Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

DAPO-QAOA: An algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems by dynamically constructing phase operators

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DAPO-QAOA builds each layer's phase operator from the previous layer's most likely bitstring, refined by single-bit-flip neighborhood search, and reports higher approximation ratios on MaxCut and NAE3SAT while using about 66% of the RZZ…

desk verdict DAPO's core adaptive-sparsification idea is real and gate savings are real, but the central consistency claim is false and the experiments are too thin to support higher approximation ratios. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04100 v1 pith:VV4GPDYU submitted 2025-02-06 quant-ph

Yukun Wang , ZeYang Li , Linchun Wan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords DAPO-QAOAQuantumApproximateOptimizationAlgorithmMaxCutNAE3SATRZZgatesHamiltoniansparsificationneighborhoodsearchNISQ
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

This paper proposes DAPO-QAOA, a variant of QAOA in which each phase operator is constructed dynamically from the output of the previous layer rather than fixed in advance. After each layer, DAPO takes the most likely measured bitstring, improves it with a one-bit-flip neighborhood search, and uses the cut edges of that improved string to build a sparse phase operator for the next layer. The claim is that this scheme achieves higher approximation ratios than vanilla QAOA on MaxCut and NAE3SAT while using substantially fewer RZZ gates, about 66% at the same depth. If the claim holds, it offers a practical way to shrink the gate count and depth of QAOA circuits, directly addressing the main obstacle to running QAOA on near-term quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sparse phase operator. In vanilla QAOA, each layer applies $\exp(-i\gamma H_C)$ with the full problem Hamiltonian $H_C$, so every edge of the problem graph contributes one RZZ gate. DAPO instead builds $H_{C'}$ from the cut-edge set of the best bitstring found in the previous layer, refined by a neighborhood search that flips each bit and keeps the flip with the highest cut value. The original cost function is still used as the classical optimization objective, so the variational objective remains the exact problem energy while the circuit that produces the states contains only the sparse phase operators.

What would settle it

Take a dense MaxCut graph with a known global optimum and a bitstring that is locally optimal under single-bit flips but whose one-bit-flip neighborhood removes an edge that belongs to every global optimum; if DAPO on that graph converges to an approximation ratio no better than vanilla QAOA at matched total gate counts, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DAPO-QAOA's central claim is that the phase operator in a QAOA layer does not have to be built from the full problem Hamiltonian. Instead, after the first layer, the algorithm reads the bitstring with the largest amplitude from the optimized circuit, improves it by flipping each bit once and keeping the best cut, and then uses the cut edges of that improved bitstring to define the sparse Hamiltonian that generates the next phase operator. The paper argues that this dynamic sparsification preserves the global optimum of the original problem while reducing the number of RZZ gates per layer from the total edge count of the graph to roughly the size of the best known cut. Experiments on three dense MaxCut instances and on NAE3SAT instances show higher approximation ratios than vanilla QAOA and graph-sparsification baselines, with the RZZ count at the same depth dropping to about 66% of the vanilla QAOA count.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the best answer QAOA has found so far, improved by flipping one bit at a time, contains enough of the true optimum's structure that building the next layer only from its cut edges will still steer the circuit to the global optimum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense MaxCut instances become cheaper to solve with QAOA because the per-layer gate count scales with the best-known cut size rather than the total number of edges.
  • The same Hamiltonian-simplification strategy transfers to other Ising/QUBO-encoded optimization problems; the paper demonstrates it on NAE3SAT, where it also beats vanilla QAOA and the dropout baseline.
  • Because the sparse phase operators shorten each layer, deeper circuits become viable on noisy hardware, which could let QAOA reach solutions that current fixed-Hamiltonian circuits cannot.
  • The algorithm turns QAOA into a feedback loop that reuses its own intermediate measurement results, creating a new design space for combining measurement-guided phase layers with adaptive mixers or parameter-transfer heuristics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to replace the single-bit-flip neighborhood search with a stronger classical local-search heuristic; the paper's demonstrated advantage is tied to that particular neighborhood, and stronger search could either improve the results or reveal a ceiling.
  • The argument that the sparse Hamiltonian preserves the global optimum is heuristic, not proven; a formal condition on the cut set that guarantees the same ground state would turn the empirical claim into a theorem.
  • The measured bitstring is consumed by the algorithm, so on real hardware its performance will depend on measurement noise and shot statistics; injecting depolarizing or readout errors in simulation would test how much of the reported advantage survives outside noiseless circuits.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DAPO-QAOA, a QAOA variant in which every phase layer after the first is constructed from the cut set of a bitstring obtained by measuring the previous layer's optimized circuit and refining that bitstring with single-bit-flip neighborhood search. The authors claim that this dynamically constructed sparse phase operator both preserves the original problem's optimum and reduces the number of RZZ gates, and they report experiments on three 10-vertex MaxCut graphs and on NAE3SAT instances showing higher approximation ratios than vanilla QAOA and sparse-phase baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims held, DAPO-QAOA would be a useful NISQ-era heuristic: it provides a transparent way to trade phase-operator complexity for per-layer adaptive information, and the resource-counting argument for RZZ reduction is easy to follow. The paper gives a clear pseudocode description of the MaxCut variant and positions the method against relevant sparse-phase and dropout baselines. However, the central consistency justification is asserted rather than proven and is in fact false as stated, and the experimental evidence is too thin to support the advertised quantitative claims. The significance therefore depends on a substantial revision that reframes the method as a heuristic and supplies adequate empirical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Algorithm 1 lines 18-20, Conclusion] The assertion that constructing the next layer's phase operator from the cut set C(x') of the neighborhood-search solution x' 'ensures that the ground state solutions of the Hamiltonians corresponding to the Ansatz and the original problem are consistent' is not proven and is false in general. The sparse phase Hamiltonian contains only edges in C(x'), so the assignments it most strongly favors are the maximum cuts of the subgraph (V,C(x')), which are exactly the assignments obtained from x' by flipping whole connected components of that subgraph. An original optimum x* that differs from x' inside such a connected component cuts fewer than |C(x')| sparse edges and is therefore not favored. For example, on K4 with x'=1000, the sparse star subgraph has maximum cuts 1000 and 0111, whereas the original optimum 1100 cuts only two of the three sparse edges. Even if this particular x' is not reachable in a given run, the claim is stated unconditionally, and preserving the original cost function in the classical objective and final measurement does not restore the missing phase terms inside the circuit. This undermines the paper's central justification and leaves the performance advantage as an unsupported heuristic.
  2. [Section III.C] The statement 'The maximum cut value |e| equals the total number of edges |E| only in the case of a complete bipartite graph' is false: any bipartite graph has a cut containing all of its edges, so max cut equals |E| for all bipartite graphs, not only complete bipartite ones. The subsequent inequality |e'| ≤ |e| is valid because e' is a feasible cut value, but the false characterization weakens the argument that dense graphs necessarily have a small optimal cut; dense bipartite graphs are a counterexample.
  3. [Section IV.A-C] The experimental support consists of three fixed 10-vertex graphs (Table I) with no repeated trials, no error bars, no standard deviations, and no noise model, despite the NISQ motivation. The approximation-ratio curves in Figs. 8-10 appear to be single runs, and the '66% of RZZ gates' figure in the abstract and conclusion is not derived from a stated formula or error analysis. The claimed advantage over vanilla QAOA therefore rests on anecdotal evidence. The authors should report multiple random instances and seeds, give mean and variance, and define exactly how the 66% figure is computed.
  4. [Section IV.D] The NAE3SAT implementation is underspecified. The paper gives the Hamiltonian in Eq. (13) but does not explain how DAPO's neighborhood search and 'cut set' construction generalize to hyperedges or clauses, how the sparse phase operator is selected from a clause-satisfying assignment, or how the dropout baseline is configured. As a result, the NAE3SAT results in Figs. 11 and 12 cannot be reproduced or independently assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.D heading] The heading 'NAE3SA T' contains a typo.
  2. [Algorithm 1 line 14] The stopping condition uses the quantities E*_p and E*_{p-1}, which are never defined; please clarify what E* denotes.
  3. [Section IV.C and Fig. 2] The paper alternates between counting RZZ gates and counting CNOT gates without stating the conversion; please specify which quantity is plotted and how the RZZ gate is decomposed.
  4. [Section III.A] The phrase 'QAOA allows us to obtain the optimal solution for each layer' is an overstatement; QAOA returns samples and expectation values, not certified optima.
  5. [Section IV] No information is given about the number of measurement shots, the random-seed policy, or whether statevector simulation is used; please include these details for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: DAPO's sparse phase operators are built from measured bitstrings and local search, while approximation ratios are evaluated against known optima and the variational objective is the original cost function.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The sparse Hamiltonian H_C' for each layer is generated from the measured largest-amplitude bitstring and a single-bit-flip neighborhood search (Algorithm 1 lines 18-20, Section III.B), not from the known optimal cut C_opt. The approximation ratio r = F(β*,γ*)/C_opt (Eq. 7) uses C_opt only as an evaluation denominator; C_opt is not fed into Algorithm 1, whose input is only G(V,E). The variational objective during parameter optimization is the original problem Hamiltonian, as the paper states in Section III.A: 'we preserve the cost function of the original problem while constructing the sparse phase operator.' Thus the reported F is not the same function used to build the sparse operators, and the 'higher approximation ratio' claim is an empirical result rather than a fitted prediction. The RZZ gate reduction is an analytic consequence of the construction (Section III.C: |e'| ≤ |E|), not a circular prediction; it is true by design but presented as such. The unproven assertion in the Conclusion that the neighborhood-search-selected sparse Hamiltonian 'ensures that the ground state solutions of the Hamiltonians corresponding to the Ansatz and the original problem are consistent' is a correctness and soundness risk, not circularity, because the sparse Hamiltonian is not definitionally equal to the original Hamiltonian and the claim is not derived from the paper's equations. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists: prior work [29]-[31] is cited for comparison and motivation, not as an unverified premise that forces DAPO's conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The DAPO algorithm is heuristic: it assumes the circuit's own measurement output, refined by a classical local search, identifies a cut whose edge set is a good replacement for the full phase Hamiltonian. The variational principle supplies the only standard-math support; the other assumptions are domain-level or paper-specific and are not validated by error bars, noise analysis, or broader benchmarks. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial variational parameters = 0.01 for both gamma and beta
    Set by hand in Section III.A; no sensitivity analysis or dependence study is reported.
  • Maximum optimizer iterations = 20,000
    Fixed in Section IV.A for MaxCut experiments; the effect of this cap on convergence is not studied.
  • Stopping threshold epsilon = Not specified
    Algorithm 1 line 14 uses |E*_p - E*_{p-1}| < epsilon, but no value is given, making the stopping rule irreproducible.
  • Total layer count P = Not specified
    Algorithm 1 stops at p == P, but P is never reported; figures show varying maximum depths.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bitstring with largest amplitude after each optimized QAOA layer is a useful approximation of a high-quality solution.
    Invoked in Algorithm 1 lines 13 and 18-20 and Section III.A; no proof or noise analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A phase Hamiltonian built from the cut edges of a neighborhood-search solution steers the variational optimization toward the original problem's optimum.
    This is the core heuristic, stated in Sections III.A and III.B; no analytical or statistical support beyond the three MaxCut graphs is given.
  • domain assumption Single-bit-flip neighborhood search with one round is sufficient to avoid local optima during phase-operator construction.
    Section III.B assumes this standard local-search heuristic; larger neighborhoods and multiple rounds are not explored.
  • standard math A variational circuit built with sparse phase Hamiltonians can be optimized against the original cost function by the variational principle.
    Used in Algorithm 1 line 12 and Fig. 6; this is standard variational optimization and is valid.
  • standard math The QUBO-to-Ising mapping for MaxCut is valid.
    Section II.A uses the standard transformation xi = (I + Zi)/2; this is standard and well established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAPO-QAOA: An algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems by dynamically constructing phase operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VV4GPDYU

@misc{pith2026250204100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAPO-QAOA: An algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems by dynamically constructing phase operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VV4GPDYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04100}
}
read the original abstract

The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is a well-known hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for combinatorial optimization problems. Improving QAOA involves enhancing its approximation ratio while addressing practical constraints of Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices, such as minimizing the number of two-qubit gates and reducing circuit depth. Although existing research has optimized designs for phase and mixer operators to improve performance, challenges remain, particularly concerning the excessive use of two-qubit gates in the construction of phase operators. To address these issues, we introduce a Dynamic Adaptive Phase Operator (DAPO) algorithm, which dynamically constructs phase operators based on the output of previous layers and neighborhood search approach, optimizing the problem Hamiltonian more efficiently. By using solutions generated by QAOA itself to simplify the problem Hamiltonian at each layer, the algorithm captures the problem's structural properties more effectively, progressively steering the solution closer to the optimal target. Experimental results on MaxCut and NAE3SAT problems show that DAPO achieves higher approximation ratios and significantly reduces two-qubit RZZ gates, especially in dense graphs. Compared to vanilla QAOA, DAPO uses only 66% of RZZ gates at the same depth while delivering better results, demonstrating its potential for efficient combinatorial optimization in the NISQ era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Circuit for phase operator and mixer operator. De [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Circuit implementation (right) of the problem hamil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. In three graphs each having 10 vertices with 30, 33, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. For a graph with 10 vertices and 30 edges, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The iterative process of the DAPO algorithm for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Neighborhood Search: Based on the measurement results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The approximation ratios of three QAOA algorithms on each layer of graph1, graph2, and graph3. Among these, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Approximate ratio of DAPO algorithm, vanilla QAOA, and QAOA Ansatz constructed by subgraphs corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The three figures in the above row show the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Approximate ratios of vanilla QAOA, DAPO, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The approximate ratios of the DAPO algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    X. Liu, R. Shaydulin, and I. Safro, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with sparsified phase operator, in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 133– 141

    work page 2022

  2. [31]

    But, these methods depend on the sparsity of the graph or the qual- ity of the initial solution

    methods simplify the problem Hamiltonian, provid- ing structural optimization of the phase operators, which effectively reduces the computational burden. But, these methods depend on the sparsity of the graph or the qual- ity of the initial solution. If the sparsity is inadequate or the initial solution is of low quality, the phase operators derived from ...

    work page

  3. [1]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  4. [2]

    Y. Ruan, S. Marsh, X. Xue, Z. Liu, J. Wang, et al. , The quantum approximate algorithm for solving travel- ing salesman problem, Computers, Materials and Con- tinua 63, 1237 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for approximate graph col- oring, Quantum 6, 678 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    N. Jain, B. Coyle, E. Kashefi, and N. Kumar, Graph neu- ral network initialisation of quantum approximate opti- misation, Quantum 6, 861 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    X. Lee, Y. Saito, D. Cai, and N. Asai, Parameters fix- ing strategy for quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm, in 2021 IEEE international conference on quan- tum computing and engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 10–16

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum annealing initializa- tion of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, quantum 5, 491 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Shaydulin, I

    R. Shaydulin, I. Safro, and J. Larson, Multistart methods for quantum approximate optimization, in 2019 IEEE high performance extreme computing conference (HPEC) (IEEE, 2019) pp. 1–8

    2019

  2. [8]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

    2020

  3. [9]

    Acampora, A

    G. Acampora, A. Chiatto, and A. Vitiello, Genetic al- gorithms as classical optimizer for the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm, Applied Soft Computing 142, 110296 (2023)

    2023

  4. [10]

    M. Alam, A. Ash-Saki, and S. Ghosh, Accelerating quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm using machine learning, in 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 686– 689

    2020

  5. [11]

    Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, E

    M. Fern´ andez-Pend´ as, E. F. Combarro, S. Vallecorsa, J. Ranilla, and I. F. R´ ua, A study of the performance of classical minimizers in the quantum approximate op- timization algorithm, Journal of Computational and Ap- plied Mathematics 404, 113388 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    P. C. Lotshaw, T. S. Humble, R. Herrman, J. Ostrowski, and G. Siopsis, Empirical performance bounds for quan- tum approximate optimization, Quantum Information Processing 20, 403 (2021)

    2021

  7. [13]

    Pellow-Jarman, I

    A. Pellow-Jarman, I. Sinayskiy, A. Pillay, and F. Petruc- 12 cione, A comparison of various classical optimizers for a variational quantum linear solver, Quantum Information Processing 20, 202 (2021)

    2021

  8. [14]

    J. Yao, M. Bukov, and L. Lin, Policy gradient based quantum approximate optimization algorithm, in Math- ematical and scientific machine learning (PMLR, 2020) pp. 605–634

    2020

  9. [15]

    Bonet-Monroig, H

    X. Bonet-Monroig, H. Wang, D. Vermetten, B. Senjean, C. Moussa, T. B¨ ack, V. Dunjko, and T. O’Brien, Per- formance comparison of optimization methods on vari- ational quantum algorithms. 2021, URL: https://arxiv. org/abs/2111.13454. doi 10 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Khairy, R

    S. Khairy, R. Shaydulin, L. Cincio, Y. Alexeev, and P. Balaprakash, Learning to optimize variational quan- tum circuits to solve combinatorial problems, in Pro- ceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 34 (2020) pp. 2367–2375

    2020

  11. [17]

    Lingxiao, L

    L. Lingxiao, L. Jing, S. Yanqi, Q. Sujuan, W. Qiaoyan, and G. Fei, An efficient quantum proactive incremental learning algorithm, SCIENCE CHINA-PHYSICS ME- CHANICS & ASTRONOMY 68, 210313 (2025)

    2025

  12. [18]

    Akshay, D

    V. Akshay, D. Rabinovich, E. Campos, and J. Biamonte, Parameter concentrations in quantum approximate opti- mization, Physical Review A 104, L010401 (2021)

    2021

  13. [19]

    Shaydulin, S

    R. Shaydulin, S. Hadfield, T. Hogg, and I. Safro, Classi- cal symmetries and the quantum approximate optimiza- tion algorithm, Quantum Information Processing 20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    K. Shi, R. Herrman, R. Shaydulin, S. Chakrabarti, M. Pistoia, and J. Larson, Multiangle qaoa does not al- ways need all its angles, in 2022 IEEE/ACM 7th Sympo- sium on Edge Computing (SEC) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 414– 419

    2022

  15. [21]

    Galda, X

    A. Galda, X. Liu, D. Lykov, Y. Alexeev, and I. Safro, Transferability of optimal qaoa parameters between ran- dom graphs, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE,

    2021

  16. [22]

    Shaydulin, K

    R. Shaydulin, K. Marwaha, J. Wurtz, and P. C. Lot- shaw, Qaoakit: A toolkit for reproducible study, appli- cation, and verification of the qaoa, in 2021 IEEE/ACM Second International Workshop on Quantum Computing Software (QCS) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 64–71

    2021

  17. [23]

    Herrman, P

    R. Herrman, P. C. Lotshaw, J. Ostrowski, T. S. Humble, and G. Siopsis, Multi-angle quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm, Scientific Reports 12, 6781 (2022)

    2022

  18. [24]

    Y. Yu, C. Cao, C. Dewey, X.-B. Wang, N. Shannon, and R. Joynt, Quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm with adaptive bias fields, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023249 (2022)

    2022

  19. [25]

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

    2022

  20. [26]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250502 (2022)

    2022

  21. [27]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. Del Campo, and X. Chen, Digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate opti- mization algorithm, Physical Review Research 4, 013141 (2022)

    2022

  22. [28]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Obsta- cles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection, Physical review letters 125, 260505 (2020)

    2020

  23. [29]

    Yanakiev, N

    N. Yanakiev, N. Mertig, C. K. Long, and D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, Dynamic adaptive quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm for shallow, noise-resilient circuits, Physical Review A 109, 032420 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Wang, P.-L

    Z. Wang, P.-L. Zheng, B. Wu, and Y. Zhang, Quantum dropout: On and over the hardness of quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm, Physical Review Research 5, 023171 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Chalupnik, H

    M. Chalupnik, H. Melo, Y. Alexeev, and A. Galda, Augmenting qaoa ansatz with multiparameter problem- independent layer, in 2022 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 97–103

    2022

  26. [34]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum 6, 635 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hadfield, T

    S. Hadfield, T. Hogg, and E. G. Rieffel, Analytical frame- work for quantum alternating operator ans¨ atze, Quan- tum Science and Technology 8, 015017 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    B¨ artschi and S

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state prepara- tion, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quan- tum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2020) pp. 72–82

    2020

  29. [37]

    Golden, A

    J. Golden, A. B¨ artschi, D. O’Malley, and S. Eidenbenz, Threshold-based quantum optimization, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 137–147

    2021

  30. [38]

    Z. Wang, N. C. Rubin, J. M. Dominy, and E. G. Rief- fel, Xy mixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum alternating operator ansatz, Physical Review A 101, 012320 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (1996) pp. 212–219

    1996

  32. [40]

    F. G. Fuchs, K. O. Lye, H. Møll Nilsen, A. J. Stasik, and G. Sartor, Constraint preserving mixers for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Algorithms 15, 202 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.