Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

From Barren Plateaus to SPSA Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper proves that SPSA, under barren-plateau scaling, requires exponentially many iterations and measurements to reach fixed relative gradient energy.

desk verdict A clean sufficient-condition analysis of SPSA under barren plateaus, with honest bounds, but the exponential-resource headline overstates what a sufficient bound can prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09810 v1 pith:ROOXRER3 submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph math.OC

Zhen Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.OC MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords variationalquantumeigensolverSPSAbarrenplateaufinite-shotmeasurementgradientestimationsignal-to-noiseratiobudgetconvergenceguarantee
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to close the gap between the geometry of barren plateaus and the actual cost of running a variational quantum eigensolver. Its central contention is that exponentially vanishing gradients translate, through finite-shot measurement noise, into exponentially large iteration counts and measurement budgets for SPSA, the standard two-evaluation stochastic optimizer used on quantum hardware. The author derives non-asymptotic bias and variance bounds for the SPSA gradient estimator, introduces a signal-to-noise ratio for gradient reliability, and proves a convergence rate of $O(T^{-1/2})$ for the minimum expected gradient energy. Substituting the conventional barren-plateau scaling $E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]=O(N2^{-n})$ converts those bounds into exponential growth in the number of qubits, making high-accuracy VQE optimization impractical at large $n$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SPSA gradient estimator $\hat g_\ell(\theta)=(\hat f(\theta+c\Delta)-\hat f(\theta-c\Delta))/(2c\Delta_\ell)$, computed from two noisy objective evaluations with a Rademacher perturbation vector $\Delta$. The argument decomposes this estimator into the true partial derivative, cross terms from other gradient components, a finite-difference remainder controlled by the Hessian Lipschitz constant, and measurement noise. A signal-to-noise ratio, defined as $E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2]/E_\Theta[\mathrm{Var}(\hat g_\ell-\partial_\ell f)]$, converts the variance bound into a measurement-budget requirement. The paper balances the bias growth in $c$ against the $1/(2c^2M)$ measurement variance by setting $c^2=\Theta(\sqrt{E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2]})$, which is what raises the shot-noise exponent from $1$ to $3/2$. The convergence proof then uses the biased-descent lemma with the explicitly scheduled step size, perturbation radius, and per-iteration shot count, yielding the $O(T^{-1/2})$ rate and the $5/2$ exponent in the total budget.

What would settle it

Measure, for the RealAmplitudes ansatz at $n=10,20,30$, the empirical gradient energy $E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]$ under the distribution of SPSA iterates rather than under the initialization ensemble; if it decays more slowly than $2^{-n}$, or if the mean gradient is not negligible compared with the second moment, the $\Omega(2^{3n/2})$ and $\Omega(2^{5n/2})$ resource conclusions of Corollary 1 and Theorem 2 are contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a quantitative pipeline from landscape flatness to optimizer cost. For the ideal VQE objective $f(\theta)=\langle\phi_0|U^\dagger(\theta)HU(\theta)|\phi_0\rangle$ with $H=\sum_{\alpha=1}^L w_\alpha P_\alpha$, the Hessian is Lipschitz with constant $8\|w\|_1 N^{3/2}$, and the finite-shot measurement noise is conditionally unbiased with variance at most $\|w\|_2^2/M$. These facts bound the bias of each SPSA gradient component by $4c^2 N^3\|w\|_1$ and its variance by the sum of the SPSA intrinsic perturbation variance, the measurement variance $1/(2c^2M)$, and higher-order Hessian terms. Choosing $c^2=\gamma\sqrt{E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2]}$ and requiring an SNR of $\epsilon_1$ forces a per-Pauli measurement budget $M=\Omega(\epsilon_1\|w\|_2^2/(E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2])^{3/2})$, which under the barren-plateau condition $E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2]=O(2^{-n})$ is $\Omega(2^{3n/2})$. For the full trajectory, with $\mu_t=\mu_0 T^{-1/2}$, $c_t=c_0 T^{-1/8}$, and $M_t=M_0 T^{1/4}$, the paper proves $\min_{0\le t\le T-1}\mathbb{E}[\|\nabla f(\theta_t)\|_2^2]\le \kappa T^{-1/2}$, and achieving the relative accuracy $\epsilon_2 E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]$ requires $T=\Omega(\kappa^2/(\epsilon_2^2(E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2])^2))$ iterations and $N_{\rm SPSA}=\Omega(LM_0\kappa^{5/2}/(\epsilon_2^{5/2}(E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2])^{5/2}))$ total measurements; with $E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]=O(N2^{-n})$, both grow exponentially in $n$.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential conclusion rests on the imported barren-plateau scaling $E_\Theta[(\partial_\ell f)^2]=O(2^{-n})$ and $E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]=O(N2^{-n})$ for the parameter distribution that SPSA actually encounters, together with the zero-mean-gradient condition that makes variance equal the second moment; if those fail along the trajectory, the exponential iteration and measurement bounds do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed Hamiltonian and a fixed relative accuracy $\epsilon_2$, the iteration count $T$ scales as the square of the inverse intrinsic gradient energy, so any exponential decay of the gradient energy translates directly into exponentially many SPSA steps.
  • The per-gradient measurement cost for a single reliable step scales as the $3/2$ power of the inverse gradient second moment, worse than the $1/M$ shot-noise scaling because the perturbation radius must shrink as the landscape flattens.
  • Under the standard scaling $E_\Theta[\|\nabla f(\theta)\|_2^2]=O(N2^{-n})$, the total measurement budget grows like $\Omega(2^{5n/2})$ up to polynomial factors, so no fixed polynomial shot budget can keep SPSA trainable in the barren-plateau regime.
  • The same theorem says that any initialization or ansatz modification that increases the intrinsic gradient energy automatically improves both iteration and measurement complexity, because both are polynomial in the inverse of that energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication beyond the paper: the same SNR-based argument should apply to any two-evaluation stochastic gradient estimator, so the $3/2$ and $5/2$ exponents are likely structural for derivative-free optimizers on flat quantum landscapes, not special to SPSA.
  • If the gradient second moment decays polynomially rather than exponentially, the paper's formulas predict polynomial iteration and measurement costs; this gives a concrete resource-based ranking for barren-plateau mitigation strategies by the gradient energy they preserve.
  • A testable extension would track the parameter distribution actually visited by SPSA iterates; if that distribution differs from the symmetric initialization ensemble used in barren-plateau theory, the predicted $\Omega(2^{3n/2})$ and $\Omega(2^{5n/2})$ budgets may over- or under-state the true cost.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies SPSA optimization for variational quantum eigensolvers under finite-shot measurement noise. It proves a Hessian Lipschitz bound for VQE cost landscapes (Proposition 1), a measurement-noise model with bias/variance bounds for the SPSA gradient estimator (Lemma 1 and Theorem 1), an SNR-based measurement-budget formula (Corollary 1), and a convergence guarantee with explicit schedule μ_t=μ0 T^{-1/2}, c_t=c0 T^{-1/8}, M_t=M0 T^{1/4} (Theorem 2). Using the barren-plateau scaling EΘ[(∂ℓ f)^2]=O(2^{-n}) and EΘ[||∇f||^2]=O(N 2^{-n}), the paper claims exponential growth in the required iteration count and total measurement budget.

Significance. The paper's non-asymptotic characterizations are a useful contribution: the bias/variance decomposition is explicit, the convergence rate O(T^{-1/2}) with a total measurement budget scaling is clearly derived, and the numerical experiments illustrate a contrast between SPSA and a constrained SPSA-IHT variant. If the sufficient bounds are treated as sufficient conditions, the results provide a rigorous framework for quantifying how landscape flatness affects SPSA resource counts. The central exponential-resource claim, however, is conditional on imported BP scalings and on interpreting sufficient bounds as requirements; the paper does not provide lower bounds or verify the scaling for its own ansatz.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (17)-(18), and Abstract] The paper repeatedly converts a sufficient condition into a 'required' cost. Theorem 2 proves only that if T=Ω(κ^2/(ε2^2(EΘ[||∇f||^2])^2)), then min_t E[||∇f(θ_t)||^2] ≤ O(ε2 EΘ[||∇f||^2]); it does not show that smaller T fails to reach the target. Therefore the Abstract's statement that BP causes an exponential increase in 'the number of iterations required' is not a logical consequence of the theorem. The claims in the Conclusion and the paragraph after Theorem 2 should be reworded to 'sufficient iteration count' and 'sufficient measurement budget,' or supplemented with a lower bound.
  2. [Section 2, after Corollary 1; Section 3] The exponential-resource conclusion rests on the imported scalings EΘ[(∂ℓ f)^2]=O(2^{-n}) and EΘ[||∇f||^2]=O(N 2^{-n}), which require the mean gradient to vanish under the parameter distribution. These conditions are not derived for the RealAmplitudes ansatz used in the simulations, nor are they numerically verified for that ansatz. As the headline result is the exponential growth in Eq. (17)-(18), the paper should either prove or cite a result that the specific ansatz and parameter distribution satisfy these scalings, or state the conclusion as conditional on that scaling.
  3. [Section 2, Corollary 1, Eq. (12)-(13)] Corollary 1's measurement-budget conclusion M=Ω(ε1||w||2^2/(EΘ[(∂ℓ f)^2])^{3/2}) is only valid when ε1 satisfies condition (12). For large N, the right-hand side of (12) tends to 0 polynomially in N (e.g., O(N^{-6}) for ||w||1=O(1)), so a fixed target signal-to-noise ratio ε1 becomes inadmissible as N grows. The subsequent claim that BP forces M=Ω(2^{3n/2}) for a fixed SNR therefore does not follow for large N unless ε1 is allowed to shrink with N. The validity regime of Eq. (13) must be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, Theorem 2 and Eq. (17)] The convergence target in Theorem 2 is a fraction ε2 of EΘ[||∇f||^2], which is itself exponentially small under BP. Because Eq. (16) only upper-bounds the minimum gradient energy over the trajectory, the paper does not establish that the SPSA trajectory initially lies above this target; if the initial gradient energy is already of order EΘ[||∇f||^2], the sufficient T from Eq. (17) is not indicative of the actual number of iterations needed. An exponential iteration-complexity claim requires a corresponding lower bound or a trajectory-dependent target.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) contains an ill-formed expression 'T=Ω(κ^2, (ε2)^2(... )^2)'; this should be T=Ω(κ^2/((ε2)^2(EΘ[||∇f||^2])^2)).
  2. [Appendix E, proof of Theorem 2] The identity Σ_{t=0}^{T-1} c_t^4 μ_t = c0 μ0 is incorrect; the right-hand side should be c0^4 μ0. Consequently, the constant κ in Theorem 2 and Eq. (87) should contain c0^4 rather than c0. The O(T^{-1/2}) rate is unaffected.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (14)] The schedules in (14) depend on the total horizon T, so T must be known in advance to implement the algorithm. This should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 3] The simulations use a fixed shot budget M=1000 per Pauli term per evaluation, whereas Theorem 2 analyzes M_t=M0 T^{1/4} increasing with the horizon; the relationship between the simulated setting and the theorem should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential-resource conclusions are algebraic consequences of explicit SPSA bounds plus externally cited BP scaling, not restatements of the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in its core steps. Theorem 1's bias and variance bounds are proved from Proposition 1 (an explicit Hessian Lipschitz estimate) and Lemma 1 (an i.i.d. finite-shot measurement model); neither proof imports the target convergence or complexity claims as an input. Corollary 1 follows by algebra from Theorem 1 under two explicitly stated choices: EΘ[||∇f||²]=N EΘ[(∂ℓf)²] and c²=γ√EΘ[(∂ℓf)²]. The resulting measurement budget M=Ω(ε1||w||²/(EΘ[(∂ℓf)²])^{3/2}) is a consequence of those assumptions, not an identity with them. Theorem 2 is a standard sufficient-condition convergence bound with explicit schedules μt=μ0T^{-1/2}, ct=c0T^{-1/8}, Mt=M0T^{1/4}, and the later exponential claims are obtained by substituting the externally cited BP scalings EΘ[(∂ℓf)²]=O(2^{-n}) and EΘ[||∇f||²]=O(N2^{-n}) together with the stated mean-gradient-zero assumption. That substitution is algebra, so the exponential iteration and measurement-budget bounds are applications of imported BP scaling rather than equations equivalent to their own conclusions. The paper's only self-citation [11] appears in a general list of BP references and is not load-bearing. Concerns that the mean-zero assumption may fail for the RealAmplitudes ansatz or that a sufficient iteration bound is later worded as a requirement are scientific validity or overstatement issues, not circularity, and do not raise the score under the rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of external inputs: the standard Pauli Hamiltonian representation, the symmetric gate parameterization, the finite-shot independence model, and the cited BP scaling. None of these are fitted to the paper's own target result, so the circularity burden is low. The most load-bearing external input is the BP scaling EΘ[||∇f||²]=O(N2^{-n}).

free parameters (4)
  • γ (Corollary 1 perturbation constant) = γ>0, stated independent of n
    Sets c²=γ√EΘ[(∂_ℓ f)²] to balance bias and noise. The bound M=Ω(ε1||w||2²/b^{3/2}) inherits the validity condition ε1<1/A(N,w,γ), which for fixed γ and large N cannot be satisfied, limiting the corollary's domain.
  • SPSA schedule constants μ0, c0, M0 (Theorem 2) = μ0≤1/(4(3N²+N)||w||1), c0>0, M0>0
    Algorithm hyperparameters entering κ and the total budget N_SPSA. They are not fitted to data, but their choice controls the sufficient bound; e.g., larger M0 improves κ at added measurement cost.
  • Simulation hyperparameters (Section 3) = μ_t=0.1 t^{-1/2}, c_t=0.5 t^{-1/8}, M=1000 shots per Pauli
    Hand-chosen for the numerical illustration; no grid search, trial count, or error bars reported.
  • SPSA-IHT parameter range = [−π/N, π/N]
    Chosen following Ref. [24, Thm 1] to mitigate BP; affects only the simulation comparison.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Parameterized gates have form U_ℓ(θ_ℓ)=e^{-iθ_ℓ G_ℓ} with ||G_ℓ||≤1.
    Invoked in Proposition 1 and throughout the proofs; excludes ansatze with non-exponential gates or unbounded generators.
  • domain assumption Measurement outcomes for different Pauli operators, perturbation signs, and shots are mutually independent conditional on the perturbation Δ.
    Required for Lemma 1 variance bound Var(ξ)≤||w||2²/M; assumes each Pauli term is estimated with its own M fresh shots.
  • domain assumption The mean gradient vanishes under the parameter distribution, so Var(∂_ℓ f)=E[(∂_ℓ f)²].
    Used after Corollary 1 to convert BP variance scaling O(2^{-n}) into the second-moment b used in the SNR budget. Not proven for the ensembles in the simulations.
  • domain assumption BP scaling EΘ[(∂_ℓ f)²]=O(2^{-n}) and EΘ[||∇f||²]=O(N2^{-n}) from Ref. [10].
    The load-bearing external input; exponential iteration and measurement conclusions follow by substituting this scaling into the derived bounds.
  • domain assumption For SPSA-IHT, restricted-domain initialization gives EΘ[||∇f||²]=Ω(N L(1+1/S)^{S+1}/(N+1)^{S+1}) from Ref. [24, Thm 1].
    Used only in the numerical section to justify the mitigated-BP baseline.
  • standard math The Hamiltonian is a Hermitian sum of Pauli strings H=Σ w_α P_α with ||P_α||=1, and the objective is bounded by ±||w||1.
    Background for Lemma 2 and all theorem statements; standard spectral norm bound.
  • standard math Clairaut's theorem applies to VQE objective derivatives.
    Used in Proposition 1 to extend derivative formulas to unordered index triples; holds for smooth finite-dimensional parameterizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Barren Plateaus to SPSA Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROOXRER3

@misc{pith2026260809810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Barren Plateaus to SPSA Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROOXRER3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09810}
}
read the original abstract

The barren plateau (BP) phenomenon poses a fundamental challenge to the trainability of variational quantum eigensolvers (VQEs) by causing exponentially vanishing gradients as the system size increases. While extensive studies have investigated the geometric origins of BP, its impact on the optimization dynamics and complexity of practical algorithms under finite-shot measurements remains poorly understood. In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework that characterizes how the BP affects the optimization dynamics of the Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation (SPSA) algorithm and quantifies the resulting iteration complexity and measurement budget. We derive non-asymptotic bias and variance characterizations of the SPSA gradient estimator, introduce a signal-to-noise ratio analysis to quantify gradient reliability, and establish convergence guarantees for SPSA under finite-shot measurements. Our results show that the exponentially decaying gradient energy associated with BP leads to an exponential increase in the number of iterations required to achieve a fixed relative optimization accuracy, which in turn results in an exponential increase in the total measurement budget.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of SPSA and SPSA-IHT for (a,b) the TIM and (c,d) the XYZ model. In (a) and (c), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature commu- nications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al ´an Aspuru- Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature commu- nications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver.Physical review letters, 122(14):140504, 2019

    Daochen Wang, Oscar Higgott, and Stephen Brierley. Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver.Physical review letters, 122(14):140504, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Woss- nig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Progress towards practical quantum variational algo- rithms.Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algo- rithms.Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

    Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard.Physical review letters, 127(12):120502, 2021

    Lennart Bittel and Martin Kliesch. Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard.Physical review letters, 127(12):120502, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits.Nature communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler V olkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits.Nature communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing

    Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R McClean, Zo ¨e Holmes, and Marco Cerezo. Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing. Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):174–189, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Geometric analysis of variational quantum eigensolver.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 59(30):1–31, 2026

    Zhen Qin. Geometric analysis of variational quantum eigensolver.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 59(30):1–31, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Large gradients via correlation in random parameterized quantum circuits

    Tyler V olkoff and Patrick J Coles. Large gradients via correlation in random parameterized quantum circuits. Quantum Science & Technology, 6(2):025008, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Showcasing a barren plateau theory beyond the dynamical lie algebra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11505, 2023

    NL Diaz, Diego Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, Sujay Kazi, Martin Larocca, and M Cerezo. Showcasing a barren plateau theory beyond the dynamical lie algebra.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11505, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits

    Michael Ragone, Bojko N Bakalov, Fr ´ed´eric Sauvage, Alexander F Kemper, Carlos Ortiz Marrero, Mart ´ın Larocca, and Marco Cerezo. A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits. Nature Communications, 15(1):7172, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ans ¨atze with the adjoint representation.Nature Communications, 15(1):7171, 2024

    Enrico Fontana, Dylan Herman, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Niraj Kumar, Romina Yalovetzky, Jamie Heredge, Shree Hari Sureshbabu, and Marco Pistoia. Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ans ¨atze with the adjoint representation.Nature Communications, 15(1):7171, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability?Nature Communications, 16(1):7907, 2025

    Marco Cerezo, Martin Larocca, Diego Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, Nelson L Diaz, Paolo Braccia, Enrico Fontana, Manuel S Rudolph, Pablo Bermejo, Aroosa Ijaz, Supanut Thanasilp, et al. Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability?Nature Communications, 16(1):7907, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control.Quantum, 6:824, 2022

    Martin Larocca, Piotr Czarnik, Kunal Sharma, Gopikrishnan Muraleedharan, Patrick J Coles, and Marco Cerezo. Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control.Quantum, 6:824, 2022. 20

    2022

  10. [18]

    Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus.PRX quantum, 3(1):010313, 2022

    Zo ¨e Holmes, Kunal Sharma, Marco Cerezo, and Patrick J Coles. Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus.PRX quantum, 3(1):010313, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits.Quantum, 3:214, 2019

    Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Mateusz Ostaszewski, and Marcello Benedetti. An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits.Quantum, 3:214, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Entanglement devised barren plateau mitigation

    Taylor L Patti, Khadijeh Najafi, Xun Gao, and Susanne F Yelin. Entanglement devised barren plateau mitigation. Physical Review Research, 3(3):033090, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Flip: A flexible initializer for arbitrarily-sized parametrized quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08572, 2021

    Frederic Sauvage, Sukin Sim, Alexander A Kunitsa, William A Simon, Marta Mauri, and Alejandro Perdomo- Ortiz. Flip: A flexible initializer for arbitrarily-sized parametrized quantum circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08572, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Surviving the barren plateau in variational quantum circuits with bayesian learning initialization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02464, 2022

    Ali Rad, Alireza Seif, and Norbert M Linke. Surviving the barren plateau in variational quantum circuits with bayesian learning initialization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02464, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian ini- tializations in deep variational quantum circuits.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18612– 18627, 2022

    Kaining Zhang, Liu Liu, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Dacheng Tao. Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian ini- tializations in deep variational quantum circuits.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18612– 18627, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Trainability enhancement of parameterized quantum circuits via reduced-domain parameter initialization.Physical Review Applied, 22(5):054005, 2024

    Yabo Wang, Bo Qi, Chris Ferrie, and Daoyi Dong. Trainability enhancement of parameterized quantum circuits via reduced-domain parameter initialization.Physical Review Applied, 22(5):054005, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Variational quantum simulation: A case study for understanding warm starts.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010317, 2025

    Ricard Puig, Marc Drudis, Supanut Thanasilp, and Zo ¨e Holmes. Variational quantum simulation: A case study for understanding warm starts.PRX Quantum, 6(1):010317, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.Nature communications, 12(1):6961, 2021

    Samson Wang, Enrico Fontana, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Akira Sone, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.Nature communications, 12(1):6961, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices

    Daniel Stilck Franc ¸a and Raul Garcia-Patron. Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices. Nature Physics, 17(11):1221–1227, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Limitations of variational quan- tum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010309, 2023

    Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Cambyse Rouz ´e, and Daniel Stilck Franc ¸a. Limitations of variational quan- tum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010309, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Emergence of noise-induced barren plateaus in arbitrary layered noise models.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045019, 2024

    Marco Schumann, Frank K Wilhelm, and Alessandro Ciani. Emergence of noise-induced barren plateaus in arbitrary layered noise models.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045019, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Engineered dissipation to mitigate barren plateaus.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):81, 2024

    Antonio Sannia, Francesco Tacchino, Ivano Tavernelli, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Engineered dissipation to mitigate barren plateaus.npj Quantum Information, 10(1):81, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Stochastic noise can be helpful for variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 111(5):052441, 2025

    Junyu Liu, Frederik Wilde, Antonio Anna Mele, Xin Jin, Liang Jiang, and Jens Eisert. Stochastic noise can be helpful for variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 111(5):052441, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Beyond unital noise in variational quantum algorithms: noise- induced barren plateaus and limit sets.Quantum, 9:1617, 2025

    Phattharaporn Singkanipa and Daniel A Lidar. Beyond unital noise in variational quantum algorithms: noise- induced barren plateaus and limit sets.Quantum, 9:1617, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Fast gradient estimation for variational quantum algorithms

    Lennart Bittel, Jens Watty, and Martin Kliesch. Fast gradient estimation for variational quantum algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06484, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Optimized numerical gradient and hessian estimation for variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 107(4):042421, 2023

    YS Teo. Optimized numerical gradient and hessian estimation for variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 107(4):042421, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Performance comparison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 107(3):032407, 2023

    Xavier Bonet-Monroig, Hao Wang, Diederick Vermetten, Bruno Senjean, Charles Moussa, Thomas B¨ack, Vedran Dunjko, and Thomas E O’Brien. Performance comparison of optimization methods on variational quantum algorithms.Physical Review A, 107(3):032407, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise.Physical Review A, 109(3):032408, 2024

    Giuseppe Scriva, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Sebastiano Pilati, and Guglielmo Mazzola. Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise.Physical Review A, 109(3):032408, 2024. 21

    2024

  29. [37]

    Impact of measurement noise on escaping saddles in variational quantum algorithms.Scientific reports, 16(1):9390, 2026

    Eriko Kaminishi, Takashi Mori, Michihiko Sugawara, and Naoki Yamamoto. Impact of measurement noise on escaping saddles in variational quantum algorithms.Scientific reports, 16(1):9390, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Gate-efficient simulation of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer.Physical Review Applied, 11(4):044092, 2019

    Marc Ganzhorn, Daniel J Egger, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Pauline Ollitrault, Gian Salis, Nikolaj Moll, Marco Roth, Andreas Fuhrer, Peter Mueller, Stefan Woerner, et al. Gate-efficient simulation of molecular eigenstates on a quantum computer.Physical Review Applied, 11(4):044092, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Strategies for solving the fermi-hubbard model on near-term quantum computers.Physical Review B, 102(23):235122, 2020

    Chris Cade, Lana Mineh, Ashley Montanaro, and Stasja Stanisic. Strategies for solving the fermi-hubbard model on near-term quantum computers.Physical Review B, 102(23):235122, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Finite- size criticality in fully connected spin models on superconducting quantum hardware.Physical Review E, 107(2):024113, 2023

    Michele Grossi, Oriel Kiss, Francesco De Luca, Carlo Zollo, Ian Gremese, and Antonio Mandarino. Finite- size criticality in fully connected spin models on superconducting quantum hardware.Physical Review E, 107(2):024113, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Variational denoising for variational quantum eigen- solver.Physical Review Research, 6(2):023181, 2024

    Quoc Hoan Tran, Shinji Kikuchi, and Hirotaka Oshima. Variational denoising for variational quantum eigen- solver.Physical Review Research, 6(2):023181, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Error mitigation in variational quantum eigensolvers using tailored probabilistic machine learning.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033069, 2024

    Tao Jiang, John Rogers, Marius S Frank, Ove Christiansen, Yong-Xin Yao, and Nicola Lanat `a. Error mitigation in variational quantum eigensolvers using tailored probabilistic machine learning.Physical Review Research, 6(3):033069, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Variational quantum eigensolver: A comparative analysis of classical and quantum optimizer methods.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2026

    Duc-Truyen Le, Vu-Linh Nguyen, Ha C Nguyen, Hung Q Nguyen, and Van-Duy Nguyen. Variational quantum eigensolver: A comparative analysis of classical and quantum optimizer methods.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2026

    2026

  36. [44]

    Variational quantum eigensolver for frustrated quantum systems.Physical Review B, 102(7):075104, 2020

    Alexey Uvarov, Jacob D Biamonte, and Dmitry Yudin. Variational quantum eigensolver for frustrated quantum systems.Physical Review B, 102(7):075104, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware.Physical Review A, 99(3):032331, 2019

    Maria Schuld, Ville Bergholm, Christian Gogolin, Josh Izaac, and Nathan Killoran. Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware.Physical Review A, 99(3):032331, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Quantum natural gradient.Quantum, 4:269, 2020

    James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo. Quantum natural gradient.Quantum, 4:269, 2020. 22

    2020

Pith tools

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