Cited by 138Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchQuantum many-body systems

Performance of hybrid quantum-classical variational heuristics for combinatorial optimization

Open access
Nannicini, Giacomo·2019·Physical Review E

Abstract

The recent literature on near-term applications for quantum computers contains several examples of the applications of hybrid quantum-classical variational approaches. This methodology can be applied to a variety of optimization problems, but its practical performance is not well studied yet. This paper moves some steps in the direction of characterizing the practical performance of the methodology, in the context of finding solutions to classical combinatorial optimization problems. Our study is based on numerical results obtained applying several classical nonlinear optimization algorithms to Hamiltonians for six combinatorial optimization problems; the experiments are conducted via noise-free classical simulation of the quantum circuits implemented in Qiskit. We empirically verify that: (1) finding the ground state is harder for Hamiltonians with many Pauli terms; (2) classical global optimization methods are more successful than local methods due to their ability of avoiding the numerous local optima; (3) there does not seem to be a clear advantage in introducing entanglement in the variational form.

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 · 10.1103/physreve.99.013304

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Investigations on the impact of different classical optimizers for parameter optimization in general advocate for gradient-free global optimizers when dealing with real quantum hardware.

    “Investigations on the impact of different classical optimizers for parameter optimization in general advocate for gradient-free global optimizers when dealing with real quantum hardware [37, 47, 100, 121].”

    From Quantum Combinatorial Optimization in the NISQ Era: A Systematic Mapping Study (2024) · cites this paper as [100]

    The paper reports that global classical optimizers were more successful than local methods in its noise-free simulations (opening summary, p. 1). It does not establish that gradient-free global optimizers are preferable on real quantum hardware: the Introduction (p. 1) explicitly says its conclusions might differ on noisy hardware, and the Conclusions (p. 14) suggest computing derivatives as a possible improvement. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 11

  1. [9]E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07674 (2016). · arXiv
  2. [10]J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. AspuruGuzik, New Journal of Physics 18 , 023023 (2016).
  3. [12]F. Barahona, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15 , 3241 (1982).
  4. [13]S. Istrail, in Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (ACM, 2000) pp. 8796.
  5. [15]M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and intractability , Vol. 29 (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, 1972).
  6. [16]G. Cornu´ ejols and M. Dawande, INFORMS Journal on Computing 11 , 205 (1999).
  7. [17]K. Aardal, R. E. Bixby, C. A. J. Hurkens, A. K. Lenstra, and J. W. Smeltink, INFORMS Journal on Computing 12 , 192 (2000).
  8. [19]J. Mor´ e and S. M. Wild, SIAM Journal on Optimization 20 , 172 (2009).
  9. [20]R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 16 , 1190 (1995).
  10. [24]M. J. Powell, The computer journal 7 , 155 (1964).
  11. [25]J. C. Spall, IEEE transactions on automatic control 37 , 332 (1992).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nannicini, G.
Affiliations
IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Nannicini, Giacomo
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2019-01-14
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
013304-013304
ISSN
  • 2470-0045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0053
OpenAlex
W2805358412
Cited by
138
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. E (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Air Force Research Laboratory (FA8750-C-18-0098)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, variational quantum algorithms, combinatorial optimization, variational quantum eigensolver, Pauli term, entanglement, global optimization, local optimization, Qiskit

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