Cited by 125Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research

Training the quantum approximate optimization algorithm without access to a quantum processing unit

Open access
Streif, Michael, Leib, Martin·2020·Quantum Science and Technology

Abstract

In this paper, we eliminate the classical outer learning loop of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) and present a strategy to find good parameters for QAOA based on topological arguments of the problem graph and tensor network techniques. Starting from the observation of the concentration of control parameters of QAOA, we find a way to classically infer parameters which scales polynomially in the number of qubits and exponentially with the depth of the circuit. Using this strategy, the quantum processing unit (QPU) is only needed to sample from the final state of QAOA. This method paves the way for a variation-free version of QAOA and makes QAOA more practical for applications on NISQ devices. We investigate the performance of the proposed approach for the initial assumptions and its resilience with respect to situations where they are not fulfilled. Moreover, we investigate the applicability of our method beyond the scope of QAOA, in improving schedules for quantum annealing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/2058-9565/ab8c2b

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several other approaches have been identified where ansatz adaptations happen as a secondary effect.

    “Several other approaches have been identified where the ansatz adaptations happen as a secondary effect, e.g., References [36, 48, 82, 131, 153].”

    From Quantum Combinatorial Optimization in the NISQ Era: A Systematic Mapping Study (2024) · cites this paper as [131]

    Section 2.3 (p. 7) introduces tree-QAOA to infer QAOA parameters without repeated QPU execution, and Section 3.1 (p. 12) describes optimizing those parameters on a tree subgraph. This supports an indirect change to parameter selection, but our copy does not describe adapting the final QAOA ansatz as a secondary effect. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Streif and Leib suggested a different approach to QAOA that avoids the outer loop optimization and therefore repeated calls to get optimal parameters.

    “As repeated calls to the quantum computer for updating the parameters are considered a major bottleneck for VQAs in general, Streif and Leib [131] suggested a different approach to QAOA by introducing a technique that avoids the outer loop optimization and therefore repeated calls to get optimal parameters.”
  • The proposed method by Streif and Leib is based on the features of the according problem graph and makes use of tensor network techniques.

    “The proposed method is based on the features of the according problem graph and makes use of tensor network techniques.”
  • An adaptation to QAOA, which does not require exhaustive access to the quantum processing unit, has been used to solve the binary paint shop problem.

    “An adaptation to QAOA, which does not require exhaustive access to the quantum processing unit [131], has been used to solve the binary paint shop problem [132].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Andrew D King and Catherine C McGeoch. Algorithm engineering for a quantum annealing platform. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2628 , 2014. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Streif, M., & Leib, M.
Affiliations
Volkswagen Group (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Streif, Michael
  • Leib, Martin
Venue
Quantum Science and Technology
Published
2020-05-12
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
034008
ISSN
2058-9565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969876173
Cited by
125
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantum Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
European Unions Horizon 2020 (828826)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Keywords
quantum approximate optimization algorithm, tensor networks, NISQ devices, variational quantum algorithms, hybrid quantum-classical optimization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review