pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19502 · v2 · pith:26FLTUZZnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Entanglement Scaling and Problem Structure in Quantum Approximate and Adiabatic Optimization Algorithms

Georgios Arapantonis , Paraj Titum , Gregory Quiroz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords QAOAentanglement scalingMaxCutadiabatic quantum computationfermionic Gaussian statesvariational quantum algorithmsquantum optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

QAOA entanglement scales like that of fermionic Gaussian states on MaxCut instances when parameters are optimized well.

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

The paper examines entanglement in QAOA and adiabatic quantum computation applied to MaxCut. It shows that suboptimal parameter training alters the observed entanglement profile and hides its scaling. With a high-performance optimizer, QAOA produces entanglement scaling that matches fermionic Gaussian states up to a factor across many instances. Adiabatic methods instead yield schedule-dependent profiles that scale differently. These observations tie entanglement behavior to both algorithmic performance and the underlying problem structure.

Core claim

Using a high-performance optimizer reveals that QAOA exhibits entanglement scaling consistent with fermionic Gaussian states up to a scaling factor across a broad range of MaxCut instances, while adiabatic quantum computation produces annealing-schedule-dependent profiles whose scaling differs markedly.

What carries the argument

Entanglement scaling profile of variational states or annealing trajectories on MaxCut graphs, measured as a function of problem size.

If this is right

  • Suboptimal training masks the true entanglement scaling in QAOA.
  • QAOA and adiabatic computation manifest entanglement in distinct ways tied to their schedules and parameters.
  • Entanglement scaling in these algorithms links directly to problem structure in MaxCut.
  • The observed QAOA scaling suggests a connection between variational performance and Gaussian-state properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The scaling match may indicate that QAOA effectively samples states with limited entanglement structure similar to free fermions.
  • Testing the same optimizer protocol on other combinatorial problems could show whether the scaling is MaxCut-specific or more general.
  • If the scaling persists at larger sizes, it could constrain how much quantum advantage QAOA can achieve beyond classical Gaussian approximations.

Load-bearing premise

A high-performance optimizer can reliably reach parameters that expose the true underlying entanglement scaling rather than a distorted one from poor training.

What would settle it

A set of MaxCut instances where even the best available optimizer produces QAOA entanglement scaling that deviates from the fermionic Gaussian form by more than a constant factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19502 by Georgios Arapantonis, Gregory Quiroz, Paraj Titum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison of random and informed initialization strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Numerical simulations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical simulations for entanglement requirement of QAOA for arbitrary graphs. Results from Dataset KR (circles) and Datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical simulations for the entanglement requirement in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Numerical simulations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For the linear and QAOA-inspired paths, entanglement increases monotonically with edge density. However, the opti- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Number of instances in which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Entanglement is widely regarded as a key resource underlying the power of quantum algorithms and their potential to achieve quantum advantage. With the emergence of variational quantum algorithms, however, questions have arisen regarding how entanglement relates to problem structure and algorithmic performance in near-term quantum applications. Here, we examine this relationship through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA), a specific class of variational algorithms, applied to the MaxCut problem. We show that suboptimal variational parameter training can significantly modify the observed entanglement profile, obscuring its scaling behavior. By employing a high-performance optimizer, we find empirical evidence that QAOA exhibits entanglement scaling consistent with that of fermionic Gaussian states (up to a scaling factor) across a broad range of MaxCut instances. We further compare these results with adiabatic quantum computation, observing annealing-schedule-dependent entanglement profiles whose scaling behavior differs markedly from that of QAOA. Together, these findings provide new insight into how entanglement manifests in and distinguishes these two algorithmic paradigms, highlighting its connection to both computational performance and problem structure.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper empirically studies entanglement in QAOA applied to MaxCut instances. It reports that suboptimal variational parameter training alters the observed entanglement profile, while a high-performance optimizer yields scaling consistent with fermionic Gaussian states (up to a constant factor) across a broad ensemble. It further contrasts this with AQC, where entanglement profiles and scaling depend on the annealing schedule and differ from QAOA.

Significance. If the empirical results are robust, the work offers concrete insight into how entanglement manifests differently in variational versus adiabatic paradigms and its relation to problem structure. The observation that QAOA scaling aligns with a known fermionic form (up to rescaling) across many instances, when properly optimized, is a potentially useful benchmark for understanding resources in near-term algorithms. The explicit demonstration that training quality affects the profile is also a constructive cautionary result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central empirical claim—that QAOA exhibits fermionic-Gaussian entanglement scaling when a high-performance optimizer is used—rests on the unverified assumption that the optimizer reaches parameters whose profile matches the true scaling rather than a suboptimal local minimum (whose qualitatively different profile is acknowledged in the same paragraph). No independent validation (e.g., success probability on small instances, comparison against exact diagonalization, or convergence diagnostics) is described, which is load-bearing for the reported scaling observation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting this important point regarding validation of the optimizer. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central empirical claim—that QAOA exhibits fermionic-Gaussian entanglement scaling when a high-performance optimizer is used—rests on the unverified assumption that the optimizer reaches parameters whose profile matches the true scaling rather than a suboptimal local minimum (whose qualitatively different profile is acknowledged in the same paragraph). No independent validation (e.g., success probability on small instances, comparison against exact diagonalization, or convergence diagnostics) is described, which is load-bearing for the reported scaling observation.

    Authors: We agree that the central claim would be strengthened by explicit, independent validation that the high-performance optimizer reaches high-quality parameters rather than local minima. The manuscript currently relies on the optimizer's established performance and the observed consistency of scaling across a broad ensemble, but does not report convergence diagnostics, success probabilities on small instances, or comparisons to exact diagonalization. In the revised manuscript we will add these elements: (i) convergence plots and final cost values for representative instances, (ii) approximation ratios achieved on small MaxCut instances compared against exact solutions, and (iii) a brief discussion of how these metrics support the reliability of the reported entanglement scaling. We will also adjust the abstract wording to reflect the added validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical scaling observation from direct simulation

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical observation obtained by running QAOA on MaxCut instances with a high-performance optimizer and measuring entanglement scaling. No derivation chain, first-principles result, or fitted parameter is presented that reduces by construction to its own inputs. The note on suboptimal training altering the profile is a methodological observation, not a self-referential definition or prediction. The comparison to fermionic Gaussian states is a consistency check against an external benchmark, not a renaming or self-citation load-bearing step. The work is therefore self-contained as numerical evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5710 in / 1126 out tokens · 37323 ms · 2026-06-26T20:32:26.969699+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

91 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Abbas, A

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨artschi,et al., Chal- lenges and opportunities in quantum optimization, Nature Re- views Physics6, 718 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim,et al., How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hun- dreds to Millions of Qubits (2025), arXiv:2411.10406 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Langfitt, J

    Q. Langfitt, J. Falla, I. Safro, and Y . Alexeev, Parameter Trans- ferability in QAOA Under Noisy Conditions, in2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), V ol. 02 (2023) pp. 300–301

    2023

  5. [5]

    Huang, Q

    Y . Huang, Q. Li, X. Hou, R. Wu, M.-H. Yung, A. Bayat, and X. Wang, Robust resource-efficient quantum variational ansatz through an evolutionary algorithm, Phys. Rev. A105, 052414 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Biamonte, Universal variational quantum computation, Phys

    J. Biamonte, Universal variational quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A103, L030401 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y . Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Li and S

    Y . Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Simu- lator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Phys. Rev. X7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    A. D. McLachlan, A variational solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, Molecular Physics8, 39 (1964)

    1964

  10. [10]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y . Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imag- inary time evolution, npj Quantum Information5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    S. Endo, J. Sun, Y . Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Varia- tional Quantum Simulation of General Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 010501 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Y .-X. Yao, N. Gomes, F. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Adaptive Variational Quantum Dy- namics Simulations, PRX Quantum2, 030307 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Zhang, J

    Z.-J. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Yuan, and M.-H. Yung, Low-Depth Hamiltonian Simulation by an Adaptive Product Formula, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 040601 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver for excited states, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033062 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. Mart´ınez, Quantum Computation of Electronic Transitions Us- ing a Variational Quantum Eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    J. R. McClean, M. P. Harrigan, M. Mohseni, N. C. Ru- bin, Z. Jiang, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Low-Depth Mechanisms for Quantum Optimization, PRX Quantum2, 030312 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    D. Wang, O. Higgott, and S. Brierley, Accelerated Variational Quantum Eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 140504 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    G. Wang, D. E. Koh, P. D. Johnson, and Y . Cao, Minimizing Es- timation Runtime on Noisy Quantum Computers, PRX Quan- tum2, 010346 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow,et al., Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near- term quantum devices, Quantum Science and Technology3, 030503 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Z. Wang, S. Hadfield, Z. Jiang, and E. G. Rieffel, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for Maxcut: A fermionic view, Phys. Rev. A97, 022304 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum comput- ing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz, Quantum Science and Technology4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. Love, MaxCut quantum approximate optimiza- tion algorithm performance guarantees forp >1, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042612 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Training a quantum optimizer, Phys. Rev. A94, 022309 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Khairy, R

    S. Khairy, R. Shaydulin, L. Cincio, Y . Alexeev, and P. Bal- aprakash, Learning to Optimize Variational Quantum Circuits to Solve Combinatorial Problems, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence34, 2367–2375 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quantum Approxi- mate Optimization Algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Shaydulin and M

    R. Shaydulin and M. Pistoia, QAOA withN·p≥200, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), V ol. 01 (2023) pp. 1074–1077

    2023

  28. [28]

    M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger,et al., Quantum approximate optimization of non-planar graph prob- lems on a planar superconducting processor, Nature Physics17, 332 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Leontica and D

    S. Leontica and D. Amaro, Exploring the neighborhood of 1- layer QAOA with instantaneous quantum polynomial circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013071 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Pagano, A

    G. Pagano, A. Bapat, P. Becker, K. S. Collins,et al., Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range Ising model with a trapped-ion quantum simulator, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 25396 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Lykov, J

    D. Lykov, J. Wurtz, C. Poole, M. Saffman, T. Noel, and Y . Alex- eev, Sampling frequency thresholds for the quantum advantage of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, npj Quan- tum Information9, 73 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Shaydulin, C

    R. Shaydulin, C. Li, S. Chakrabarti, M. DeCross,et al., Evi- 17 dence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate op- timization algorithm on a classically intractable problem, Sci- ence Advances10(2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Z. He, D. Amaro, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Performance of quantum approximate optimization with quantum error detec- tion, Communications Physics8, 217 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quan- tum computation by adiabatic evolution (2000), arXiv:quant- ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices, Phys. Rev. X10, 021067 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum5, 491 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum6, 635 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Headley, T

    D. Headley, T. M¨uller, A. Martin, E. Solano, M. Sanz, and F. K. Wilhelm, Approximating the quantum approximate optimiza- tion algorithm with digital-analog interactions, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042446 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr ´an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Digitized- counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013141 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Dupont, N

    M. Dupont, N. Didier, M. J. Hodson, J. E. Moore, and M. J. Reagor, Entanglement perspective on the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Phys. Rev. A106, 022423 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Dupont, N

    M. Dupont, N. Didier, M. J. Hodson, J. E. Moore, and M. J. Reagor, Calibrating the Classical Hardness of the Quantum Ap- proximate Optimization Algorithm, PRX Quantum3, 040339 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Sreedhar, P

    R. Sreedhar, P. Vikst ˚al, M. Svensson, A. Ask, G. Johansson, and L. Garc´ıa-´Alvarez, The Quantum Approximate Optimiza- tion Algorithm performance with low entanglement and high circuit depth (2022), arXiv:2207.03404 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Miki and Y

    G. Miki and Y . Tokura, A New Scaling Function for QAOA Tensor Network Simulations (2025), arXiv:2505.23256 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    A. J. C. Woitzik, P. K. Barkoutsos, F. Wudarski, A. Buchleitner, and I. Tavernelli, Entanglement production and convergence properties of the variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. A102, 042402 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y . de Sereville, J. F. Carrasquilla, Y . B. Kim, and H. Yuen, Exploring Entanglement and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz, PRX Quantum1, 020319 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    A. C. Nakhl, T. Quella, and M. Usman, Calibrating the Role of Entanglement in Variational Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032413 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Y . Chen, L. Zhu, C. Liu, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, How Much Entanglement Do Quantum Optimiza- tion Algorithms Require? (2023), arXiv:2205.12283 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Expressibility and Entangling Capability of Parameterized Quantum Circuits for Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1900070 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, J. F. Carrasquilla, and Y . B. Kim, Measurement-induced entanglement phase transitions in vari- ational quantum circuits, SciPost Phys.14, 147 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    J. I. Latorre and R. Or ´us, Adiabatic quantum computation and quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A69, 062302 (2004)

    2004

  52. [52]

    Or ´us and J

    R. Or ´us and J. I. Latorre, Universality of entanglement and quantum-computation complexity, Phys. Rev. A69, 052308 (2004)

    2004

  53. [53]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. Wang, I. Pi ˇzorn, and M. Troyer, Entangle- ment as a resource in adiabatic quantum optimization (2015), arXiv:1501.06914 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Batle, C

    J. Batle, C. H. R. Ooi, A. Farouk, M. Abutalib, and S. Abdalla, Do multipartite correlations speed up adiabatic quantum com- putation or quantum annealing?, Quantum Information Process- ing15, 3081 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Sch ¨utzhold and G

    R. Sch ¨utzhold and G. Schaller, Adiabatic quantum algorithms as quantum phase transitions: First versus second order, Phys. Rev. A74, 060304 (2006)

    2006

  56. [56]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  57. [57]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Locality, Quantum Fluctuations, and Scrambling, Phys. Rev. X9, 031048 (2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator Spreading in Ran- dom Unitary Circuits, Phys. Rev. X8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    Nagano, A

    L. Nagano, A. Bapat, and C. W. Bauer, Quench dynamics of the Schwinger model via variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. D108, 034501 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    Lukin, B

    A. Lukin, B. F. Schiffer, B. Braverman, S. H. Cantu,et al., Quantum quench dynamics as a shortcut to adiabaticity (2024), arXiv:2405.21019 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  64. [64]

    L. Zhu, H. L. Tang, G. S. Barron, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033029 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Qian, W.-F

    C. Qian, W.-F. Zhuang, R.-C. Guo, M.-J. Hu, and D. E. Liu, Information scrambling and entanglement in quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm circuits, The European Physical Journal Plus139, 14 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    C. W. Commander, Maximum Cut Problem, MAX-CUT, inEn- cyclopedia of Optimization(2009)

    2009

  67. [67]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum Entan- glement Growth under Random Unitary Dynamics, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  68. [68]

    Surace and L

    J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: an in- troduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem, Science292, 472–475 (2001)

    2001

  70. [70]

    Jansen, M.-B

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics48, 102111 (2007)

    2007

  71. [71]

    Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simula- tions, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simula- tions, Physics Letters A146, 319 (1990)

    1990

  72. [72]

    Sakai, H

    R. Sakai, H. Matsuyama, W.-H. Tam, and Y . Yamashiro, Trans- ferring linearly fixed QAOA angles: performance and real de- vice results (2025), arXiv:2504.12632 [quant-ph]. 18

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Wu and H

    M. Wu and H. Chen, Adiabatic-Passage-Based Parameter Set- ting for Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2024), arXiv:2312.00077 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Akshay, D

    V . Akshay, D. Rabinovich, E. Campos, and J. Biamonte, Pa- rameter concentrations in quantum approximate optimization, Phys. Rev. A104, L010401 (2021)

    2021

  76. [76]

    Z. He, R. Shaydulin, D. Herman, C. Li, R. Raymond, S. H. Sureshbabu, and M. Pistoia, Parameter Setting Heuris- tics Make the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Suitable for the Early Fault-Tolerant Era, in2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Design(2024) arXiv:2408.09538 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on Quantum Approxi- mate Optimization Algorithm and its variants, Physics Reports 1068, 1 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    X. Lee, N. Xie, Y . Saito, and N. Asai, A Depth-Progressive Initialization Strategy for Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm, Mathematics11, 2176 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Proof of Page’s conjecture on the av- erage entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1148 (1994)

    1994

  80. [80]

    Sen, Average Entropy of a Quantum Subsystem, Phys

    S. Sen, Average Entropy of a Quantum Subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1 (1996)

    1996

Showing first 80 references.