Emergent Problem-Graph Alignment in RL-Discovered Entanglement Topologies for QAOA

Claudia Linnhoff-Popien; Federico Harjes Ruiloba; Gerhard Stenzel; Leo S\"unkel; Markus Baumann; Thomas Gabor; Tobias Rohe

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Emergent Problem-Graph Alignment in RL-Discovered Entanglement Topologies for QAOA

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A masked PPO agent, rewarded only by the approximation ratio from a 50-step variational optimization, builds QAOA entanglement topologies whose edges are almost always problem-graph edges, and these sparse circuits win when the…

desk verdict A well-scoped empirical study with one genuinely useful finding—RL-selected sparse QAOA topologies beat the full graph at low optimization budgets—but the 'emergent alignment' headline outruns the evidence: 5 tiny graphs per size, no significance tests, no code or data. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07686 v1 pith:56UIR7MT submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

Tobias Rohe , Federico Harjes Ruiloba , Markus Baumann , Gerhard Stenzel , Leo Sünkel , Thomas Gabor , Claudia Linnhoff-Popien This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 68Q1281P6890C27 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx

keywords QAOAreinforcementlearningcircuittopologyMaxCutentanglementtrainabilityapproximationratiovariationalquantumalgorithms

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

An RL agent with no direct access to the problem graph is set the task of building a QAOA entanglement topology for MaxCut, rewarded only by the approximation ratio achieved after a short variational optimization. On Erdős–Rényi instances with up to 10 qubits, the agent consistently converges to topologies that are strict subsets of the problem graph, with overlap ratios reaching 1.0 on 8- and 10-qubit runs, meaning every selected edge belongs to the problem graph. These sparse topologies beat the full graph topology and structural baselines at a 50-step optimization budget, but are overtaken by denser topologies at 500 steps and by depth p=2 circuits. The paper reads these results as evidence that the variational landscape implicitly encodes structural information about the Hamiltonian, and that topology density is primarily a lever on convergence speed rather than on asymptotic solution quality. The practical upshot is that short-budget, near-term QAOA runs may be better served by sparse, problem-aligned circuit topologies than by matching the full problem graph.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-loop training setup. The outer loop is a Masked Proximal Policy Optimization agent that sequentially adds undirected qubit pairs to the entanglement topology, choosing from $\binom{n}{2}$ possible edges plus a STOP action, with duplicate edges masked out. The inner loop takes the resulting topology, builds a single-layer QAOA circuit with an independent variational parameter per gate (the multi-angle formulation), optimizes those parameters with Adam for a fixed number of steps, and returns the approximation ratio as a sparse terminal reward. The agent's observation vector contains only the sequence of edges placed so far, the step fraction, and the current approximation ratio — no problem-graph information. The key metric that exposes the alignment is the overlap ratio $|T\cap E|/|T|$, the fraction of agent-selected edges that lie in the problem graph.

What would settle it

A held-out test: after training on one Erdős–Rényi graph, run the learned policy on a freshly sampled graph of the same size. If the selected edges overlap the new problem graph at chance level (~0.5), or if the sparse topology no longer beats random equal-size subsets at 50 optimization steps, the emergent-alignment claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that QAOA's variational optimization landscape encodes the edge structure of the cost Hamiltonian well enough that a reinforcement learning agent, seeing only the edges it has placed and the resulting approximation ratio, learns to place IsingZZ gates almost exclusively on edges that belong to the problem graph. Across 8- and 10-qubit instances, the overlap ratio $|T\cap E|/|T|$ reaches $1.000\pm 0.000$ in the tuned configuration, with zero exceptions across all seeds. The learned sparse topologies are also better circuits in the low-budget regime: at 50 gradient steps they reach 0.808 versus 0.676 for the full graph topology, and they outperform a random subset with the same number of edges, showing that edge selection matters beyond edge count. The advantage is conditional: at 500 steps the full topology recovers to 0.860 versus 0.832, and at depth $p=2$ it reaches $AR=1.000$, which the paper interprets as a trainability–expressibility trade-off governed by topology density.

Load-bearing premise

The near-perfect overlap is measured on the same single graph used for training; if the agent is merely memorizing that instance, the claim that the landscape generally encodes Hamiltonian structure would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sparse, problem-aligned topologies are a practical choice for near-term QAOA where coherence limits the optimization budget.
Topology density acts as a trainability dial: the same QAOA family spans fast-converging sparse ansätze and expressive dense ones, so budget-aware topology selection is possible.
The advantage is conditional, not absolute: at 500 optimization steps and at depth p=2, denser topologies overtake the learned ones, so the learned topology is not a universal improvement.
The near-perfect overlap at 8 and 10 qubits suggests that non-problem-graph edges actively hurt low-budget optimization, a constraint that future ansatz design can exploit.
The reward-only probe can be adapted to hardware with fixed coupling maps, where the question becomes which available physical links to activate.

Reading between the lines

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

A held-out generalization test is the natural next experiment: train on one graph and run the policy on a fresh graph of the same size; high overlap on unseen graphs would show a learned structural prior, while chance-level overlap would mean the alignment is instance-specific memorization.
The reward signal the agent exploits is likely the gradient trajectory of the inner loop, not just the final ratio; replacing the inner optimizer with random parameters would test whether gradient information is what encodes the graph.
The result suggests a broader principle: for commuting cost Hamiltonians, variational reward landscapes may act as implicit regularizers that penalize out-of-problem correlations, which would extend to other Ising-mapped combinatorial problems.
If the trainability–expressibility trade-off is general, adaptive topology growth during optimization (start sparse, add edges later) may outperform any fixed topology at a fixed total budget.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my read. The new contribution is narrow but real: for QAOA MaxCut on small Erdős–Rényi graphs, an RL agent that never sees the problem graph—only the edges it has placed and the resulting approximation ratio—learns to put IsingZZ gates almost exclusively on problem edges, selecting a strict subset of the graph. Those sparse topologies beat the full-graph topology by 13 points at 50 gradient steps, and then lose at 500 steps. That trainability/expressibility crossover is the most useful result and is plausibly correct.

I want to give credit where it is earned. The experimental section is clear about the MDP, action masking, the ma-QAOA ansatz, and the baselines. The authors openly list their limitations: 10 qubits max, no significance tests, one graph per training run, noise-free simulator, and no code or data. That honesty is real and commendable.

The soft spots are the ones the reader flagged, plus the stress-test point. The 'consistently converges' claim rests on five ER graphs per size. With a sample that small, overlap = 1.00±0.00 could still be a few favorable draws. The paper does not test generalization to held-out graphs, so the claim that the landscape generally encodes Hamiltonian structure is not established. Also, the framing is a bit circular: the reward is the approximation ratio, which is literally defined by the Hamiltonian, so of course problem edges are positively rewarded. The nontrivial finding is that sparse subsets win at low budget, not that alignment emerges.

The lack of shipped code or data is a real barrier to checking the numbers, and the tuned configuration overlap tables don't show baseline overlaps, which is a minor presentation gap.

Who is this for? People working on QAOA ansatz design, automated circuit search, or trainability/expressibility trade-offs. It is not a breakthrough, but it is a legitimate empirical contribution that deserves referee time, conditional on adding a held-out generalization experiment and releasing artifacts. I would not desk reject it.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reinforcement-learning framework for discovering QAOA entanglement topologies for MaxCut. A Masked PPO agent sequentially places IsingZZ gates; the resulting ma-QAOA circuit (p=1, per-edge parameters) is optimized with Adam, and the approximation ratio relative to the brute-force optimum is used as a sparse terminal reward. The agent's observation contains only the edges placed so far and the step fraction, not the problem graph. Experiments on Erdős–Rényi graphs up to 10 qubits show that learned topologies are strict subsets of the problem graph with high overlap, outperform full and random topologies at 50 optimization steps, but are overtaken by denser topologies at 500 steps or at p≥2. The authors interpret this as evidence that the variational landscape encodes Hamiltonian structure and that topology mainly controls convergence speed.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold, the paper provides a useful characterization of the trainability–expressibility trade-off in QAOA with per-edge parameters and demonstrates a concrete RL-based method for discovering sparse, fast-converging topologies under limited optimization budgets. The experimental setup is clearly described, implementation details are specific enough to be reproduced from the text, and the authors candidly list limitations (small sample, single graph per run, noise-free simulator). However, the headline claim of 'consistent' emergent graph alignment is stronger than the evidence supports, and the in-sample nature of the performance comparison limits the practical-relevance statement. The most distinctive and defensible contribution is the budget-dependent trade-off, not the overlap phenomenon itself.

major comments (4)

[Section VI-C, Table IV and Section VII-D] The central claim that the agent 'consistently converges' to problem-aligned subsets rests on only five fixed Erdős–Rényi graphs per size, with no significance tests. Table IV reports overlap 1.00±0.00 for n=8 and n=10, but with five instances the deterministic-looking result could be a small-sample artifact; the paper's own limitations section concedes the absence of formal significance tests. To support the 'consistently' qualifier in the abstract, the authors should either increase the instance sample substantially or rephrase the claim to apply explicitly to the instances tested.
[Section V-B, Table I and Section VI-C] The overlap and subset results are reported only for the tuned configuration (entropy coefficient 0.03, n_epochs 5). The baseline configuration (entropy coefficient 0.1, n_epochs 10) is shown to have lower AR in Table II, but no overlap or Jaccard results are provided for it. Without demonstrating that the perfect graph alignment is robust to the hyperparameter choice, the paper has not established that the agent 'consistently' converges to problem subsets; the effect could depend on the tuned entropy and epoch settings.
[Section VI-D, Table V with Section IV-A and Section VII-D] The comparison showing that the RL topology outperforms the full graph topology at 50 steps (0.808 vs 0.676) is performed on the same graph on which that RL agent was trained. Although Section VII-D discloses this instance specificity, the abstract and conclusion present the result as a general statement that 'sparse, problem-aligned topologies outperform the full graph topology.' Because no held-out graph test is reported, the performance claim is in-sample and cannot be extended to unseen instances. A transfer experiment or a clear qualification is needed.
[Section VII-A and Section IV-A] The interpretation of the overlap result as an 'emergent' alignment of the learned topology with the problem graph is largely a direct consequence of the reward design: the approximation ratio is defined by the problem Hamiltonian, whose terms correspond exactly to the graph edges. An IsingZZ gate on a non-graph edge adds no corresponding cost term and can be neutralized by setting its parameter to zero, so the optimal topology is expected to be a subset of the problem graph. The paper should either provide a control experiment with a reward not derived from the problem graph, or substantially revise the 'emergent' narrative and place the main contribution on the budget-dependent trade-off.

minor comments (6)

[Section II-B] The phrase 'acrossplayers' should read 'across layers.'
[Section IV-B] The phrase 'withplayers' should read 'with p layers.'
[References] Reference [22] lists 'D. P. Kingma and B. J. Adam'; the correct authors of the Adam optimizer are Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba.
[Data availability] The manuscript does not state whether code or data will be released; for reproducibility of the empirical claims, an example script or repository link would be valuable.
[Table IV] The compression ratio column reports percentages without standard deviations, which would be helpful for consistency with the other columns.
[Section VI-C] The phrase 'this is remarkable' overstates the result given that the reward is defined by the problem graph; consider rephrasing to reflect the expected dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the alignment result is an empirical RL outcome, not a derived quantity, and the reward's dependence on the problem graph is acknowledged rather than disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical reinforcement-learning study, not a derivation chain, and its central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The terminal reward is the approximation ratio of the MaxCut Hamiltonian (Eq. 1, Eq. 9), which is necessarily defined in terms of the problem-graph edge set E. That the reward depends on E is by design and is explicitly described as the only indirect channel through which the agent can learn graph structure. The claimed finding is the empirical convergence of the Masked PPO agent to topologies with overlap |T∩E|/|T| ≈ 1.0 (Table IV). This is not definitionally forced: a topology containing all possible qubit pairs would have overlap ≈ |E|/C(n,2) ≈ 0.5 for G(n,0.5), and the paper shows random RL-sized subsets (which can contain non-problem edges) achieve substantially lower AR than the RL topology (Table V), so edge selection carries independent empirical content. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction; all evaluations are in-sample on the fixed training graphs, and Section VII-D candidly identifies instance specificity, the absence of significance tests, and the conditioning on p=1 and 50 optimization steps as limitations. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the cited methods (ma-QAOA, ramp initialization, PPO, action masking) are standard external tools. The claim that the variational landscape 'implicitly encodes' Hamiltonian structure is an interpretation of the reward's functional dependence, but the paper does not present it as a derived theorem and its empirical support is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical RL study; the central claim rests mainly on the reward design (AR defined by the problem Hamiltonian) and the fixed training/evaluation setup. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

PPO entropy coefficient (tuned) = 0.03
Chosen by hand after observing that default 0.1 converges poorly for larger instances (Section V-B). The primary overlap results in Table IV are for this tuned configuration.
PPO epochs (tuned) = 5
Reduced from default 10 to improve convergence for larger instances (Section V-B).
Edge budget m_max = 2n (20 for n=10)
Environment design choice capping the number of gates; this constrains the agent to sparse topologies and is not derived from the problem.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The multi-angle QAOA ansatz with per-edge variational parameters (ma-QAOA) is a valid and sufficiently expressive circuit family for MaxCut.
Borrowed from Herrman et al. [20]; the paper relies on this to make single-layer circuits expressive enough for RL training.
domain assumption The approximation ratio after 50 Adam steps is a stable and informative reward signal for topology quality.
The RL agent's learning depends on this; no proof of stability or informativeness is provided, only empirical convergence.
domain assumption Statevector simulation exactly computes expectation values and gradients via parameter-shift, with no hardware noise.
All experiments use PennyLane default.qubit; results may not hold on noisy hardware, as the authors note in Section VII-D.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Problem-Graph Alignment in RL-Discovered Entanglement Topologies for QAOA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56UIR7MT

@misc{pith2026260807686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Problem-Graph Alignment in RL-Discovered Entanglement Topologies for QAOA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56UIR7MT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07686}
}

abstract

In the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA), the entanglement topology, where qubit pairs are connected by two-qubit gates, is conventionally set equal to the edge set of the problem graph. This coupling ties circuit design to explicit problem knowledge and may not yield the most trainable circuit under limited optimization budgets. We investigate whether a reinforcement learning (RL) agent can discover more effective entanglement topologies for QAOA-based MaxCut optimization without direct access to the problem graph. A Masked Proximal Policy Optimization agent sequentially places IsingZZ gates to construct a circuit topology, while a variational inner loop optimizes the resulting QAOA parameters and returns the approximation ratio as a sparse terminal reward. The agent's observation contains only the edges placed so far and the current approximation ratio; graph structure can only be inferred indirectly through the optimization reward. On Erd\H{o}s--R\'{e}nyi instances with up to $10$~qubits, the agent consistently converges to topologies that are strict subsets of the problem graph, achieving overlap ratios approaching $1.0$, despite receiving no explicit information about the graph structure in its observations. These sparse, problem-aligned topologies outperform the full graph topology and several structural baselines when the optimization budget is limited ($50$~gradient steps), but are overtaken by denser topologies given sufficient optimization budget. Our results reveal a trainability--expressibility trade-off governed by topology density and suggest that the variational optimization landscape implicitly encodes structural information about the problem Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07686 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** QAOA optimization trajectories for different topologies on 10-qubit instances. (a) At 50 steps, the RL topology converges fastest and reaches the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Final approximation ratio distributions across topology types for 10-qubit instances. (a) At 50 optimization steps, the RL topology clearly dominates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Variational quantum algorithms,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincioet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625– 644, 2021

2021
[2]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menkeet al., “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 015004, 2022

2022
[3]

A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

arXiv 2014
[4]

Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,

S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 1900070, 2019

2019
[5]

Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures,

M. Ostaszewski, L. M. Trenkwalder, W. Masarczyk, E. Scerri, and V . Dunjko, “Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures,” inNeural Information Processing Systems, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16089.pdf

arXiv 2021
[6]

An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

H. R. Grimsley, S. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,”Nature Communications, vol. 10, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2 2018
[7]

Robust resource-efficient quantum variational ansatz through evolutionary algorithm

Y . Huang, Q. Li, X. Hou, R. Wu, M. Yung, A. Bayat, and X. Wang, “Robust resource-efficient quantum variational ansatz through an evolutionary algorithm,”Physical Review A, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.13714.pdf

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[8]

Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits,

H. Wang, Y . Ding, J. Gu, Y . Lin, D. Z. Pan, F. T. Chong, and S. Han, “Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 692–708

2022

Show all 23 references

[9]

Quantum embedding search for quantum machine learning,

N. Nguyen and K.-C. Chen, “Quantum embedding search for quantum machine learning,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 41 444–41 456,
[10]

Reducibility among combinatorial problems,

R. M. Karp, “Reducibility among combinatorial problems,” inComplex- ity of Computer Computations, ser. The IBM Research Symposia Series, R. E. Miller, J. W. Thatcher, and J. D. Bohlinger, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer, 1972, pp. 85–103

1972
[11]

Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and im- plementation on near-term devices,

L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and im- plementation on near-term devices,”Physical Review X, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 021067, 2020

2020
[12]

Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,

A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets,”nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 242–246, 2017

2017
[13]

Global entanglement in multiparticle systems,

D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, “Global entanglement in multiparticle systems,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 4273– 4278, 2002

2002
[14]

R. S. Sutton, A. G. Bartoet al.,Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press Cambridge, 1998, vol. 1, no. 1

1998
[15]

Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning,

R. J. Williams, “Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning,”Machine learning, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 229–256, 1992

1992
[16]

Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[17]

High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation,

J. Schulman, P. Moritz, S. Levine, M. Jordan, and P. Abbeel, “High- dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438, 2015

2015 arXiv
[18]

A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,

S. Huang and S. Onta ˜n´on, “A closer look at invalid action masking in policy gradient algorithms,” inThe International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 35, 2022

2022
[19]

A quantum information theoretic analysis of reinforcement learning-assisted quantum architecture search,

A. Sadhu, A. Sarkar, and A. Kundu, “A quantum information theoretic analysis of reinforcement learning-assisted quantum architecture search,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusId:269010042

2024
[20]

Multi-angle quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

R. Herrman, P. C. Lotshaw, J. Ostrowski, T. S. Humble, and G. Siopsis, “Multi-angle quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 6781, 2022

2022
[21]

Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,

V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadiet al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

2018 arXiv
[22]

A method for stochastic optimization. 2014,

D. P. Kingma and B. J. Adam, “A method for stochastic optimization. 2014,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, vol. 15, pp. 6–5, 2015

2014 arXiv
[2021]

Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp? tp=&arnumber=9757160

[Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp? tp=&arnumber=9757160

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Variational quantum algorithms,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincioet al., “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625– 644, 2021

2021

[2] [2]

Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menkeet al., “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 015004, 2022

2022

[3] [3]

A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,

S. Sim, P. D. Johnson, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entan- gling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum- classical algorithms,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 2, no. 12, p. 1900070, 2019

2019

[5] [5]

Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures,

M. Ostaszewski, L. M. Trenkwalder, W. Masarczyk, E. Scerri, and V . Dunjko, “Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures,” inNeural Information Processing Systems, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16089.pdf

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

H. R. Grimsley, S. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,”Nature Communications, vol. 10, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2 2018

[7] [7]

Robust resource-efficient quantum variational ansatz through evolutionary algorithm

Y . Huang, Q. Li, X. Hou, R. Wu, M. Yung, A. Bayat, and X. Wang, “Robust resource-efficient quantum variational ansatz through an evolutionary algorithm,”Physical Review A, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.13714.pdf

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits,

H. Wang, Y . Ding, J. Gu, Y . Lin, D. Z. Pan, F. T. Chong, and S. Han, “Quantumnas: Noise-adaptive search for robust quantum circuits,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 692–708

2022