Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1901.01903

Comparison of QAOA with Quantum and Simulated Annealing

Michael Streif, Martin Leib

Published Jan 7, 2019• 35 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We present a comparison between the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and two widely studied competing methods, Quantum Annealing (QA) and Simulated Annealing (SA). To achieve this, we define a class of optimization problems with respect to their spectral properties which are exactly solvable with QAOA. In this class, we identify instances for which QA and SA have an exponentially small probability to find the solution. Consequently, our results define a first demarcation line between QAOA, Simulated Annealing and Quantum Annealing, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1901.01903

Related papers

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm in Finite Size and Large Depth and Equivalence to Quantum Annealing

Sami Boulebnane, James Sud, Ruslan Shaydulin +1 more

The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) and quantum annealing are two of the most popular quantum optimization heuristics. While QAOA is known to be able to approximate quantum annealing, the approximation requires QAOA angles to vanish with the problem size $n$, whereas optimized QAOA angles are observed to be size-independent for small $n$ and constant in the infinite-size limit. This fact led to a folklore belief that QAOA has a mechanism that is fundamentally different from quantum annealing. In this work, we provide evidence against this by analytically showing that QAOA energy approximates that of quantum annealing under two conditions, namely that angles vary smoothly from one layer to the next and that the sum is bounded by a constant. These conditions are known to hold for near-optimal QAOA angles empirically. Our proof relies on a series expansion of QAOA energy in sum of angles, which we show converges to quantum annealing limit as QAOA depth grows for constant sum of angles even if angles do not vanish with problem size $n$. A corollary of our results is a quadratic improvement for the bound on depth required to compile Trotterized quantum annealing of the SK model in the average case.

arXiv:2503.09563•Mar 12, 2025•1 citation

To quantum or not to quantum: towards algorithm selection in near-term quantum optimization

Charles Moussa, Henri Calandra, Vedran Dunjko

Abstract The Quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) constitutes one of the often mentioned candidates expected to yield a quantum boost in the era of near-term quantum computing. In practice, quantum optimization will have to compete with cheaper classical heuristic methods, which have the advantage of decades of empirical domain-specific enhancements. Consequently, to achieve optimal performance we will face the issue of algorithm selection, well-studied in practical computing. Here we introduce this problem to the quantum optimization domain. Specifically, we study the problem of detecting those problem instances of where QAOA is most likely to yield an advantage over a conventional algorithm. As our case study, we compare QAOA against the well-understood approximation algorithm of Goemans and Williamson on the Max-Cut problem. As exactly predicting the performance of algorithms can be intractable, we utilize machine learning (ML) to identify when to resort to the quantum algorithm. We achieve cross-validated accuracy well over 96%, which would yield a substantial practical advantage. In the process, we highlight a number of features of instances rendering them better suited for QAOA. While we work with simulated idealised algorithms, the flexibility of ML methods we employed provides confidence that our methods will be equally applicable to broader classes of classical heuristics, and to QAOA running on real-world noisy devices.

arXiv:2001.08271•Quantum Science and Technology•Sep 16, 2020•50 citations

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Implementation on Near-Term Devices

Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi +2 more

The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) is a hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithm designed to tackle combinatorial optimization problems.Despite its promise for near-term quantum applications, not much is currently understood about the QAOA's performance beyond its lowestdepth variant.An essential but missing ingredient for understanding and deploying the QAOA is a constructive approach to carry out the outer-loop classical optimization.We provide an in-depth study of the performance of the QAOA on MaxCut problems by developing an efficient parameter-optimization procedure and revealing its ability to exploit nonadiabatic operations.Building on observed patterns in optimal parameters, we propose heuristic strategies for initializing optimizations to find quasioptimal p-level QAOA parameters in O½polyðpÞ time, whereas the standard strategy of random initialization requires 2 OðpÞ optimization runs to achieve similar performance.We then benchmark the QAOA and compare it with quantum annealing, especially on difficult instances where adiabatic quantum annealing fails due to small spectral gaps.The comparison reveals that the QAOA can learn via optimization to utilize nonadiabatic mechanisms to circumvent the challenges associated with vanishing spectral gaps.Finally, we provide a realistic resource analysis on the experimental implementation of the QAOA.When quantum fluctuations in measurements are accounted for, we illustrate that optimization is important only for problem sizes beyond numerical simulations but accessible on near-term devices.We propose a feasible implementation of large MaxCut problems with a few hundred vertices in a system of 2D neutral atoms, reaching the regime to challenge the best classical algorithms.

arXiv:1812.01041•Physical Review X•Jun 24, 2020•932 citations

Forbidden subspaces for level-1 quantum approximate optimization algorithm and instantaneous quantum polynomial circuits

Michael Streif, Martin Leib

We present a thorough investigation of problems that can be solved exactly with the level-1 quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). To this end, we implicitly define a class of problem Hamiltonians that are employed as phase separators in a level-1 QAOA circuit and provide unit overlap with a target subspace spanned by a set of computational basis states. For one-dimensional target subspaces, we identify instances within the implicitly defined class of Hamiltonians for which quantum annealing (QA) and simulated annealing (SA) have an exponentially small probability of finding the solution. Consequently, our results define a demarcation line between QAOA on one hand and QA and SA on the other, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively. Moreover, for two-dimensional solution subspaces, we are able to show that the depth of the QAOA circuit grows linearly with the Hamming distance between the two target states. We further show that there are no genuine solutions for target subspaces of dimension higher than 2 and smaller than ${2}^{n}$. We also transfer these results to instantaneous quantum polynomial (IQP) circuits.

arXiv:2007.13563•Physical Review A•Oct 28, 2020•7 citations

Distinguishing thermal versus quantum annealing using probability-flux signatures across interaction networks

Yoshiaki Horiike, Yuki Kawaguchi

Simulated annealing provides a heuristic solution to combinatorial optimization problems. The cost function of a problem is mapped onto the energy function of a physical many-body system, and, by using thermal or quantum fluctuations, the system explores the state space to find the ground state, which corresponds to the optimal solution of the problem. Studies have highlighted both the similarities and differences between thermal and quantum fluctuations. Nevertheless, fundamental understanding of thermal and quantum annealing remains incomplete, making it unclear how quantum annealing outperforms thermal annealing in which problem instances. Here, we investigate the many-body dynamics of thermal and quantum annealing by examining all possible interaction networks of $\pm J$ Ising spin systems up to seven spins. Our comprehensive investigation reveals that differences between thermal and quantum annealing emerge for particular interaction networks, indicating that the structure of the energy landscape distinguishes the two dynamics. We identify the microscopic origin of these differences through probability fluxes in state space, finding that the two dynamics are broadly similar, but that quantum tunnelling produces qualitative differences. Our results provide insight into how thermal and quantum fluctuations navigate a system toward the ground state in simulated annealing, and are experimentally verifiable in atomic, molecular, and optical systems. Furthermore, these insights may improve mappings of optimization problems to Ising spin systems, yielding more accurate solutions in faster simulated annealing and thus benefiting real-world applications in industry. Our comprehensive survey of interaction networks and visualization of probability flux can help to understand, predict, and control quantum advantage in quantum annealing.

cond-mat.stat-mechCross-listedarXiv:2511.16457•Nov 21, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Annealing: An Introduction and New Developments

Masayuki Ohzeki, Hidetoshi Nishimori

Quantum annealing is a generic algorithm using quantum-mechanical fluctuations to search for the solution of an optimization problem. The present paper first reviews the fundamentals of quantum annealing and then reports on preliminary results for an alternative method. The review part includes the relationship of quantum annealing with classical simulated annealing. We next propose a novel quantum algorithm which might be available for hard optimization problems by using a classical-quantum mapping as well as the Jarzynski equality introduced in nonequilibrium statistical physics.

arXiv:1006.1696•Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience•Mar 23, 2011•51 citations
We present a comparison between the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and two widely studied competing methods, Quantum Annealing (QA) and Simulated Annealing (SA). To achieve this, we define a class of optimization problems with respect to their spectral properties which are exactly solvable with QAOA. In this class, we identify instances for which QA and SA have an exponentially small probability to find the solution. Consequently, our results define a first demarcation line between QAOA, Simulated Annealing and Quantum Annealing, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively.
The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) and quantum annealing are two of the most popular quantum optimization heuristics. While QAOA is known to be able to approximate quantum annealing, the approximation requires QAOA angles to vanish with the problem size nnn, whereas optimized QAOA angles are observed to be size-independent for small nnn and constant in the infinite-size limit. This fact led to a folklore belief that QAOA has a mechanism that is fundamentally different from quantum annealing. In this work, we provide evidence against this by analytically showing that QAOA energy approximates that of quantum annealing under two conditions, namely that angles vary smoothly from one layer to the next and that the sum is bounded by a constant. These conditions are known to hold for near-optimal QAOA angles empirically. Our proof relies on a series expansion of QAOA energy in sum of angles, which we show converges to quantum annealing limit as QAOA depth grows for constant sum of angles even if angles do not vanish with problem size nnn. A corollary of our results is a quadratic improvement for the bound on depth required to compile Trotterized quantum annealing of the SK model in the average case.
Abstract The Quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) constitutes one of the often mentioned candidates expected to yield a quantum boost in the era of near-term quantum computing. In practice, quantum optimization will have to compete with cheaper classical heuristic methods, which have the advantage of decades of empirical domain-specific enhancements. Consequently, to achieve optimal performance we will face the issue of algorithm selection, well-studied in practical computing. Here we introduce this problem to the quantum optimization domain. Specifically, we study the problem of detecting those problem instances of where QAOA is most likely to yield an advantage over a conventional algorithm. As our case study, we compare QAOA against the well-understood approximation algorithm of Goemans and Williamson on the Max-Cut problem. As exactly predicting the performance of algorithms can be intractable, we utilize machine learning (ML) to identify when to resort to the quantum algorithm. We achieve cross-validated accuracy well over 96%, which would yield a substantial practical advantage. In the process, we highlight a number of features of instances rendering them better suited for QAOA. While we work with simulated idealised algorithms, the flexibility of ML methods we employed provides confidence that our methods will be equally applicable to broader classes of classical heuristics, and to QAOA running on real-world noisy devices.
The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) is a hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithm designed to tackle combinatorial optimization problems.Despite its promise for near-term quantum applications, not much is currently understood about the QAOA's performance beyond its lowestdepth variant.An essential but missing ingredient for understanding and deploying the QAOA is a constructive approach to carry out the outer-loop classical optimization.We provide an in-depth study of the performance of the QAOA on MaxCut problems by developing an efficient parameter-optimization procedure and revealing its ability to exploit nonadiabatic operations.Building on observed patterns in optimal parameters, we propose heuristic strategies for initializing optimizations to find quasioptimal p-level QAOA parameters in O½polyðpÞ time, whereas the standard strategy of random initialization requires 2 OðpÞ optimization runs to achieve similar performance.We then benchmark the QAOA and compare it with quantum annealing, especially on difficult instances where adiabatic quantum annealing fails due to small spectral gaps.The comparison reveals that the QAOA can learn via optimization to utilize nonadiabatic mechanisms to circumvent the challenges associated with vanishing spectral gaps.Finally, we provide a realistic resource analysis on the experimental implementation of the QAOA.When quantum fluctuations in measurements are accounted for, we illustrate that optimization is important only for problem sizes beyond numerical simulations but accessible on near-term devices.We propose a feasible implementation of large MaxCut problems with a few hundred vertices in a system of 2D neutral atoms, reaching the regime to challenge the best classical algorithms.
We present a thorough investigation of problems that can be solved exactly with the level-1 quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). To this end, we implicitly define a class of problem Hamiltonians that are employed as phase separators in a level-1 QAOA circuit and provide unit overlap with a target subspace spanned by a set of computational basis states. For one-dimensional target subspaces, we identify instances within the implicitly defined class of Hamiltonians for which quantum annealing (QA) and simulated annealing (SA) have an exponentially small probability of finding the solution. Consequently, our results define a demarcation line between QAOA on one hand and QA and SA on the other, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively. Moreover, for two-dimensional solution subspaces, we are able to show that the depth of the QAOA circuit grows linearly with the Hamming distance between the two target states. We further show that there are no genuine solutions for target subspaces of dimension higher than 2 and smaller than 2n{2}^{n}2n. We also transfer these results to instantaneous quantum polynomial (IQP) circuits.
Simulated annealing provides a heuristic solution to combinatorial optimization problems. The cost function of a problem is mapped onto the energy function of a physical many-body system, and, by using thermal or quantum fluctuations, the system explores the state space to find the ground state, which corresponds to the optimal solution of the problem. Studies have highlighted both the similarities and differences between thermal and quantum fluctuations. Nevertheless, fundamental understanding of thermal and quantum annealing remains incomplete, making it unclear how quantum annealing outperforms thermal annealing in which problem instances. Here, we investigate the many-body dynamics of thermal and quantum annealing by examining all possible interaction networks of ±J\pm J±J Ising spin systems up to seven spins. Our comprehensive investigation reveals that differences between thermal and quantum annealing emerge for particular interaction networks, indicating that the structure of the energy landscape distinguishes the two dynamics. We identify the microscopic origin of these differences through probability fluxes in state space, finding that the two dynamics are broadly similar, but that quantum tunnelling produces qualitative differences. Our results provide insight into how thermal and quantum fluctuations navigate a system toward the ground state in simulated annealing, and are experimentally verifiable in atomic, molecular, and optical systems. Furthermore, these insights may improve mappings of optimization problems to Ising spin systems, yielding more accurate solutions in faster simulated annealing and thus benefiting real-world applications in industry. Our comprehensive survey of interaction networks and visualization of probability flux can help to understand, predict, and control quantum advantage in quantum annealing.
Quantum annealing is a generic algorithm using quantum-mechanical fluctuations to search for the solution of an optimization problem. The present paper first reviews the fundamentals of quantum annealing and then reports on preliminary results for an alternative method. The review part includes the relationship of quantum annealing with classical simulated annealing. We next propose a novel quantum algorithm which might be available for hard optimization problems by using a classical-quantum mapping as well as the Jarzynski equality introduced in nonequilibrium statistical physics.