pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28536 · v1 · pith:MOTEJ2EUnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · math.OC

Pauli-Sparse regularised Counterdiabatic Shortcuts for Linear-Ramp QAOA

Stefano Cipolla , Fabio Durastante This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 00:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math.OC
keywords QAOAcounterdiabatic drivingadiabatic gauge potentialquantum approximate optimizationPauli expansionregularizationspectral gapscombinatorial optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Pauli-sparse regularized counterdiabatic correction enhances linear-ramp QAOA on instances with small spectral gaps.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

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.

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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28536 by Fabio Durastante, Stefano Cipolla.

Figure 1
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. 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. 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 ↗
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] view at source ↗
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] view at source ↗
read the original 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.

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 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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 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.
axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5843 in / 1384 out tokens · 41719 ms · 2026-06-30T00:54:08.097193+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

51 extracted references · 22 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

  9. [23]

    2026 , eprint=

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

    2026

  10. [25]

    2025 , eprint=

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

    2025

  11. [27]

    2026 , eprint=

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

    2026

  12. [34]

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

    2024

  13. [36]

    1997 , eprint=

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

    1997

  14. [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 Montanez-Barrera, Jhon A. and Nakano, Koji and Nannicini, Giacomo and O'Meara, ...

    2026

  15. [39]

    Nature Reviews Physics 6(12):718--735, ISSN 2522-5820, ://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9 2024

  16. [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

    arXiv 2023

  17. [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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [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

    work page doi:10.1137/24m1694999 2025

  19. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.064068 2024

  20. [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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [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

    work page doi:10.1515/rnam-2013-0009 2013

  22. [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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/pqhl-nbtk 2025

  24. [48]

    ://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18377

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

    arXiv 2025

  25. [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

    work page doi:10.1137/s1064827597323415 1999

  26. [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

    work page doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  27. [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

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ad38f1 2024

  28. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.l042030 2022

  29. [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

    arXiv 2023

  30. [54]

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

    2013

  31. [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

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02145754 1993

  32. [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., Les Ulis), ://dx.doi.org/10.1051/proc/201448001

    work page doi:10.1051/proc/201448001 2015

  33. [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 V, Van Bulck D, Woerner S, Zoufal C (2026) The quantum optimization benchmarkin...

    work page doi:10.1038/s43588-026-00991-1 2026

  34. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.001 2017

  35. [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

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.014 2025

  36. [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

    arXiv 2021

  37. [61]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems.Frontiers in Physics, 2:5, 2014

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

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 2014

  38. [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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [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

    arXiv 2025

  40. [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

    arXiv 2025

  41. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/wbbs-s8fs 2025

  42. [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

    arXiv 2021

  43. [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

    work page doi:10.1137/090752286 2011

  44. [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

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898718003 2003

  45. [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

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1619826114 2017

  46. [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

    work page doi:10.1137/s1064827502406415 2003

  47. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.011032 2024

  48. [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

    arXiv 2026

  49. [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

    arXiv 2024

  50. [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

    arXiv 2021

  51. [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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.021067 2020