analiza aiqbench
This review critically evaluates the current state of adaptive workflows combining AI and quantum computing for combinatorial optimization, highlighting that while ML effectively reduces quantum resource costs, robust evidence for quantum-enhanced classical learning remains limited to small-scale simulations. The analysis underscores significant experimental gaps, such as a lack of classical baselines in many studies, and argues that future progress depends on solving systems-level resource allocation rather than isolated hardware scaling.
Beyond QAOA: A Review of AI and Quantum Computing for Adaptive Combinatorial Optimization
arXiv:2610.11759v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Near-term quantum approaches to combinatorial optimization are limited by qubit counts, circuit fidelity, sampling cost, and the difficulty of encoding constraints, while machine learning is increasingly used to configure and control quantum optimization workflows. We call such workflows adaptive: decisions conventionally fixed in advance, from formulation and penalties to shot budgets, backends, and whether to invoke a quantum processor at all, are made by learned policies that respond to the instance, the progress of the solve, or the hardware. This review examines three paradigms, AI for quantum optimization, quantum for AI-driven optimization, and AI-quantum co-optimization, and organizes the literature by the decision being learned rather than by application. A structured review of 119 papers, 67 coded in detail, shows that the evidence is considerably stronger for AI-assisted quantum optimization than for the reverse direction: learning already reduces quantum evaluations, improves initialization, supports decomposition and penalty control, and mitigates noise, whereas evidence that quantum computation improves learned optimizers remains largely confined to small-scale simulation. Experimental controls are thin: 25 of 57 studies include no classical baseline, the quantum contribution is fully isolated in 10 of 24 studies where an ablation applies, and the median experiment uses 17 qubits. We introduce an M0-M5 evidence hierarchy, from simulation to matched-resource practical advantage, and find no broadly convincing result at the highest level. We argue that scaling is increasingly a systems problem: the question is not only whether a problem fits on a quantum processor, but how classical and quantum resources should be allocated across the optimization process. The review is aimed at researchers in quantum computing, machine learning, and operations research.
Abstract:Near-term quantum approaches to combinatorial optimization are limited by qubit counts, circuit fidelity, sampling cost, and the difficulty of encoding constraints, while machine learning is increasingly used to configure and control quantum optimization workflows. We call such workflows adaptive: decisions conventionally fixed in advance, from formulation and penalties to shot budgets, backends, and whether to invoke a quantum processor at all, are made by learned policies that respond to the instance, the progress of the solve, or the hardware. This review examines three paradigms, AI for quantum optimization, quantum for AI-driven optimization, and AI-quantum co-optimization, and organizes the literature by the decision being learned rather than by application. A structured review of 119 papers, 67 coded in detail, shows that the evidence is considerably stronger for AI-assisted quantum optimization than for the reverse direction: learning already reduces quantum evaluations, improves initialization, supports decomposition and penalty control, and mitigates noise, whereas evidence that quantum computation improves learned optimizers remains largely confined to small-scale simulation. Experimental controls are thin: 25 of 57 studies include no classical baseline, the quantum contribution is fully isolated in 10 of 24 studies where an ablation applies, and the median experiment uses 17 qubits. We introduce an M0-M5 evidence hierarchy, from simulation to matched-resource practical advantage, and find no broadly convincing result at the highest level. We argue that scaling is increasingly a systems problem: the question is not only whether a problem fits on a quantum processor, but how classical and quantum resources should be allocated across the optimization process. The review is aimed at researchers in quantum computing, machine learning, and operations research.
34 pages, 5 figures, 7 tables. Review article. Supplementary evidence matrix (coded data for all 119 papers) included as an ancillary file
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC)
F.2.2; I.2.6; G.1.6
arXiv:2610.11759 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2610.11759v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.11759 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Beyond_QAOA_Supplementary_Evidence_Matrix.xlsx
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 395 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

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

Review Evaluates AI and Quantum Computing Paradigms for Adaptive Combinatorial Optimization
Quantum Computing Report · 17 oct. 2026

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

A brief history of quantum vs classical computational advantage
Quantum Journal · 1 sept. 2026