analiza aiqbench
This study analyzes the optimization landscape of Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQE and QAOA), revealing that circuit depth increases local minima without necessarily hindering global search, while parameter tying creates significant quality disparities between basins. The research demonstrates that adaptive differential evolution outperforms standard gradient-based methods like BFGS when these quality gaps are large, offering a practical framework for selecting optimizers based on objective function geometry rather than just the count of local minima.
Optimization Geometry of QAOA and Variational Quantum Algorithms
arXiv:2610.05524v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Variational quantum algorithms turn choices of Hamiltonian, ansatz, and parameterization into a classical nonconvex optimization problem. We study how this objective function can be visualized and characterized in ways that help explain optimizer behavior. We distinguish two properties of the objective: the number of local minima encountered along sampled directions and the differences in quality among local-search endpoints. We then ask how a local optimizer, represented by BFGS, compares with adaptive differential evolution, represented by jSO. Rather than comparing jSO with a single local run, we allow BFGS multiple starts within the same function-evaluation budget. This gives local search repeated opportunities to explore different basins and provides a stronger baseline for asking when a global evolutionary solver is useful. We study these questions using VQE and QAOA, focusing on how frustra- tion, circuit depth, parameter tying, mixed locality, and nonlinear repa- rameterization change the Hamiltonian expectation-value objective seen by the classical optimizer. Increasing independent circuit depth raises the sampled local-minimum count without making global search more effective. Parameter tying, by contrast, produces both more repeated local structure and much larger differences in quality among local-search endpoints, and in this regime adaptive differential evolution outperforms function-evaluation-matched multistart BFGS. The comparison shows that the number of local minima alone does not determine whether global search is advantageous: the important distinction is whether different basins lead to similarly good solutions or to substantially different objective values. These results provide a practical workflow for connecting model construction, objective- function geometry, empirical diagnostics, and optimizer choice.
Abstract:Variational quantum algorithms turn choices of Hamiltonian, ansatz, and parameterization into a classical nonconvex optimization problem. We study how this objective function can be visualized and characterized in ways that help explain optimizer behavior. We distinguish two properties of the objective: the number of local minima encountered along sampled directions and the differences in quality among local-search endpoints. We then ask how a local optimizer, represented by BFGS, compares with adaptive differential evolution, represented by jSO. Rather than comparing jSO with a single local run, we allow BFGS multiple starts within the same function-evaluation budget. This gives local search repeated opportunities to explore different basins and provides a stronger baseline for asking when a global evolutionary solver is useful. We study these questions using VQE and QAOA, focusing on how frustra- tion, circuit depth, parameter tying, mixed locality, and nonlinear repa- rameterization change the Hamiltonian expectation-value objective seen by the classical optimizer. Increasing independent circuit depth raises the sampled local-minimum count without making global search more effective. Parameter tying, by contrast, produces both more repeated local structure and much larger differences in quality among local-search endpoints, and in this regime adaptive differential evolution outperforms function-evaluation-matched multistart BFGS. The comparison shows that the number of local minima alone does not determine whether global search is advantageous: the important distinction is whether different basins lead to similarly good solutions or to substantially different objective values. These results provide a practical workflow for connecting model construction, objective- function geometry, empirical diagnostics, and optimizer choice.
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)
G.1.6; I.2.8; F.1.1; F.2.1
arXiv:2610.05524 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2610.05524v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05524 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 354 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Hamiltonian-Guided Leverage Embedding: Robust Subspace Compression for Efficient QAOA Parameter Estimation
arXiv · 9 iun. 2026
Running Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Qiskit Aer on AMD Instinct
AMD · 29 mai 2026

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

AI solves 100-variable quantum circuit problems faster
Quantum Zeitgeist · 23 iul. 2026