Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 49 references

VQA for Dynamic Portfolio Optimization: Sampling Strategies, Optimizer Scheduling, and Hardware-Aware Ansatz Design

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A heavy-hex-native deep-chain ansatz layout achieves the best objective value and CVaR performance in VQA for a 150-qubit dynamic portfolio problem on ibm_quebec.

desk verdict The paper gives targeted empirical tests of an adaptive CVaR schedule, two-stage optimizer, and two hardware-aware ansatz layouts on a 150-qubit portfolio problem, but the decisive QPU layout ranking rests on single runs without variance or repeats. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.10098 v1 pith:XV7B3GPO submitted 2026-06-08 cs.CE quant-ph

Mohammad Kashfi Haghighi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEquant-ph
keywords variationalquantumalgorithmsdynamicportfoliooptimizationCVaRsamplingansatzlayouthardwareoptimizerschedulingconstraints
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 examines how sampling objectives, classical optimizer choices, and quantum circuit layouts influence variational quantum algorithms applied to dynamic portfolio optimization. The work introduces an adaptive CVaR schedule that tightens the risk tail over iterations, a two-stage optimizer that pairs particle swarm exploration with Nakanishi-Fujii-Todo refinement, and two hardware-aware ansatz modifications. Simulator runs select sampling and optimizer settings, while the layout comparison runs directly on the ibm_quebec processor for a 150-qubit instance. The results establish that these workflow decisions change the quality of the obtained portfolios.

What carries the argument

The heavy-hex-native deep-chain ansatz layout, which increases native two-qubit interaction depth without extra routing overhead after transpilation.

What would settle it

Running the same VQA workflow on a different quantum device or a portfolio instance of different size and checking whether the heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout still records the highest objective value and CVaR-tail score.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that sampling strategy, optimizer scheduling, and hardware-aware ansatz layout design materially affect VQA performance on dynamic portfolio optimization. In particular, on a 150-qubit instance executed on the ibm_quebec QPU, the proposed heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout achieves the best final objective value and CVaR-tail performance among the tested layouts.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains observed for the adaptive CVaR schedule, two-stage optimizer, and hardware-aware ansatz layouts on the specific 150-qubit instance and ibm_quebec device will translate to other problem sizes, constraint sets, or quantum hardware platforms.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies variational quantum algorithms for a 150-qubit dynamic portfolio optimization problem. It proposes an adaptive CVaR schedule that tightens the sampled tail, a two-stage optimizer (global PSO exploration followed by local NFT refinement), and two hardware-aware ansatz modifications (data-guided colored layout and heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout). Simulator experiments select CVaR, optimizer, and depth settings; the decisive ansatz-layout comparison is performed on the ibm_quebec QPU. The central empirical claim is that sampling strategy, optimizer scheduling, and hardware-aware layout materially affect performance, with the deep-chain layout achieving the best final objective value and CVaR-tail performance among tested layouts, although no quantum advantage is observed versus a state-of-the-art classical solver.

Significance. If the reported performance ordering is confirmed with statistical controls, the work supplies concrete, actionable guidance on CVaR scheduling, optimizer staging, and post-transpilation ansatz layout for VQAs on heavy-hex hardware. The explicit statement that no quantum advantage is observed is a positive feature of the presentation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (QPU layout comparison): the reported ranking of ansatz layouts rests on single-run objective values and CVaR-tail metrics with no error bars, no statement of the number of independent executions or shots per run, and no statistical test. Because the decisive evidence for the heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout is hardware-only, the absence of variance estimates makes it impossible to determine whether the observed gaps reflect the proposed design or shot noise, calibration drift, or transpilation stochasticity.
  2. [Abstract, §4–5] Abstract and §4–5: the claim that the proposed components 'materially affect performance' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the hardware results that support the layout component lack the repeated trials and statistical support required to substantiate a material effect.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Table of optimizer hyperparameters and CVaR schedule parameters should be added to the methods section to support reproducibility.
  2. [Figures 3–4] Simulator figures should explicitly state the number of shots, random seeds, and number of independent runs used for each curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for highlighting the need for statistical support in the hardware experiments. We address each major comment below and propose targeted revisions to improve transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (QPU layout comparison): the reported ranking of ansatz layouts rests on single-run objective values and CVaR-tail metrics with no error bars, no statement of the number of independent executions or shots per run, and no statistical test. Because the decisive evidence for the heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout is hardware-only, the absence of variance estimates makes it impossible to determine whether the observed gaps reflect the proposed design or shot noise, calibration drift, or transpilation stochasticity.

    Authors: We agree that the QPU layout comparison in §5 is based on single executions without error bars or statistical tests. This stems from limited access to the ibm_quebec device. In revision we will (i) state the exact shot count used per iteration, (ii) add an explicit limitations paragraph noting single-run hardware results and possible contributions from shot noise, calibration drift and transpilation variability, and (iii) qualify the ranking language to indicate that the deep-chain layout performed best in the reported single trial. Simulator experiments in §4, which used multiple independent runs, already show consistent ordering trends that informed the QPU test; we will cross-reference these to provide supporting context while acknowledging the hardware evidence remains preliminary. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract, §4–5] Abstract and §4–5: the claim that the proposed components 'materially affect performance' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the hardware results that support the layout component lack the repeated trials and statistical support required to substantiate a material effect.

    Authors: The overall claim rests on both simulator and hardware evidence. Simulator studies (§4) for CVaR scheduling and optimizer staging include repeated trials and statistical support. For the layout component we will revise the abstract and §5 to distinguish the two: the CVaR and optimizer effects are backed by multi-run simulator data, while the layout comparison is presented as an observed single-run ordering on hardware. We will replace the unqualified phrase “materially affect performance” with more precise wording that reflects the differing levels of statistical support, thereby preserving the contribution while addressing the referee’s concern about overstatement. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical hardware comparison with no self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical study of VQA components (CVaR scheduling, optimizer stages, ansatz layouts) on a 150-qubit portfolio instance, using simulator runs for configuration selection and ibm_quebec hardware for final layout comparison. No derivation chain, equations, or first-principles claims exist that could reduce reported performance metrics to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes defined in terms of the target results. The central claim is a direct ranking of measured objective values and CVaR tails across layouts; these are external measurements, not quantities constructed from the paper's own inputs. Self-citations are absent from the provided text, and no uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggling patterns appear. This is a standard empirical benchmarking paper whose results stand or fall on the reported hardware data rather than internal definitional equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the work rests on standard VQA and portfolio optimization modeling assumptions without introducing new free parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (2)
  • standard math Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) is a well-defined coherent risk measure suitable for sampling-based optimization objectives
    Invoked in the adaptive sampling strategy.
  • domain assumption Dynamic portfolio optimization with return, risk, transaction costs, and constraints can be encoded as a quadratic binary optimization problem amenable to VQA
    Required to apply the VQA framework to the financial problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VQA for Dynamic Portfolio Optimization: Sampling Strategies, Optimizer Scheduling, and Hardware-Aware Ansatz Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XV7B3GPO

@misc{pith2026260610098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VQA for Dynamic Portfolio Optimization: Sampling Strategies, Optimizer Scheduling, and Hardware-Aware Ansatz Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XV7B3GPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.10098}
}
read the original abstract

Variational quantum algorithms are increasingly explored for optimization problems at scales relevant to near-term quantum devices. Their practical performance depends strongly on design choices such as the sampling objective, classical optimizer, and ansatz layout before and after hardware transpilation. We study these factors for dynamic portfolio optimization, a multi-period financial problem balancing return, risk, transaction costs, cash-interest effects, and constraints. Using a sampling-based VQA framework on a 150-qubit dynamic portfolio instance, we evaluate several components of the optimization workflow. We propose a specific adaptive CVaR schedule that gradually tightens the sampled tail used for optimization, together with a two-stage optimizer combining global exploration with Particle Swarm Optimization and local refinement with the Nakanishi-Fujii-Todo optimizer. We also study ansatz depth and sequential growth strategies. Finally, we introduce two hardware-aware ansatz-layout modifications: a data-guided colored layout that assigns correlated variables to qubits connected by entangling gates, and a heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout designed to increase native two-qubit interaction depth without additional routing overhead after transpilation. Simulator studies select CVaR, optimizer, and depth configurations, while the ansatz comparison is performed on the ibm_quebec QPU. The results show that sampling strategy, optimizer scheduling, and hardware-aware layout design materially affect performance. In the reported QPU layout comparison, the proposed heavy-hex-native deep-chain layout achieves the best final objective value and CVaR-tail performance among the tested layouts. Although we do not observe quantum advantage over a state-of-the-art exact classical solver, our results provide practical guidance for improving VQA performance on near-term hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Baseline hardware-efficient layouts used in this work. The bilinear layout applies CZ gates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example HNDC mapping. Colors denote different portfolio time steps. The blue component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of fixed and adaptive CVaR strategies over 10 independent runs. (a) Best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of classical optimizers under fixed CVaR level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of ansatz repetition depth and sequential growth under fixed CVaR level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QPU performance comparison across ansatz layouts on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kernel density estimates of raw sampled objective values obtained from the final optimized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kernel density estimates of raw sampled objective values restricted to the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Kernel density estimates of postprocessed objective values from the final optimized circuits, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the CVaR objective during QPU optimization for the tested ansatz layouts. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout Van Den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, et al. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors.Nature physics, 19(8):1116–1121, 2023

    Ewout Van Den Berg, Zlatko K Minev, Abhinav Kandala, and Kristan Temme. Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse pauli–lindblad models on noisy quantum processors.Nature physics, 19(8):1116–1121, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Experimental Workflows for Combinatorial Optimization: Towards Quantum Advantage

    Prashanti Priya Angara, Luis F Rivera, Ulrike Stege, Hausi M¨ uller, and Ibrahim Shehzad. Exper- imental workflows for combinatorial optimization: Towards quantum advantage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.25162, 2026. 21 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Portfolio construction using a sampling-based variational quantum scheme

    Gabriele Agliardi, Dimitris Alevras, Vaibhaw Kumar, Roberto Lo Nardo, Gabriele Compostella, Sumit Kumar, Manuel Proissl, and Bimal Mehta. Portfolio construction using a sampling-based variational quantum scheme. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI), pages 413–419, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Scaling whole-chip qaoa for higher-order ising spin glass models on heavy-hex graphs.npj Quantum Information, 10:109, 2024

    Elijah Pelofske, Andreas B¨ artschi, Lukasz Cincio, John Golden, and Stephan Eidenbenz. Scaling whole-chip qaoa for higher-order ising spin glass models on heavy-hex graphs.npj Quantum Information, 10:109, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

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

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas B¨ artschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J Egger, Bruce G Elmegreen, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(12):718–735, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    On the practical use- fulness of the hardware efficient ansatz.Quantum, 8:1395, 2024

    Lorenzo Leone, Salvatore FE Oliviero, Lukasz Cincio, and Marco Cerezo. On the practical use- fulness of the hardware efficient ansatz.Quantum, 8:1395, 2024

    2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):174–189, 2025

    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

  2. [10]

    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, March 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Full characterization of the depth overhead for quantum circuit compilation with arbitrary qubit connectivity constraint.Quantum, 9:1757, 2025

    Pei Yuan and Shengyu Zhang. Full characterization of the depth overhead for quantum circuit compilation with arbitrary qubit connectivity constraint.Quantum, 9:1757, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Minimum-length chain embedding for the phase unwrapping problem on d-wave’s pegasus graph

    Mohammad Kashfi Haghighi and Nikitas Dimopoulos. Minimum-length chain embedding for the phase unwrapping problem on d-wave’s pegasus graph. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 02, pages 318–319, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants

    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

    2024

  8. [16]

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

    2014

  9. [17]

    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 Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring

    Peter W Shor. Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In Proceedings 35th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pages 124–134. Ieee, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96, pages 212–219. Association for Computing Machinery, 1996

    1996

  12. [20]

    Quantum optimization benchmark library–the intractable decathlon.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2504, 2025

    Thorsten Koch, David E Bernal Neira, Ying Chen, Giorgio Cortiana, Daniel J Egger, Raoul Heese, Narendra N Hegade, Alejandro Gomez Cadavid, Rhea Huang, Toshinari Itoko, et al. Quantum optimization benchmark library–the intractable decathlon.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2504, 202...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Optimal cardinality constrained portfolio selection.Operations research, 61(3):745–761, 2013

    Jianjun Gao and Duan Li. Optimal cardinality constrained portfolio selection.Operations research, 61(3):745–761, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Multi-period portfolio optimization with constraints and transac- tion costs.Working Manuscript, 2009

    Jo¨ elle Skaf and Stephen Boyd. Multi-period portfolio optimization with constraints and transac- tion costs.Working Manuscript, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices.Scientific Reports, 13(1):19434, 2023

    Giuseppe Buonaiuto, Francesco Gargiulo, Giuseppe De Pietro, Massimo Esposito, and Marco Pota. Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices.Scientific Reports, 13(1):19434, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Scaling the variational quantum eigensolver for dynamic portfolio optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19150, 2025

    ´Alvaro Nodar, Irene De Le´ on, Danel Arias, Ernesto Mamedaliev, Mar´ ıa Esperanza Molina, Manuel Mart´ ın-Cordero, Senaida Hern´ andez-Santana, Pablo Serrano, Miguel Arranz, Oier Mentxaka, Va- lent´ ın Garc´ ıa, Gin´ es Carrascal, Ander Retolaza, and Inmaculada Posadillo. Sca...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Barkoutsos, Giacomo Nannicini, Anton Robert, Ivano Tavernelli, and Stefan Woerner

    Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos, Giacomo Nannicini, Anton Robert, Ivano Tavernelli, and Stefan Woerner. Improving variational quantum optimization using cvar.Quantum, 4:256, 2020. arXiv:1907.04769

    2020

  18. [26]

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

    2018

  19. [27]

    Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019

    Sukin Sim, Peter D Johnson, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

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

    2021

  22. [30]

    Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits.Physical Review X, 10(1):011022, 2020

    Christopher Chamberland, Guanyu Zhu, Theodore J Yoder, Jared B Hertzberg, and Andrew W Cross. Topological and subsystem codes on low-degree graphs with flag qubits.Physical Review X, 10(1):011022, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum devices. InProceedings of the twenty-fourth international conference on architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, pages 1001–1014, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Evolving objective function for improved variational quantum optimization.Physical Review Research, 4(2):023225, 2022

    Ioannis Kolotouros and Petros Wallden. Evolving objective function for improved variational quantum optimization.Physical Review Research, 4(2):023225, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Particle swarm optimization

    James Kennedy and Russell Eberhart. Particle swarm optimization. InProceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, pages 1942–1948, 1995

    1942

  26. [34]

    Nakanishi, Keisuke Fujii, and Synge Todo

    Ken M. Nakanishi, Keisuke Fujii, and Synge Todo. Sequential minimal optimization for quantum- classical hybrid algorithms.Physical Review Research, 2(4):043158, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Variational quantum eigensolver with linear depth problem-inspired ansatz for solving portfolio optimization in finance.Science China Infor- mation Sciences, 68(8):180504, 2025

    Shengbin Wang, Peng Wang, Guihui Li, Shubin Zhao, Dongyi Zhao, Jing Wang, Yuan Fang, Menghan Dou, Yongjian Gu, Yu-Chun Wu, et al. Variational quantum eigensolver with linear depth problem-inspired ansatz for solving portfolio optimization in finance.Science China Infor- mation...

    2025

  28. [36]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    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):34, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Correlation-informed permutation of qubits for reducing ansatz depth in the variational quantum eigensolver.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020337, 2021

    Nikolay V Tkachenko, James Sud, Yu Zhang, Sergei Tretiak, Petr M Anisimov, Andrew T Ar- rasmith, Patrick J Coles, Lukasz Cincio, and Pavel A Dub. Correlation-informed permutation of qubits for reducing ansatz depth in the variational quantum eigensolver.PRX Quantum, 2(2):02033...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Entanglement-informed construction of vari- ational quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035032, 2025

    Alina Joch, G¨ otz S Uhrig, and Benedikt Fauseweh. Entanglement-informed construction of vari- ational quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035032, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Eaqga: a quantum-enhanced genetic algorithm with novel entanglement-aware crossovers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17923, 2025

    Mohammad Kashfi Haghighi, Matthieu Fortin-Deschˆ enes, Christophe Pere, and Micka¨ el Camus. Eaqga: a quantum-enhanced genetic algorithm with novel entanglement-aware crossovers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17923, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    M. J. D. Powell. A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. InAdvances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis, pages 51–67. Springer, 1994

    1994

  33. [41]

    Memetic algorithms and memetic computing optimization: A literature review.Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 2:1–14, 2012

    Ferrante Neri and Carlos Cotta. Memetic algorithms and memetic computing optimization: A literature review.Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 2:1–14, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Parameters fixing strategy for quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Xinwei Lee, Yoshiyuki Saito, Dongsheng Cai, and Nobuyoshi Asai. Parameters fixing strategy for quantum approximate optimization algorithm. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 10–16, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Qiskit Finance.https://qiskit-community.github.io/ qiskit-finance/, 2024

    Qiskit Finance Development Team. Qiskit Finance.https://qiskit-community.github.io/ qiskit-finance/, 2024. Accessed: 2026-06-02

    2024

  36. [44]

    Maher, Gioni Mexi, Erik M¨ uhmer, Marc E

    Christopher Hojny, Mathieu Besan¸ con, Ksenia Bestuzheva, Sander Borst, Antonia Chmiela, Jo˜ ao Dion´ ısio, Leon Eifler, Mohammed Ghannam, Ambros Gleixner, Adrian G¨ oß, Alexander Hoen, Rolf van der Hulst, Dominik Kamp, Thorsten Koch, Kevin Kofler, Jurgen Lentz, Stephen J. Mah...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Barron, Daniel J

    Samantha V. Barron, Daniel J. Egger, Elijah Pelofske, Andreas B¨ artschi, Stephan Eidenbenz, Matthis Lehmkuehler, and Stefan Woerner. Provable bounds for noise-free expectation values computed from noisy samples.Nature Computational Science, 2024. arXiv:2312.00733

    2024

  38. [46]

    Matrix product state simulation method.https://qiskit.github

    Qiskit Development Team. Matrix product state simulation method.https://qiskit.github. io/qiskit-aer/tutorials/7_matrix_product_state_method.html, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10- 30

    2024

  39. [47]

    Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations.Physical review letters, 91(14):147902, 2003

    Guifr´ e Vidal. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations.Physical review letters, 91(14):147902, 2003

    2003

  40. [48]

    Nic Ezzell, Bibek Pokharel, Lina Tewala, Gregory Quiroz, and Daniel A. Lidar. Dynamical decoupling for superconducting qubits: A performance survey.Phys. Rev. Appl., 20:064027, Dec 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Error mitigation and suppression techniques.https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/ docs/en/guides/error-mitigation-and-suppression-techniques, 2024

    IBM Quantum. Error mitigation and suppression techniques.https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/ docs/en/guides/error-mitigation-and-suppression-techniques, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10- 30. 24

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.