Cited by 278Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and Cryptography

Obstacles to Variational Quantum Optimization from Symmetry Protection

Open access
Bravyi, Sergey, Kliesch, Alexander, Koenig, Robert, Tang, Eugene·2020·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) employs variational states generated by a parameterized quantum circuit to maximize the expected value of a Hamiltonian encoding a classical cost function. Whether or not the QAOA can outperform classical algorithms in some tasks is an actively debated question. Our work exposes fundamental limitations of the QAOA resulting from the symmetry and the locality of variational states. A surprising consequence of our results is that the classical Goemans-Williamson algorithm outperforms the QAOA for certain instances of MaxCut, at any constant level. To overcome these limitations, we propose a nonlocal version of the QAOA and give numerical evidence that it significantly outperforms the standard QAOA for frustrated Ising models.

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/physrevlett.125.260505

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • An empirical evaluation of recursive QAOA has demonstrated its superiority compared to the standard version and its competitiveness compared to the Newman benchmark algorithm for the Max-Cut problem.

    “An empirical evaluation of recursive QAOA has demonstrated its superiority compared to the standard version as well as its competitiveness compared to the Newman benchmark algorithm [203] for the Max-Cut problem [23].”

    From Quantum Combinatorial Optimization in the NISQ Era: A Systematic Mapping Study (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The numerical comparison in Additional information (page unavailable) reports that level-1 recursive QAOA outperformed Goemans–Williamson on 14 of 15 tested instances, while standard level-1 QAOA achieved ratios below 1/2. Those instances were random-coupling Ising problems, not the ordinary Max-Cut instances described in the claim, and this paper does not report a comparison with a Newman algorithm. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 6

  1. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:1411.4028. · arXiv
  2. R. Shaydulin and Y. Alexeev, Evaluating quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm: A case study, in 2019 Tenth International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC) (IEEE, New York, 2019), pp. 1-6.
  3. J. Friedman, arXiv:cs/0405020. · arXiv
  4. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/ supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.260505 for further details on state preparation and implementation.
  5. E. Farhi, D. Gamarnik, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:2004.09002. · arXiv
  6. E. Farhi, D. Gamarnik, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:2005.08747. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bravyi, S., Kliesch, A., Koenig, R., & Tang, E.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2020-12-24
Volume
125
Issue
26
Pages
260505-260505
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2980835754
Cited by
278
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
14.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-20-1-0014)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • National Science Foundation (PHY-1733907)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • IBM Research Frontiers Institute
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 › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
quantum approximate optimization algorithm, variational quantum optimization, symmetry protection, Goemans-Williamson algorithm, MaxCut, frustrated Ising model

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