aiqbench analysis
This study benchmarks classical optimizers for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA), revealing that adaptive population methods outperform gradient-based approaches when handling noisy feedback from quantum devices. The research highlights a critical trade-off where performance rankings shift based on whether metrics track exact visited points or noisy observations, suggesting that reserving measurement budgets for final re-evaluation can significantly improve solution quality. Ultimately, the findings indicate that optimizer selection must be tailored to specific landscape structures and noise levels rather than relying on a single universal method.
Adaptive Differential Evolution and Multistart Search for Noisy QAOA Optimization
arXiv:2609.23180v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We benchmark classical optimization of a fixed low-depth Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) ansatz across four cost-Hamiltonian families at $N=12$, $p=3$, and $D=6$. Ten optimizers are compared over 25 independent runs under common ceilings of 10\,000 and 30\,000 function evaluations (FEs), first with exact statevector objectives and then with two additive observation-noise levels. Exact objectives favor multistart BFGS and multistart CMA-ES. Under noisy feedback, adaptive population methods become more competitive, but the ranking depends on whether performance is measured by the best exact point visited or by the point selected from noisy observations. A targeted extension over all three pre-screened instances per family confirms this regime change while showing that named adaptive-DE winners are instance dependent: jSO-lite leads low-noise oracle search, iL-SHADE high-noise oracle search, and L-SRTDE high-noise selected solutions in the equal-instance summaries. Bootstrap analysis quantifies a non-negligible high-noise search--selection gap, and a retrospective fixed-budget verification proxy shows that reserving a small measurement budget for final re-evaluation improves selected quality across all ten methods at 30\,000 FEs. A supplementary structure-aware study further shows that QAOA cross-depth restriction and continuous basin refinement are more useful in these conditions than standalone Monte Carlo tree-search selection. Overall, optimizer choice depends jointly on landscape structure, observation noise, and final-point identification.
Abstract:We benchmark classical optimization of a fixed low-depth Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) ansatz across four cost-Hamiltonian families at $N=12$, $p=3$, and $D=6$. Ten optimizers are compared over 25 independent runs under common ceilings of 10\,000 and 30\,000 function evaluations (FEs), first with exact statevector objectives and then with two additive observation-noise levels. Exact objectives favor multistart BFGS and multistart CMA-ES. Under noisy feedback, adaptive population methods become more competitive, but the ranking depends on whether performance is measured by the best exact point visited or by the point selected from noisy observations. A targeted extension over all three pre-screened instances per family confirms this regime change while showing that named adaptive-DE winners are instance dependent: jSO-lite leads low-noise oracle search, iL-SHADE high-noise oracle search, and L-SRTDE high-noise selected solutions in the equal-instance summaries. Bootstrap analysis quantifies a non-negligible high-noise search--selection gap, and a retrospective fixed-budget verification proxy shows that reserving a small measurement budget for final re-evaluation improves selected quality across all ten methods at 30\,000 FEs. A supplementary structure-aware study further shows that QAOA cross-depth restriction and continuous basin refinement are more useful in these conditions than standalone Monte Carlo tree-search selection. Overall, optimizer choice depends jointly on landscape structure, observation noise, and final-point identification.
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)
G.1.6; I.2.8; J.2
arXiv:2609.23180 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2609.23180v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23180 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 309 words
Related coverage
Optimization Geometry of QAOA and Variational Quantum Algorithms
arXiv · Oct 6, 2026
When is global evolutionary search useful for variational quantum algorithms? A landscape-first study
arXiv · Sep 15, 2026

Sampled-Based Guided Quantum Walk: Non-variational quantum algorithm for combinatorial optimization
Quantum Journal · Oct 13, 2026

Promise of Graph Sparsification and Decomposition for Noise Reduction in QAOA: Analysis for Trapped-Ion Compilations
Quantum Journal · Aug 7, 2026