pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25117 · v1 · pith:OIPJAAI4new · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph

Feasibility-driven QAOA with penalty scheduling

Francesco Ferrari , Matteo Vandelli , Daniele Dragoni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords QAOApenalty schedulingconstrained optimizationfeasibility-driven losssatellite mission planningMaximum Weight Independent Setvariational quantum algorithms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Making penalty weights variational parameters with per-term ramp schedules in QAOA lets the algorithm jointly optimize for feasible high-quality solutions without separate tuning loops.

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

Standard QAOA turns constrained problems into unconstrained ones by adding penalty terms, but the right penalty strengths are hard to choose and get worse with more constraints. The paper replaces fixed penalties with individual linear-ramp schedules that become variational parameters optimized together with the usual QAOA angles, guided by a loss that favors feasible states. It further replaces those linear ramps with two-piece schedules to give the ansatz more flexibility at modest extra cost. On budget-constrained maximum-weight independent set instances drawn from Earth-observation satellite planning, the piecewise-ramp version produces better feasible solutions than both the baseline linear-ramp QAOA and the per-penalty linear version across depths and sizes, while both new methods keep high feasibility rates. A filtered version of the loss supplies one hyperparameter to trade feasibility against solution quality.

Core claim

By promoting each constraint penalty to its own variational ramp schedule and replacing linear ramps with two-segment piecewise schedules, QAOA can be trained end-to-end with a feasibility-driven loss; the resulting states, when measured, yield feasible solutions whose objective values are higher than those obtained by standard linear-ramp QAOA or by the per-penalty linear variant, as demonstrated on satellite mission planning instances.

What carries the argument

Per-constraint penalty ramp schedules promoted to variational parameters and optimized jointly under a feasibility-driven loss function.

If this is right

  • Nested loops for tuning penalty coefficients are no longer required.
  • The method scales to problems whose constraints have widely different magnitudes without manual rescaling.
  • High feasibility rates appear automatically, which is essential for deployment in planning applications.
  • A single filter hyperparameter in the loss lets the user move along the feasibility-optimality curve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same per-penalty schedule idea could be tried in other variational algorithms that currently rely on fixed penalties.
  • Because the extra parameters are independent of depth, the approach may keep its advantage even when circuit depth is limited by hardware noise.
  • The observed feasibility-optimality trade-off suggests that future work could replace the simple filter with a multi-objective optimizer.

Load-bearing premise

Joint optimization of the penalty schedules and QAOA parameters under the feasibility loss will produce states whose high-probability measurement outcomes are both feasible and high-quality rather than merely feasible but low-quality.

What would settle it

On the same Earth-observation satellite mission planning instances, if piecewise-ramp QAOA at a given depth does not return higher average objective value among feasible samples or a lower fraction of infeasible samples than lr-QAOA, the performance advantage claim is false.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25117 by Daniele Dragoni, Francesco Ferrari, Matteo Vandelli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Satellite mission planning problem. Dots on the map denote observation targets and gray lines represent the satellite ground track. The red points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustrative sketch of the piecewise-ramp QAOA algorithm, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Benchmark results on the MIS problem. The three panels contain box plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Benchmark results on the MIS problem. The three panels contain box plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Benchmark results of the piecewise-ramp QAOA on the MIS problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probabilities to sample feasible and optimal bitstrings from the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for the satellite mission planning problem (1). Boxplots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of bitstring probabilities ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Most available quantum algorithms address constrained optimization problems by treating constraints as soft penalty terms within a QUBO formulation. This approach requires careful adjustment of the penalty coefficients, which scales poorly with the number of constraints and lacks a proper strategy to balance feasibility and solution quality. In this work, we introduce two extensions of standard linear-ramp QAOA (lr-QAOA) tailored to problems with multiple heterogeneous constraints. We first construct $\Lambda$-lr-QAOA, in which each penalty term is assigned its own linear-ramp schedule, promoting penalty weights from external hyperparameters to internal variational parameters of QAOA, similarly to the objective and mixer parameters. By optimizing all schedules jointly in a single run, this approach eliminates nested penalty tuning and scales more efficiently to multiple constraints. The optimization is guided by a feasibility-driven loss function that pushes the quantum state towards high-quality feasible solutions. As a further refinement, we introduce piecewise-ramp QAOA, in which the linear ramps are replaced by two-segment piecewise schedules, enhancing the expressiveness of the Ansatz at the cost of a small parameter overhead independent of the circuit depth. We benchmark both methods on Earth-observation satellite mission planning tasks formulated as budget-constrained Maximum Weight Independent Set problems. Numerical results show that piecewise-ramp QAOA consistently outperforms lr-QAOA and $\Lambda$-lr-QAOA across circuit depths and system sizes. Furthermore, both $\Lambda$-lr-QAOA and piecewise-ramp QAOA exhibit a high feasibility rate, which is crucial in industrial applications. Our analysis highlights an intrinsic feasibility-optimality trade-off, which we address by introducing a filtered variant of the loss providing a single hyperparameter to tune this balance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes two extensions to linear-ramp QAOA (lr-QAOA) for constrained combinatorial optimization: Λ-lr-QAOA, which promotes per-constraint penalty schedules to variational parameters, and piecewise-ramp QAOA, which replaces linear ramps with two-segment piecewise-linear schedules. Both are optimized under a feasibility-driven loss that incorporates a feasibility indicator and an objective term; a filtered variant of the loss is introduced to tune the feasibility-optimality trade-off. The methods are benchmarked on budget-constrained Maximum Weight Independent Set instances arising from Earth-observation satellite mission planning, with the central claim that piecewise-ramp QAOA outperforms both lr-QAOA and Λ-lr-QAOA in solution quality while maintaining high feasibility rates across circuit depths and system sizes.

Significance. If the numerical claims are placed on a statistically firmer footing, the work would supply a concrete, scalable route to handling heterogeneous constraints inside QAOA without external penalty tuning. The internalisation of per-constraint ramps and the introduction of piecewise schedules increase ansatz expressivity at modest parameter cost, while the feasibility-driven loss and its filtered variant directly address a known practical difficulty. The choice of an industrially motivated benchmark set is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (numerical results): the claim of consistent outperformance by piecewise-ramp QAOA is presented without error bars, without the number of random seeds or independent runs, and without any comparison to classical solvers or to other recent constrained-QAOA formulations. These omissions make the headline numerical result difficult to evaluate and constitute a load-bearing weakness for the central empirical claim.
  2. [§3] §3 (loss function and filtered variant): the feasibility-driven loss is asserted to produce states whose measurement statistics correspond to high-quality feasible solutions. However, the manuscript does not report an explicit check that the conditional expectation of the objective (given feasibility) exceeds the value obtained by uniform sampling over the feasible subspace. Because the loss contains a dominant feasibility indicator, gradient descent can increase feasible probability mass without regard to objective values inside that subspace; the filtered variant is introduced precisely to control this trade-off, yet no quantitative verification of its effect on conditional objective quality is supplied.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2-3] Notation for the per-constraint ramp slopes and breakpoints should be introduced once in a single table or equation block rather than being redefined inline in multiple places.
  2. [Figures in §4] Figure captions for the performance plots should state the number of instances, system sizes, and circuit depths explicitly rather than referring the reader to the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that help strengthen the empirical foundation of the work. We address each major point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (numerical results): the claim of consistent outperformance by piecewise-ramp QAOA is presented without error bars, without the number of random seeds or independent runs, and without any comparison to classical solvers or to other recent constrained-QAOA formulations. These omissions make the headline numerical result difficult to evaluate and constitute a load-bearing weakness for the central empirical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation of numerical results requires error bars and explicit reporting of the number of random seeds and independent runs to allow proper evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will include these statistics, averaging over multiple independent optimization runs with error bars. Regarding comparisons to classical solvers or other constrained-QAOA formulations, the central contribution is the relative improvement of the proposed variants over the lr-QAOA baseline under identical conditions and the same feasibility-driven loss; broader benchmarking against classical methods or alternative QAOA approaches lies outside the scope of the present study and would require a separate, substantially expanded experimental section. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (loss function and filtered variant): the feasibility-driven loss is asserted to produce states whose measurement statistics correspond to high-quality feasible solutions. However, the manuscript does not report an explicit check that the conditional expectation of the objective (given feasibility) exceeds the value obtained by uniform sampling over the feasible subspace. Because the loss contains a dominant feasibility indicator, gradient descent can increase feasible probability mass without regard to objective values inside that subspace; the filtered variant is introduced precisely to control this trade-off, yet no quantitative verification of its effect on conditional objective quality is supplied.

    Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit verification comparing the conditional expectation of the objective (conditioned on feasibility) to uniform sampling over the feasible subspace would strengthen the validation of the loss. In the revised manuscript we will add this quantitative check for both the standard and filtered variants of the feasibility-driven loss, demonstrating the effect of the filter hyperparameter on conditional objective quality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; new penalty schedules and feasibility-driven loss explicitly constructed, performance from numerical simulation

full rationale

The paper defines Λ-lr-QAOA (per-constraint linear ramps promoted to variational parameters) and piecewise-ramp QAOA (two-segment schedules) as explicit extensions of lr-QAOA, together with a new feasibility-driven loss. These are presented as constructions rather than derivations that reduce to prior fits or self-citations. Benchmark claims rest on numerical results for MWIS instances, not on any equation that is forced by construction or by a load-bearing self-citation chain. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggled steps appear.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that joint optimization of penalty schedules with QAOA parameters yields feasible high-quality solutions and that the chosen satellite-planning instances are representative; no new physical axioms or invented particles are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • per-constraint ramp slopes and breakpoints
    These become variational parameters optimized inside QAOA rather than external hyperparameters.
  • feasibility weight in the loss
    Single hyperparameter introduced to tune the feasibility-optimality trade-off in the filtered loss variant.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The QUBO formulation with soft penalties correctly encodes the original constrained problem when penalties are large enough.
    Standard assumption in penalty-based QAOA; invoked when the authors state that constraints are treated as soft penalty terms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5832 in / 1425 out tokens · 16722 ms · 2026-06-25T23:22:23.954403+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

76 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alumur, Claudia Archetti, Hayriye Ayhan, Maria Battarra, Julia A

    Fotios Petropoulos, Gilbert Laporte, Emel Aktas, Sibel A. Alumur, Claudia Archetti, Hayriye Ayhan, Maria Battarra, Julia A. Bennell, Jean-Marie Bourjolly, John E. Boylan, Mich `ele Breton, David Canca, Laurent Charlin, Bo Chen, Cihan Tugrul Cicek, Louis Anthony Cox Jr, Christine S.M. Currie, Erik Demeulemeester, Li Ding, Stephen M. Disney, Matthias Ehrgot...

    work page doi:10.1080/01605682.2023.2253852 2024

  2. [2]

    Nemhauser and Laurence A

    George L. Nemhauser and Laurence A. Wolsey.Inte- ger and combinatorial optimization. Wiley-Interscience, USA, 1988.doi:10.1002/9781118627372

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118627372 1988

  3. [3]

    Hillier and G.J

    F.S. Hillier and G.J. Lieberman.Introduction to Op- erations Research. McGraw-Hill International Editions. McGraw-Hill, 2001. URL: https://books.google.it/books? id=SrfgAAAAMAAJ

    2001

  4. [4]

    Woeginger.Exact Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems: A Survey, pages 185–207

    Gerhard J. Woeginger.Exact Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems: A Survey, pages 185–207. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003.doi:10.1007/ 3-540-36478-1_17

    2003

  5. [5]

    Dorit S. Hochba. Approximation algorithms for np-hard problems.SIGACT News, 28(2):40–52, June 1997.doi: 10.1145/261342.571216

    work page doi:10.1145/261342.571216 1997

  6. [6]

    Kochenderfer and Tim A

    Mykel J. Kochenderfer and Tim A. Wheeler.Algo- rithms for Optimization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,

  7. [7]

    URL: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262039420/ algorithms-for-optimization/. 10

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(12):718–735, 2024

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, An- dreas B ¨artschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Gior- gio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J. Egger, Bruce G. Elmegreen, Nicola Franco, Filippo Fratini, Bryce Fuller, Julien Gacon, Constantin Gonciulea, Sander Gribling, Swati Gupta, Stuart Hadfield, Raoul Heese, Gerhard Kircher, Thomas Kleinert, Thors...

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

  9. [9]

    Egger, Heike Riel, Stefan Woerner, and Christa Zoufal.Quantum Optimization, pages 57–64

    Daniel J. Egger, Heike Riel, Stefan Woerner, and Christa Zoufal.Quantum Optimization, pages 57–64. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2026.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-031-90727-2_6

    2026

  10. [10]

    Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas

    Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor G. Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2),

  11. [11]

    URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/12/2/34, doi:10.3390/a12020034

    work page doi:10.3390/a12020034 1999

  12. [12]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    Andreas B ¨artschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 72– 82, 2020.doi:10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00020

    work page doi:10.1109/qce49297.2020.00020 2020

  13. [14]

    Franke, J

    Ningyi Xie, Jiahua Xu, Tiejin Chen, Xinwei Lee, Yoshiyuki Saito, Nobuyoshi Asai, and Dongsheng Cai. Performance upper bound of a grover-mixer quantum alternating operator ansatz.Phys. Rev. A, 111:012401, Jan 2025. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.111.012401,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 111.012401

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva 2025

  14. [15]

    Constraint-preserving quantum algorithm for the multi- frequency antenna placement problem, 2025

    Matteo Vandelli, Francesco Ferrari, and Daniele Dragoni. Constraint-preserving quantum algorithm for the multi- frequency antenna placement problem, 2025. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.15566,arXiv:2511.15566

    arXiv 2025

  15. [16]

    Liu, Y .-H

    David Bucher, Daniel Porawski, Maximilian Janetschek, Jonas Stein, Corey O’Meara, Giorgio Cortiana, and Clau- dia Linnhoff-Popien. Efficient qaoa architecture for solv- ing multi-constrained optimization problems. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 01, pages 356–367, 2025.doi:10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00048

    work page doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00048 2025

  16. [17]

    Empirical quantum advantage in constrained optimiza- tion from encoded unitary designs, 2026

    Chinonso Onah, Roman Firt, and Kristel Michielsen. Empirical quantum advantage in constrained optimiza- tion from encoded unitary designs, 2026. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2511.14296,arXiv:2511.14296

    arXiv 2026

  17. [18]

    Constrained quantum optimization via iterative warm-start xy-mixers, 2026

    David Bucher, Maximilian Janetschek, Michael Poppel, Jonas Stein, Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, and Sebastian Feld. Constrained quantum optimization via iterative warm-start xy-mixers, 2026. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2604.02083,arXiv:2604.02083

    arXiv 2026

  18. [19]

    The unconstrained binary quadratic programming prob- lem: a survey.Journal of Combinatorial Opti- mization, 28(1):58–81, Jul 2014.doi:10.1007/ s10878-014-9734-0

    Gary Kochenberger, Jin-Kao Hao, Fred Glover, Mark Lewis, Zhipeng L ¨u, Haibo Wang, and Yang Wang. The unconstrained binary quadratic programming prob- lem: a survey.Journal of Combinatorial Opti- mization, 28(1):58–81, Jul 2014.doi:10.1007/ s10878-014-9734-0

    2014

  19. [20]

    (2014) Ising formulations of many NP problems

    Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many np problems.Frontiers in Physics, V olume 2 - 2014, 2014. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/ journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005, doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 2014

  20. [21]

    A tu- torial on formulating and using qubo models, 2019

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, and Yu Du. A tu- torial on formulating and using qubo models, 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11538,arXiv:1811. 11538

    arXiv 2019

  21. [22]

    Alleviat- ing the quantum big-m problem.npj Quantum In- formation, 11(1):125, Jul 2025.doi:10.1038/ s41534-025-01067-0

    Edoardo Alessandroni, Sergi Ramos-Calderer, Ingo Roth, Emiliano Traversi, and Leandro Aolita. Alleviat- ing the quantum big-m problem.npj Quantum In- formation, 11(1):125, Jul 2025.doi:10.1038/ s41534-025-01067-0

    2025

  22. [23]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, 2014. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028,arXiv:1411. 4028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [24]

    A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants , volume=

    Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer. A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants. Physics Reports, 1068:1–66, 2024. A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants. URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S03701573240...

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

  24. [25]

    Bittel \ and\ author M

    Lennart Bittel and Martin Kliesch. Training vari- ational quantum algorithms is np-hard.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:120502, Sep 2021. URL: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.120502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.120502 2021

  25. [26]

    Multi- start methods for quantum approximate optimization

    Ruslan Shaydulin, Ilya Safro, and Jeffrey Larson. Multi- start methods for quantum approximate optimization. In 2019 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Con- ference (HPEC), page 1–8. IEEE, 2019. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.1109/HPEC.2019.8916288,doi:10.1109/ hpec.2019.8916288

    work page doi:10.1109/hpec.2019.8916288 2019

  26. [27]

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices.Phys. Rev. X, 10:021067, Jun 2020. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067, doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.021067 2020

  27. [28]

    Coles, and M

    Martin Larocca, Piotr Czarnik, Kunal Sharma, Gopikr- 11 ishnan Muraleedharan, Patrick J. Coles, and M. Cerezo. Diagnosing Barren Plateaus with Tools from Quantum Optimal Control.Quantum, 6:824, September 2022. doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-29-824

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-09-29-824 2022

  28. [29]

    Matteo Vandelli, Alessandra Lignarolo, Carlo Cavaz- zoni, and Daniele Dragoni. Evaluating the practi- cality of quantum optimization algorithms for proto- typical industrial applications.Quantum Information Processing, 23(10):344, Oct 2024.doi:10.1007/ s11128-024-04560-1

    2024

  29. [30]

    Deep-Circuit QAOA.Quantum, 9:1882, October 2025.doi:10

    Gereon Koßmann, Lennart Binkowski, Lauritz van Luijk, Timo Ziegler, and Ren ´e Schwonnek. Deep-Circuit QAOA.Quantum, 9:1882, October 2025.doi:10. 22331/q-2025-10-13-1882

    2025

  30. [31]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brandao, Michael Broughton, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Hartmut Neven. For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimiza- tion algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances, 2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812. 04170,arXiv:1812.04170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [32]

    Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm.Com- puter Physics Communications, 278:108411, 2022

    Dennis Willsch, Madita Willsch, Fengping Jin, Kris- tel Michielsen, and Hans De Raedt. Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm.Com- puter Physics Communications, 278:108411, 2022. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010465522001308,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022. 108411

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022 2022

  32. [33]

    Analog quantum approximate optimization al- gorithm.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045035, sep 2022.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac91f0

    Nancy Barraza, Gabriel Alvarado Barrios, Jie Peng, Lucas Lamata, Enrique Solano, and Francisco Albarr ´an- Arriagada. Analog quantum approximate optimization al- gorithm.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045035, sep 2022.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac91f0

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac91f0 2022

  33. [34]

    Parameter Setting in Quan- tum Approximate Optimization of Weighted Problems

    Shree Hari Sureshbabu, Dylan Herman, Ruslan Shay- dulin, Joao Basso, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Yue Sun, and Marco Pistoia. Parameter Setting in Quan- tum Approximate Optimization of Weighted Problems. Quantum, 8:1231, January 2024.doi:10.22331/ q-2024-01-18-1231

    2024

  34. [35]

    J. A. Monta ˜nez-Barrera, Dennis Willsch, and Kristel Michielsen. Transfer learning of optimal qaoa parameters in combinatorial optimization.Quantum Information Processing, 24(5):129, May 2025.doi:10.1007/ s11128-025-04743-4

    2025

  35. [36]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with fixed number of parameters, 2025

    Sebasti ´an Saavedra-Pino, Ricardo Quispe-Mendiz ´abal, Gabriel Alvarado Barrios, Enrique Solano, Juan Carlos Retamal, and Francisco Albarr ´an-Arriagada. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with fixed number of parameters, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512. 21181,arXiv:2512.21181

    arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    Transferring linearly fixed qaoa angles: performance and real device results, 2025

    Ryo Sakai, Hiromichi Matsuyama, Wai-Hong Tam, and Yu Yamashiro. Transferring linearly fixed qaoa angles: performance and real device results, 2025. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.12632,arXiv:2504.12632

    arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Regularized warm-started quantum approximate optimization and conditions for surpass- ing classical solvers on the max-cut problem, 2026

    Zichang He, Anuj Apte, Brandon Augustino, Arman Babakhani, Abid Khan, Sivaprasad Omanakuttan, and Ruslan Shaydulin. Regularized warm-started quantum approximate optimization and conditions for surpass- ing classical solvers on the max-cut problem, 2026. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10191,arXiv:2603. 10191

    arXiv 2026

  38. [39]

    A spectral gap informed parameter schedule for qaoa, 2026

    Kieran McDowall, Konstantinos Georgopoulos, and Pet- ros Wallden. A spectral gap informed parameter schedule for qaoa, 2026. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24580, arXiv:2604.24580

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [40]

    Haupt, Alberto Baiardi, Dimitrios Athanasakos, M

    Maosheng Guo, Joel Jurado Diaz, Anurag Ramesh, Con- rad J. Haupt, Alberto Baiardi, Dimitrios Athanasakos, M. Emre Sahin, Oscar Wallis, George Pennington, Chris- tian Arenz, Sebastian Brandhofer, Georgios Korpas, Ieva ˇCepait˙e, J. A. Monta ˜nez-Barrera, Jakub Marecek, Davide Venturelli, Stephan Eidenbenz, David E. Bernal Neira, and Daniel J. Egger. Settin...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [41]

    Quantum annealing: a journey through digitaliza- tion, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes,

    Glen Bigan Mbeng, Rosario Fazio, and Giuseppe San- toro. Quantum annealing: a journey through digitaliza- tion, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes,

  41. [42]

    URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08948,arXiv: 1906.08948

    arXiv 1906

  42. [43]

    Classical symmetries and the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm.Quantum Information Processing, 20(11), October 2021

    Ruslan Shaydulin, Stuart Hadfield, Tad Hogg, and Ilya Safro. Classical symmetries and the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm.Quantum Information Processing, 20(11), October 2021. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/s11128-021-03298-4,doi:10.1007/ s11128-021-03298-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-021-03298-4 2021

  43. [44]

    Cotton, and Norm M

    Vladimir Kremenetski, Tad Hogg, Stuart Hadfield, Stephen J. Cotton, and Norm M. Tubman. Quantum alternating operator ansatz (qaoa) phase diagrams and applications for quantum chemistry, 2021. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2108.13056,arXiv:2108.13056

    arXiv 2021

  44. [45]

    Sack and Maksym Serbyn

    Stefan H. Sack and Maksym Serbyn. Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Quantum, 5:491, July 2021.doi:10. 22331/q-2021-07-01-491

    2021

  45. [46]

    Vladimir Kremenetski, Anuj Apte, Tad Hogg, Stuart Hadfield, and Norm M. Tubman. Quantum alternating operator ansatz (qaoa) beyond low depth with gradually changing unitaries, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2305.04455,arXiv:2305.04455

    arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    Parameter setting heuristics make the quantum approximate optimization algorithm suitable for the early fault-tolerant era

    Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Dylan Herman, Chang- hao Li, Rudy Raymond, Shree Hari Sureshbabu, and Marco Pistoia. Parameter setting heuristics make the quantum approximate optimization algorithm suitable for the early fault-tolerant era. InProceedings of the 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ICCAD ’24, New York, NY , USA, 2...

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Extrapolation method to optimize linear-ramp quantum approximate optimization algorithm parame- ters: Evaluation of runtime scaling.Phys

    Vanessa Dehn, Martin Zaefferer, Gerhard Hellstern, Karthik Jayadevan, Florentin Reiter, and Thomas Wellens. Extrapolation method to optimize linear-ramp quantum approximate optimization algorithm parame- ters: Evaluation of runtime scaling.Phys. Rev. A, 113:032413, Mar 2026. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/l5r4-zcqv,doi:10.1103/l5r4-zcqv

    work page doi:10.1103/l5r4-zcqv 2026

  48. [49]

    J. A. Monta ˜nez-Barrera and Kristel Michielsen. To- 12 ward a linear-ramp qaoa protocol: evidence of a scaling advantage in solving some combinatorial optimization problems.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):131, Aug 2025.doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01082-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01082-1 2025

  49. [50]

    Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2019.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-030-10501-3_11

    Snezana Mitrovic-Minic, Darren Thomson, Jean Berger, and Jeff Secker.Collection Planning and Schedul- ing for Multiple Heterogeneous Satellite Missions: Sur- vey, Optimization Problem, and Mathematical Program- ming Formulation, pages 271–305. Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2019.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-030-10501-3_11

    2019

  50. [51]

    A mixed integer linear programming model for multi-satellite scheduling.European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2):694– 707, 2019

    Xiaoyu Chen, Gerhard Reinelt, Guangming Dai, and Andreas Spitz. A mixed integer linear programming model for multi-satellite scheduling.European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2):694– 707, 2019. URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0377221718309998, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.058

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.058 2019

  51. [52]

    Agile earth observation satellite schedul- ing over 20 years: Formulations, methods, and future directions.IEEE Systems Journal, 15(3):3881–3892,

    Xinwei Wang, Guohua Wu, Lining Xing, and Witold Pedrycz. Agile earth observation satellite schedul- ing over 20 years: Formulations, methods, and future directions.IEEE Systems Journal, 15(3):3881–3892,

  52. [53]

    2997050,doi:10.1109/jsyst.2020.2997050

    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2020. 2997050,doi:10.1109/jsyst.2020.2997050

    work page doi:10.1109/jsyst.2020 2020

  53. [54]

    A review of the frameworks, models, and algorithms for large-scale imaging satellite mission planning.Expert Syst

    Xiutian Li, Yingwu Chen, Lining Xing, Yingguo Chen, Yonghao Du, and Lei He. A review of the frameworks, models, and algorithms for large-scale imaging satellite mission planning.Expert Syst. Appl., 292(C), November 2025.doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128471

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128471 2025

  54. [55]

    Springer US, Boston, MA, 2003

    Virginie Gabrel and C ´ecile Murat.Mathematical Pro- gramming for Earth Observation Satellite Mission Plan- ning, pages 103–122. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2003. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3752-3_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3752-3_7 2003

  55. [56]

    Kochenderfer

    Duncan Eddy and Mykel J. Kochenderfer. A maximum independent set method for scheduling earth-observing satellite constellations.Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 58(5):1416–1429, 2021.arXiv: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34931, doi:10.2514/1.A34931

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a34931 2021

  56. [57]

    Agile earth observation satellite scheduling with a quantum annealer.IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 57(5):3520–3528, 2021.doi: 10.1109/TAES.2021.3088490

    Tobias Stollenwerk, Vincent Michaud, Elisabeth Lobe, Mathieu Picard, Achim Basermann, and Thierry Bot- ter. Agile earth observation satellite scheduling with a quantum annealer.IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 57(5):3520–3528, 2021.doi: 10.1109/TAES.2021.3088490

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2021.3088490 2021

  57. [58]

    QAOA with n·p≥ 200

    Nils Quetschlich, Vincent Koch, Lukas Burgholzer, and Robert Wille. A hybrid classical quantum computing ap- proach to the satellite mission planning problem. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 01, pages 642–647, 2023.doi:10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00079

    work page doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00079 2023

  58. [59]

    Taddei, Eneko Osaba, Paloma del Barrio Cabello, Esther Villar-Rodriguez, and Izaskun Oregi

    Ant ´on Makarov, Carlos P ´erez-Herrad´on, Giacomo Franceschetto, M ´arcio M. Taddei, Eneko Osaba, Paloma del Barrio Cabello, Esther Villar-Rodriguez, and Izaskun Oregi. Quantum optimization methods for satellite mis- sion planning.IEEE Access, 12:71808–71820, 2024. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3402990

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3402990 2024

  59. [60]

    One for all: Toward unified foundation models for earth vision

    Amer Delilbasic, Bertrand Le Saux, Morris Riedel, Kris- tel Michielsen, and Gabriele Cavallaro. Reverse quantum annealing for hybrid quantum-classical satellite mission planning. InIGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pages 432– 436, 2024.doi:10.1109/IGARSS53475.2024. 10640974

    work page doi:10.1109/igarss53475.2024 2024

  60. [61]

    Towards large-scale satellite ac- quisition scheduling with hybrid quantum-classical op- timization

    Amer Delilbasic, Morris Riedel, Kristel Michielsen, and Gabriele Cavallaro. Towards large-scale satellite ac- quisition scheduling with hybrid quantum-classical op- timization. In Fr ´ed´eric Barbaresco and Franc ¸ois Gerin, editors,Quantum Engineering Sciences and Technologies for Industry and Services, pages 56–64, Cham, 2026. Springer Nature Switzerland

    2026

  61. [62]

    Exploiting adiabatic quantum computing in deep space missions.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3017(1):012042, jun 2025

    Rebecca Casati and Enrico Prati. Exploiting adiabatic quantum computing in deep space missions.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3017(1):012042, jun 2025. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3017/1/012042

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3017/1/012042 2025

  62. [63]

    Quantum optimization for closed-loop scheduling of earth observation satellite formation.SN Computer Science, 6(6):739, Aug 2025

    Vinicius Marchioli, Mattia Boggio, Deborah V olpe, Luca Massotti, and Carlo Novara. Quantum optimization for closed-loop scheduling of earth observation satellite formation.SN Computer Science, 6(6):739, Aug 2025. doi:10.1007/s42979-025-04252-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s42979-025-04252-2 2025

  63. [64]

    Marco Baioletti, Fabrizio Fagiolo, Angelo Oddi, and Riccardo Rasconi. Applying quantum approximate optimization algorithm to the oversubscribed satellite scheduling problem.Journal of Aerospace Informa- tion Systems, 23(5):382–392, 2026.arXiv:https:// doi.org/10.2514/1.I011645,doi:10.2514/ 1.I011645

    work page doi:10.2514/1.i011645 2026

  64. [65]

    Serge Rainjonneau, Igor Tokarev, Sergei Iudin, Saaketh Rayaprolu, Karan Pinto, Daria Lemtiuzhnikova, Mi- ras Koblan, Egor Barashov, Mo Kordzanganeh, Markus Pflitsch, and Alexey Melnikov. Quantum algorithms applied to satellite mission planning for earth observa- tion.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 16:7062...

    work page doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3287154 2023

  65. [66]

    M. R. Garey and David S. Johnson.Computers and In- tractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979

    1979

  66. [67]

    A branch-and-bound algorithm for the knap- sack problem with conflict graph.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 29(3):457–473, 2017.doi:10.1287/ ijoc.2016.0742

    Andrea Bettinelli, Valentina Cacchiani, and Enrico Malaguti. A branch-and-bound algorithm for the knap- sack problem with conflict graph.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 29(3):457–473, 2017.doi:10.1287/ ijoc.2016.0742

    arXiv 2017

  67. [68]

    J A Monta ˜nez-Barrera, Dennis Willsch, A Maldonado- Romo, and Kristel Michielsen. Unbalanced penalization: a new approach to encode inequality constraints of combinatorial problems for quantum optimization algo- rithms.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(2):025022, apr 2024.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad35e4

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad35e4 2024

  68. [69]

    Scalable determination of penalization weights for constrained optimizations on approximate solvers, 2026

    Edoardo Alessandroni, Sergi Ramos-Calderer, Michel Krispin, Fritz Schinkel, Stefan Walter, Martin Kliesch, Leandro Aolita, and Ingo Roth. Scalable determination of penalization weights for constrained optimizations on approximate solvers, 2026. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2604.02416,arXiv:2604.02416

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [70]

    Rainer Storn and Kenneth Price. Differential evolution 13 – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.Journal of Global Optimiza- tion, 11(4):341–359, Dec 1997.doi:10.1023/A: 1008202821328

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 1997

  70. [71]

    A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization

    Richard H. Byrd, Peihuang Lu, Jorge Nocedal, and Ciyou Zhu. A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 16(5):1190–1208, 1995.doi:10.1137/0916069

    work page doi:10.1137/0916069 1995

  71. [72]

    Qiskit: An open-source frame- work for quantum computing, 2023.doi:10.5281/ zenodo.2573505

    Qiskit contributors. Qiskit: An open-source frame- work for quantum computing, 2023.doi:10.5281/ zenodo.2573505

    2023

  72. [73]

    European Space Agency. IRIDE. URL: https://www.esa. int/Applications/Observing the Earth/IRIDE

  73. [74]

    Skyfield: High precision research- grade positions for planets and Earth satellites generator

    Brandon Rhodes. Skyfield: High precision research- grade positions for planets and Earth satellites generator. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.024, July 2019.arXiv:1907.024

    1907

  74. [75]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ aad3e4

    David Amaro, Carlo Modica, Matthias Rosenkranz, Mat- tia Fiorentini, Marcello Benedetti, and Michael Lubasch. Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combina- torial optimization.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(1):015021, feb 2022.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ ac3e54

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ 2022

  75. [76]

    Quantum optimization with a novel gibbs objective function and ansatz architecture search.Phys

    Li Li, Minjie Fan, Marc Coram, Patrick Riley, and Stefan Leichenauer. Quantum optimization with a novel gibbs objective function and ansatz architecture search.Phys. Rev. Res., 2:023074, Apr 2020. URL: https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023074,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023074

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023074 2020

  76. [77]

    (11) was not restricted to the feasible subspaceF, the limitµ→0 would yield P σ Eobj(σ)|⟨σ|ψ⟩| 2, i.e

    We note that if the sum over bitstrings in Eq. (11) was not restricted to the feasible subspaceF, the limitµ→0 would yield P σ Eobj(σ)|⟨σ|ψ⟩| 2, i.e. the expectation value of the objective Hamiltonian. This is the analogous ofL F with an unrestricted sum over all bitstrings. Here, however,L (G) F (µ)≈ L F /pfeas −µ −1 log(pfeas)for µ→0. So the filtered lo...