A Rigorous Quantum Framework for Inequality-Constrained and Multi-Objective Binary Optimization

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.13983
• Title: A Rigorous Quantum Framework for Inequality-Constrained and Multi-Objective Binary Optimization
• Authors: Sebastian Egginger, Kristina Kirova, Sonja Bruckner, Stefan Hillmich, Richard Kueng
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics)
• Publication Date: October 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13983

Abstract

Encoding combinatorial optimization problems as physically meaningful Hamiltonians with tractable energy landscapes forms the foundation of quantum optimization. Numerous studies have explored efficient encodings for the class of Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problems. However, many real-world tasks come with constraints, and handling equality constraints, particularly inequality constraints, on quantum computers remains a significant challenge. This paper demonstrates that incorporating inequality constraints is equivalent to solving multi-objective optimization problems. This insight motivates the Multi-Objective Quantum Approximation (MOQA) framework, which approximates the maximum through smaller p-norms and provides rigorous performance guarantees. MOQA operates directly at the Hamiltonian level, is compatible with but not limited to ground state solvers such as quantum adiabatic annealing, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA), or imaginary time evolution. Furthermore, it is not restricted to quadratic functions.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem addressed in this paper is efficiently handling binary optimization problems with inequality constraints on quantum computers. Traditional quantum optimization methods primarily target unconstrained QUBO problems, but optimization problems in real-world applications often contain complex constraints.

Problem Significance

1. Practical Application Demands: Many important problems in finance, logistics, energy management, and other fields can be reformulated as binary optimization problems, but these typically include equality constraints f(b)=0 or inequality constraints g(b)≥0
2. Quantum Advantage Potential: Binary optimization is considered one of the most promising areas where quantum algorithms may produce significant practical impact

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Equality Constraint Handling: Can be addressed through regularization methods, i.e., h(b) → h(b) + γ(f(b))², but requires appropriate selection of regularization parameter γ
2. Inequality Constraint Difficulty: Traditional regularization strategies are not applicable to inequality constraints g(b)≥0
3. Defects in Existing Solutions:
   • Require additional slack variables and auxiliary qubits
   • Lack rigorous theoretical guarantees
   • Applicable only to specific problem settings
   • Require additional classical/quantum subroutines

Research Motivation

This paper proposes the first rigorous framework for handling inequality constraints without using auxiliary systems, additional optimization variables, or being restricted to specific tasks or solvers, while providing convergence guarantees.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Breakthrough: Demonstrates that incorporating inequality constraints is equivalent to solving multi-objective optimization problems
2. MOQA Framework: Proposes the Multi-Objective Quantum Approximation framework that implements constraint handling through p-norm approximation
3. Rigorous Theoretical Guarantees: Provides rigorous mathematical proofs for Proposition 1 and Theorem 1
4. Universal Compatibility: Framework is compatible with multiple quantum solvers, including QAOA, adiabatic annealing, and others
5. Experimental Validation: Validates the method's effectiveness through 10,000 random instances

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Consider the multi-objective binary optimization problem:

minimize h_max(b) = max{h₁(b), ..., h_M(b)}
b∈{0,1}ⁿ

where each h_m(b) represents an objective function that can be reformulated as a k-local Hamiltonian Ĥ_m on n qubits.

Core Idea: Transforming Constraints into Multi-Objective Optimization

For inequality constraint g(b)≥0, transformation proceeds through:

1. Non-analytical Regularization: h(b) → h(b) + γmax{0, -g(b)}
2. Multi-objective Reformulation: Reformulate as the maximum of two benign cost functions
   • h₁(b) = h(b)
   • h₂(b) = h(b) - γg(b)

MOQA Framework Architecture

Core Approximation: Approximate the maximum through the average of p-th powers

h_max(b)ᵖ = max{h₁ᵖ(b), ..., h_Mᵖ(b)} ≈ Σᴹₘ₌₁ h_mᵖ(b)

Hamiltonian Level:

Ĥ^(p) = (1/M) Σᴹₘ₌₁ Ĥ_m^p

Technical Innovations

1. ℓp-Norm Theoretical Foundation

Proposition 1: For each p∈ℕ₊, the following bracketing inequalities hold for all binary vectors b∈{0,1}ⁿ:

M^(-1/p)(h^(p)(b))^(1/p) ≤ h_max(b) ≤ (h^(p)(b))^(1/p)

2. Spectral Gap Ratio Theory

Theorem 1: Let Ĥ_max be the Hamiltonian corresponding to the maximum of M objectives with non-degenerate ground state space, and r(Ĥ_max) be its spectral gap ratio. Choose the approximation level:

p > log(M)/log(r(Ĥ_max) + 1)

to ensure that Ĥ^(p) has exactly the same ground state space as Ĥ_max and a larger spectral gap ratio.

3. Locality and Term Count Analysis

• Original Hamiltonian: k-local, at most T≤nᵏ terms
• Approximate Hamiltonian: pk-local, at most n^(kp) terms
• QUBO Case: Growth from 2-local to 2p-local

Experimental Setup

Dataset

• Problem Scale: QUBO problems with n=4 to n=20 variables
• Constraint Type: Single linear inequality constraint aᵀb≥0
• Instance Count: 10,000 random instances
• Generation Method: Vector and matrix elements independently sampled from standard Gaussian distribution

Evaluation Metrics

1. Absolute Difference Error (ε):

ε = (1/Ns) Σᵢ₌₁ᴺˢ {1 if h_max^(i)(b*_(p)^(i)) ≠ h_max^(i)(b*_max^(i)), 0 else}

2. Relative Difference Error (δ):

δ = (1/Ns) Σᵢ₌₁ᴺˢ [h_max(b*_(p)^(i)) - h_max(b*_max^(i))]/h_max(b*_max^(i))

Implementation Details

• Approximation Levels: Test p∈{5,10,20}
• Regularization Parameters: γ∈{6,120}
• Spectral Gap Ratio Analysis: Instances grouped by spectral gap ratio for analysis

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Approximation Quality Improves with p: Figure 1 shows that approximation quality globally improves across the entire optimization landscape as p increases
2. Relative Error Performance: For small p values, relative difference δ<1%, indicating that the minimum found by MOQA is also a good solution for Ĥ_max
3. Constraint Satisfaction: Among 10,000 instances, all solutions for all p values satisfy the constraints

Spectral Gap Ratio Analysis

Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship between approximation error and spectral gap ratio:

• Threshold Effect: Absolute difference ε drops to zero when spectral gap ratio reaches theoretical threshold
• Early Convergence: In practice, error reaches zero before the theoretical threshold
• Parameter Influence: Small p, small n, and large M reduce the distance between empirical and theoretical zero points

Scale Effect Analysis

• Problem Scale Impact: As n increases, the probability of finding the global optimum for small p values decreases
• Stable Relative Performance: Differences across scales are diminishing, suggesting the method may extend to n>20
• Practical Validation: Even below theoretical thresholds, MOQA produces reliable results

Related Work

Quantum Optimization Foundations

1. Adiabatic Quantum Optimization: Prepares the ground state of a problem Hamiltonian by slowly changing from a simple initial state
2. QAOA Algorithm: Trotter-ized version of adiabatic transformation, suitable for NISQ devices
3. QUBO Problems: Particularly quantum processing of MAX-CUT problems

Constraint Handling Methods

1. Equality Constraints: Regularization method h(b) → h(b) + γ(f(b))²
2. Existing Inequality Constraint Methods:
   • Slack variable methods (requiring auxiliary qubits)
   • Augmented Lagrangian methods
   • Unbalanced penalty methods
   • Custom penalty functions
   • Quantum projection methods

Advantages of This Work

Compared to existing methods, MOQA provides:

• Rigorous framework without auxiliary systems
• Theoretical convergence guarantees
• Compatibility with multiple solvers
• Applicability beyond specific problem types

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Contribution: Establishes equivalence between inequality constraints and multi-objective optimization
2. Practical Framework: MOQA provides a general method for handling constrained optimization
3. Performance Guarantees: Theoretically guarantees exact ground state recovery under appropriate conditions
4. Experimental Validation: Numerical experiments support theoretical predictions and practical effectiveness

Limitations

1. Degenerate Cases: For degenerate optimal solutions, the second part of theoretical guarantees may not apply
2. Parameter Selection: Requires prior knowledge of spectral gap ratio to determine appropriate p value
3. Scale Limitations: Current experiments validated only up to n=20 problem scale
4. Hamiltonian Complexity: Increasing locality and term count with p may affect practical implementation

Future Directions

1. Degenerate Problem Research: Investigate performance guarantees for degenerate optimal solutions
2. Adaptive Parameter Selection: Develop adaptive methods not requiring prior spectral gap ratio knowledge
3. Large-Scale Validation: Extend experimental validation to larger problem scales
4. Hardware Implementation: Validate MOQA performance on actual quantum devices

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor: Provides complete mathematical proofs and rigorous performance guarantees
2. Method Generality: Not restricted to specific solvers or problem types, with broad applicability
3. Innovative Approach: Novel and effective idea of transforming constrained problems into multi-objective optimization
4. Sufficient Experimentation: Validates method's practical effectiveness through extensive random instances

Weaknesses

1. Complexity Growth: Rapid growth in Hamiltonian locality and term count with increasing p
2. Parameter Dependence: Theoretical guarantees require prior spectral gap ratio knowledge, potentially difficult in practice
3. Scale Limitations: Relatively small experimental scale; large-scale problem performance remains to be verified
4. Degenerate Case Handling: Incomplete treatment of degenerate optimal solutions

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides new theoretical framework and methods for quantum constrained optimization
2. Practical Potential: Directly applicable to multiple quantum optimization algorithms and real-world problems
3. Field Advancement: Fills important gap in constraint handling for quantum optimization
4. Reproducibility: Provides complete code and experimental details

Applicable Scenarios

1. Financial Optimization: Constrained financial problems such as portfolio optimization
2. Logistics Planning: Path optimization, resource allocation, and other constrained optimization problems
3. Energy Management: Power grid optimization, scheduling problems, etc.
4. Combinatorial Optimization: Knapsack problems, vertex cover, traveling salesman problem, etc.

References

The paper cites 61 important references spanning multiple fields including quantum optimization, combinatorial optimization, and numerical analysis, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Overall Assessment: This paper proposes an innovative framework for handling quantum constrained optimization problems with rigorous theory, general methodology, and sufficient experimental validation. While there is room for improvement in certain aspects, it makes important contributions to the quantum optimization field with significant academic value and practical potential.