Implementing the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms for QUBO problems Across Quantum Hardware Platforms: Performance Analysis, Challenges, and Strategies

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12336
• Title: Implementing the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms for QUBO problems Across Quantum Hardware Platforms: Performance Analysis, Challenges, and Strategies
• Authors: Teemu Pihkakoski, Aravind Plathanam Babu, Pauli Taipale, Petri Liimatta, Matti Silveri
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2024
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12336v1

Abstract

This paper investigates the performance of standard Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and Adaptive Derivative Assembled Problem-tailored QAOA (ADAPT-QAOA) in solving Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problems of varying scales and difficulty levels, with emphasis on practical applications in financial feature selection. The primary findings demonstrate that ADAPT-QAOA significantly outperforms standard QAOA on difficult problems (trade-off parameter α=0.6), with advantages in both approximation ratio and solution time. However, standard QAOA remains efficient on simple problems. Furthermore, through scaling analysis based on real device calibration data, the paper investigates the practical feasibility and limitations of QAOA across various hardware platforms.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this research is the performance optimization and practical feasibility analysis of using QAOA algorithms to solve QUBO problems on near-term quantum devices. QUBO problems constitute an important class of NP-hard optimization problems with widespread applications in finance and logistics.

Significance

1. Practical Application Value: QUBO problems are significant in real-world scenarios such as financial risk assessment and feature selection
2. Quantum Advantage Exploration: Quantum computers promise substantial advantages in solving complex optimization problems
3. Hardware Adaptability: Performance evaluation of near-term quantum devices is crucial for the practical deployment of quantum algorithms

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Classical Solvers: Encounter convergence difficulties as problem scale increases, requiring more time and memory resources
2. Standard QAOA: Limited performance on difficult problems
3. Insufficient Hardware Evaluation: Lack of systematic performance analysis based on real device calibration data

Research Motivation

To bridge the gap between quantum algorithm performance and current quantum hardware capabilities, providing guidance strategies for practical deployment of quantum optimization algorithms.

Core Contributions

1. Algorithm Performance Comparison: Systematic comparison of standard QAOA and ADAPT-QAOA performance on QUBO problems of varying difficulty
2. Hardware Platform Evaluation: Assessment of theoretical performance of superconducting and ion-trap quantum computers based on real device calibration data
3. Application-Oriented Focus: Emphasis on practical application scenarios in financial feature selection
4. Comprehensive Analysis Framework: Provision of comprehensive overview of challenges, trade-offs, and strategies for deploying QAOA methods

Methodology Details

Task Definition

QUBO Problem: Minimize the objective function $f_{QUBO}(x) = \sum_i Q_{ii}x_i + \sum_{i<j} Q_{ij}x_ix_j$

Feature Selection Problem: Minimize $f_{FS}(x) = -(1-\alpha)\sum_i Q_{ii}x_i + \alpha\sum_{i<j} Q_{ij}x_ix_j$

where α∈0,1 is a trade-off parameter controlling problem difficulty.

Model Architecture

Standard QAOA

1. Initialization: All qubits initialized to equal superposition state $|\psi_0\rangle = \left(\frac{|0\rangle + |1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{\otimes n}$
2. Cost and Mixer Layers: $U_C(\gamma_k) = e^{-i\gamma_k \hat{H}_C}, \quad U_M(\beta_k) = e^{-i\beta_k \hat{H}_M}$
3. Iterative Optimization: Sequentially add QAOA layers and optimize variational parameters

ADAPT-QAOA

1. Adaptive Mixer Selection: Select optimal mixer from mixer pool
   • Global mixers: $P_{XY} = \{\sum_i X_i\} \cup \{\sum_i Y_i\}$
   • Single-qubit mixers: $P_{single} = \bigcup_i \{X_i, Y_i\}$
   • Two-qubit mixers: $P_{two} = \bigcup_{i \neq j} \{\mu_i \nu_j | \mu,\nu \in \{X,Y,Z\}\}$
2. Gradient Criterion: Select mixer with maximum energy gradient $g_l = \left|\sum_i \langle\psi^{(k-1)}|e^{i\hat{H}_C\gamma_0}[\hat{H}_C, A_l]e^{-i\hat{H}_C\gamma_0}|\psi^{(k-1)}\rangle\right|$

Technical Innovations

1. Adaptive Mixer Selection: ADAPT-QAOA reduces variational parameters through dynamic quantum gate selection
2. Real Hardware Evaluation: Performance estimation incorporating real device calibration data
3. Multi-dimensional Performance Analysis: Simultaneous consideration of approximation ratio, solution time, and error rates

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• Problem Scale: Feature selection problems with 6, 10, and 14 features
• Difficulty Parameters: α = 0.2 (easy) and α = 0.6 (hard)
• Random Generation: QUBO matrices generated using 10 different random seeds

Evaluation Metrics

1. Approximation Ratio: $r_k = \frac{C_k}{C_{exact}}$
2. Solution Time: Total algorithm execution time
3. Total Error Probability: $E_{tot} = 1 - [(1-e_1)^{n_1}(1-e_2)^{n_2}(1-e_m)^{n_m}]$

Comparison Methods

• Standard QAOA vs ADAPT-QAOA
• Different quantum hardware platforms: IBM Brisbane (superconducting) vs Quantinuum H2 (ion-trap)
• Classical solver: Gurobi OptiMods

Implementation Details

• Simulator: QisKit ideal quantum simulator
• Measurement Shots: 10⁴ measurements per optimization iteration
• Optimizer: SciPy Powell method with maximum 1500 iterations
• Layer Count: Up to 30 QAOA layers

Experimental Results

Main Results

Algorithm Performance Comparison

1. Easy Problems (α=0.2): Standard QAOA and ADAPT-QAOA show comparable performance
2. Hard Problems (α=0.6): ADAPT-QAOA significantly outperforms standard QAOA
   • Achieves higher average approximation ratio across all problem scales
   • At least one instance approaches exact solution (approximation ratio ≈ 1)

Hardware Platform Comparison

1. Solution Time:
   • IBM Brisbane (superconducting): Faster than Quantinuum H2 across all problem scales
   • Topology Impact: Fully connected > Grid > Heavy hexagonal
2. Error Rates:
   • Quantinuum H2: Lowest error rate (~10%)
   • IBM Brisbane: Higher error rates (20-60%, depending on topology)

Ablation Studies

Comparison of 15-layer ADAPT-QAOA with 30-layer standard QAOA reveals:

• On hard problems, ADAPT-QAOA achieves better performance with fewer layers
• Demonstrates effectiveness of adaptive mixer selection

Case Analysis

Using 14-feature problem as example:

• At α=0.6, 15-layer ADAPT-QAOA outperforms 30-layer standard QAOA
• Advantages in both approximation ratio and solution time dimensions

Experimental Findings

1. Algorithm Selection Strategy: Use standard QAOA for easy problems, ADAPT-QAOA for hard problems
2. Hardware Trade-offs: Superconducting devices offer speed, ion-trap devices offer precision
3. Classical Advantage: Classical solver Gurobi remains advantageous at current problem scales

Related Work

Main Research Directions

1. Quantum Annealing Methods: Applications of D-Wave systems to binary linear programming problems
2. QAOA Variants: Various methods to improve QAOA performance and scalability
3. Quantum Optimization Applications: Portfolio optimization, vehicle routing problems, and other practical applications

Advantages of This Work

1. Systematic Comparison: First systematic comparison of standard QAOA and ADAPT-QAOA performance on QUBO problems
2. Real Hardware Considerations: Theoretical analysis based on real device calibration data
3. Application-Oriented: Focus on practical financial feature selection problems

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. ADAPT-QAOA significantly outperforms standard QAOA on hard problems, achieving better performance with fewer layers
2. Superconducting quantum computers have advantages in solution time, while ion-trap devices have lower error rates
3. Problem difficulty is the key factor for algorithm selection: Use standard QAOA for easy problems, ADAPT-QAOA for hard problems

Limitations

1. Problem Scale Constraints: Current experiments limited to small-scale problems (maximum 14 features)
2. Classical Advantage: Classical solvers remain advantageous under current problem settings
3. Error Mitigation Not Considered: Impact of quantum error mitigation methods not included

Future Directions

1. More Complex Problems: Explore problems more challenging for classical solvers
2. Constraint Handling: Incorporate penalty terms in QUBO objective functions
3. Error Mitigation: Study impact of error mitigation methods on algorithm performance

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Practicality: Focus on real-world application scenarios, particularly financial feature selection
2. Comprehensive Analysis: Simultaneous consideration of algorithm performance, hardware characteristics, and practical constraints
3. Rigorous Methodology: Theoretical analysis based on real device calibration data provides strong reference value
4. Clear Conclusions: Provides clear guidance for algorithm selection in different scenarios

Weaknesses

1. Small Problem Scale: Experimental scale limitations reduce generalizability of conclusions
2. Unclear Quantum Advantage: Quantum algorithms do not demonstrate clear advantage over classical methods in current problem settings
3. Simplified Error Analysis: Error estimation model is relatively simple, not considering correlated errors and error mitigation

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important reference for practical deployment of QAOA algorithms
2. Engineering Guidance: Hardware platform comparison provides guidance for quantum computer selection
3. Reproducibility: Detailed experimental setup facilitates reproduction and extension by other researchers

Applicable Scenarios

1. Near-term Quantum Devices: Particularly suitable for quantum optimization applications in the NISQ era
2. Financial Technology: Feature selection, risk assessment, and other financial application scenarios
3. Algorithm Selection: Provides guidance for algorithm selection in optimization problems of varying difficulty

References

This paper cites 25 relevant references covering important works in QUBO problems, QAOA algorithms, quantum hardware, and optimization applications, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Summary: Through systematic theoretical analysis and experimental validation, this paper provides important guidance for deploying quantum approximate optimization algorithms on real hardware. Although quantum advantage is not yet evident at current problem scales, the research methodology and analysis framework hold significant value for the quantum optimization field.