. [67]

    Oseledets IV (2011) Tensor-train decomposition. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33(5):2295--2317, ISSN 1064-8275,1095-7197, ://dx.doi.org/10.1137/090752286

    2011 doi

  36. [68]

    Saad Y (2003) Iterative methods for sparse linear systems (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA), second edition, ISBN 0-89871-534-2, ://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898718003

    2003 doi

  37. [69]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(20):E3909--E3916, ://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619826114

    Sels D, Polkovnikov A (2017) Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(20):E3909--E3916, ://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619826114

    2017 doi

  38. [70]

    Simoncini V, Szyld DB (2003) Theory of inexact K rylov subspace methods and applications to scientific computing. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 25(2):454--477, ISSN 1064-8275,1095-7197, ://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S1064827502406415

    2003 doi

  39. [71]

    Physical Review X 14:011032, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.011032

    Takahashi K, del Campo A (2024) Shortcuts to adiabaticity in krylov space. Physical Review X 14:011032, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.14.011032

    2024 doi

  40. [72]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25625

    Tang J, Chen X, Wei ZY (2026) Weighted nested commutators for scalable counterdiabatic state preparation. ://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25625

    2026

  41. [73]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18412 ://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18412

    Wilkie A, Gaidai I, Ostrowski J, Herrman R (2024) Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with random and subgraph phase operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18412 ://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18412

    2024

  42. [74]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15645 ://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15645

    Wurtz J, Love PJ (2021) Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15645 ://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15645

    2021

  43. [75]

    Physical Review X 10:021067, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067

    Zhou L, Wang ST, Choi S, Pichler H, Lukin MD (2020) Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X 10:021067, ://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.