MG-Net: Learn to Customize QAOA with Circuit Depth Awareness

Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and its variants exhibit immense potential in tackling combinatorial optimization challenges. However, their practical realization confronts a dilemma: the requisite circuit depth for satisfactory performance is problem-specific and often exceeds the maximum capability of current quantum devices. To address this dilemma, here we first analyze the convergence behavior of QAOA, uncovering the origins of this dilemma and elucidating the intricate relationship between the employed mixer Hamiltonian, the specific problem at hand, and the permissible maximum circuit depth. Harnessing this understanding, we introduce the Mixer Generator Network (MG-Net), a unified deep learning framework adept at dynamically formulating optimal mixer Hamiltonians tailored to distinct tasks and circuit depths. Systematic simulations, encompassing Ising models and weighted Max-Cut instances with up to 64 qubits, substantiate our theoretical findings, highlighting MG-Net's superior performance in terms of both approximation ratio and efficiency.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer DGPC7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-05

Summary

The paper proposes a deep learning approach called Mixer Generator Network (MG-Net) to enhance the performance of Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) by dynamically designing optimal mixer Hamiltonians for a given class of problem and a circuit depth constraint. This is done by parameter grouping that is analyzed theoretically by the authors. The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of MG-Net enhances QAOA performance in terms of approximation ratio for QAOA problem instances like Ising models and weighted Max-Cut instances up to 64 qubits.

Strengths

The main contribution of the paper (MG-Net) as a dynamic solution to customize mixer Hamiltonians is novel, innovative, and sound, backed by theoretical analysis of the convergence theory of QAOA. The performance evaluation of the method is also comprehensive, covering a range of QAOA problem instances and validating the proposed framework's effectiveness. The presentation of the paper is clear and well-structured. The paper detailed the explanations of methodologies supported by diagrams that aid comprehension.

Weaknesses

- The “Quantum Hardware Constraints” in the title seems not appropriate. When talking about quantum hardware constraints, practically one would talk about the qubit connectivity, available gate set, noise model, etc. However, in this paper, it seems that it only talks about the circuit depth. - The paper is reasonably sound and well-presented. However, I am not sure if the broader NeurIPS community will be interested in this work since it is a specific improvement for the QAOA algorithm. This will attract the quantum machine learning community. However, some of the quantum computing communities might also be skeptical because, as mentioned in the conclusion, this does not take into account the noise in the device. - The paper does not address the efficiency issue. This can be done by adding the training and inference time for each method in Table 1. Minor comments: - “Intial” in Figure 1. - Add $d_{eff}$ after “effective dimension” to make it clearer in Figure 1.

Questions

- It is not clear why position embedding is needed to represent the depth, why not give the number or use simple one-hot encoding? - Why $J_{ij}$ is chosen to be only positive between $[0.5, 1.5]$ and not include also negative value or even 0? To avoid frustration? - Can this approach be extended to other problems in quantum computing that use PQC such as unitary synthesis or state preparation?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

Limitations are addressed in the paper.

Reviewer 6Eat6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-09

Summary

This paper provides a theoretical analysis on parameter grouping strategy in QAOA circuits. And the authors proposed MG-Net to design the mixer Hamiltonian, leading to the advantage over conventional methods and other QAOA classes.

Strengths

1. MG-Net reduces the cost of labelling and training by utilizing two-stage training strategy. 2. Extensive numerical results strongly support the advantage of MG-Net, advancing the practicality of QAOAs. 3. The method of this paper is certainly effective and the results are well presented.

Weaknesses

1. The parameter grouping strategy does not guarantee a significant reduction in the effective dimension, which undermines the theoretical analysis's assurance of better convergence when employing MG-Net in subsequent sections. 2. The details regarding the training of the mixer generator with hardware information are not clearly presented, raising concerns about the authors' claims of a "problem-hardware-tailored mixer" and "Customize QAOA with Quantum Hardware Constraints." 3. The numerical results comparison should include the Grover-Mixer method, as it also involves a unique design of the mixer Hamiltonian.

Questions

1. Have the author considered and compared with other mixer Hamiltonian design, e.g. Grover-Mixer? 2. Can MG-Net be adapted to other VQA problems?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

There does not seem to be negative social impact of this theoretical research.

Reviewer xXN52/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-11

Summary

In this paper, the authors propose a model named MG-Net to automatically generate QAOA ansatz. It is able to generate the mixer layer in QAOA and decide which gates to share parameters. By sharing parameters, the ansatz generated by the proposed model can potentially achieve better trainability as well as expressivity. Experimental results on Max-cut and TFIM for up to 64 qubits are provided showing the proposed method can improve the accuracy under the proposed setting.

Strengths

Well-structured paper with numerous experiments verifying the theoretical claims.

Weaknesses

1. It is too simple to design the mixer Hamiltonian since it only involves choosing one of the three Pauli operators to fill in the blanks. I don't see evidence that the proposed model (especially the training step) can still work if it encounters a more complex candidate gate set. 2. The theoretical findings are not surprising to me since they mainly come from the quantum optimal control theory and overparameterization. 3. The experimental results are shaky. 1) The comparison against ma-QAOA actually shows that these two methods have extremely close performance, which makes sense since the proposed grouping method is similar to ma-QAOA; 2) Missing the number of parameters (especially the number of different parameters) for each method in all the experiments, which is crucial since the expressivity of the ansatz is closely related to the number of tunable parameters; 3) The fatal problem is that the authors seem not fully understand the QAOA. The RZZ gates provide two-qubit phase transitions, and the original mixer, which is made of Pauli-X gates, finds the minimum eigenvector. Therefore, the ansatz should not consist of any single-qubit Pauli-z gate to introduce an illegal phase to the final state. This can also be verified in Tab.4 in the appendix. A Pauli-Y gate can be decomposed by Pauli-Z and Pauli-X gates, and since it's illegal to have a single-qubit phase in the final state, involving Pauli-Y gates **will not** benefit the results. It is clear that there is no single-qubit phase in the Hamiltonian of either Max-Cut or TFIM; I'm confused about how the authors got the results. So with all the efforts in training and selecting from {X, Y, Z, I}, it is actually deciding X or Y, which have identical effects on the final state (Y might be even weaker). I suspect that randomly choosing from X and Y can produce identical results **with precisely the same number of tunable parameters**. 4. The whole paper is wrapped in an exquisite box with the essence of only choosing Pauli-X or Pauli-Y for the QAOA mixer.

Questions

No questions.

Rating

2

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Shaky experiments with naive essence disguised in the fancy presentation.

Reviewer aG1x6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper studies the convergence behavior of QAOA, a variational quantum algorithm for combinatorial optimization. The authors prove a convergence result showing how the use of parameter grouping affects the expressibility (i.e. effective dimension) and training time. Furthermore, they design a deep learning model known as MG-Net to generate an appropriate mixer Hamiltonian for a given input problem. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of their model on prototypical problems (Max-Cut and TFIM). The numerical results suggest that their method achieves a higher approximation ratio than all other tested methods, including a simple greedy algorithm, Goemans-Williamson, and standard QAOA.

Strengths

- This paper tries to resolve an important question relevant to the performance of QAOA, which has implications for the practicality of quantum optimization algorithms. - The use of parameter grouping, while not a very novel idea, appears to be the "right" choice to take advantage of problem symmetries and improve the performance of QAOA. - The presentation of this paper is clear and everything is fairly straightforward to understand. - The code availability is nice to have.

Weaknesses

- In Section 3, there are several references mentioned that also study the convergence of VQAs, but the theoretical contributions of this work are somewhat unclear. This paper would benefit from a clear statement of how this work relates to the results of those existing papers.

Questions

- Throughout this paper, $p$ is referred to as the circuit depth. Shouldn't it be the number of layers, which is not quite the same as the usually defined circuit depth (although they are proportional)? - For a given $H_C$, is the ansatz with partial grouping unique? I suppose not since there may be different generators of $\mathrm{Per}(H_C)$. If this is correct and the ansatz is not unique, then does Theorem 3.1 hold regardless of the choice of generators? - It is stated that this approach is designed for early fault-tolerant algorithms, while many existing works on variational quantum algorithms suggest they may be suitable for NISQ devices. Aside from the high monetary cost of training parameterized circuits, are the quantum resources (i.e. circuit depths) required for this approach low enough to be practical without fault-tolerance? If not, what are the main limitations of QAOA that need to be overcome?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

There are no major societal impacts of this work. However, as mentioned in the paper, this work is limited to QAOA and it is of interest whether this approach may be applied to more general variational quantum algorithms.

Reviewer xXN52024-08-07

It seems that the reviewers currently do not have access to the general response or the uploaded files.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

We apologize for the issue with accessing our global response and the uploaded files. We are seeking assistance to resolve this issue and make the materials visible to the reviewers. For your convenience, we have pasted some explanations for your concerns from the global response below. **Motivation.** A promising approach to combinatorial optimization problems (COPs) is QAOA, which can potentially outperform classical methods when unlimited circuit depth is assumed. However, this requirement is impractical. Considering the practical utility of QAOA, where quantum resources are constrained by limited circuit depth, noise, and qubit connectivity, many variants of QAOA have been proposed to enhance its performance within these hardware constraints [Chandarana et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022; Herrman et al., 2022; Bartschi et al., 2020; Sauvage et al., 2022]. However, these alternatives often require deep domain expertise and lack generalizability across different tasks and circuit depths. In our work, we consider **the allowable circuit depth as the primary hardware constraint, a common issue for both early fault-tolerant and NISQ devices.** We release all freedom on the mixer Hamiltonian, including operator type and parameter grouping. Our goal is to dynamically adjust the mixer Hamiltonian according to the given problem and the allowable circuit depth of a quantum device, thereby **enhancing the performance of QAOA while ensuring compatibility with the available quantum resources**. **Contributions.** To fully exploit the potential of a QAOA circuit with arbitrarily limited circuit depth, we first theoretically analyze the convergence of QAOA: - **Theoretical contributions.** Existing literature studied the convergence of VQAs from two aspects, namely the quantum neural tangent kernel [Liu et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023] and gradient flow [You et al., 2022; You et al., 2023]. In particular, when analyzing the convergence rate of QNNs with symmetric ansatz, both of these two techniques involve utilizing the tools of effective dimension for quantifying the effect of symmetry degree of ansatz design on the convergence rate. While existing literature has explored the convergence theory of VQAs with symmetric ansatz well, **how concrete strategies for ansatz design affect the symmetry degree remains an open question**. In this study, we **initiate the first attempt to qualitatively analyze the effects of various parameter grouping strategies on the convergence of QAOA**. - **Technical contributions.** We rigorously show that **fully or partially grouping the parameters according to the spatial symmetry of problem Hamiltonians could reduce the effective dimension** (Refer to Lemma B.6 in Appendix B), where the concrete reduction amount depends on the symmetric degree of problem Hamiltonians. Moreover, combined with the existing results on the effective dimension-based convergence analysis [You et al., 2022], we reach our main theoretical results (Theorem 3.1) regarding the convergence rate of QAOA with various symmetric structures in the overparameterization regime. - **Implications.** Qualitatively, when $p$ is large enough to reach the overparameterization regime, a suitable parameters grouping strategy should be adopted to reduce the effective dimension for better convergence. Conversely, for a small $p$, the parameters should not be grouped to obtain as large a representation space as possible for better convergence. However, **it is difficult to quantitatively determine the effective dimension, the critical point for the overparameterization regime for general problem Hamiltonians**, as they are determined by the specific graph structure of the problem Hamiltonian which is case-by-case and hard to analyze. This inspires us to utilize the power of deep learning to automatically tailor the circuit depth-aware ansatz design with the optimal parameter grouping strategy for better convergence. Guided by the established theoretical results, we propose MG-Net for automatical circuit design: - The QAOA circuit generated by the proposed MG-Net achieves **higher approximation ratios at various circuit depths** compared to other quantum and traditional methods, advancing the **practical utility** of QAOAs. - MG-Net **greatly reduces the cost of collecting labeled training data**, making it possible to handle **larger-scale problems and more complicated mixer Hamiltonians**. - MG-Net provides a flexible circuit-generation framework where the data encoder can introduce more hardware constraints, and the model components can be conveniently replaced by advanced techniques. Although our theoretical analysis is based on noiseless settings, our implementation does not impose limitations on device configuration. **MG-Net can be flexibly extended to other hardware constraints**, such as **qubit connectivity** and **hardware noise**.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-07

We describe the tables and figures in the uploaded file below: - **Figure 1:** This figure describes the behavior of the cost estimator with extended mixer operator pool $\{X,Y,XX,YY\}$ by drawing the correlation between the actual achieved approximation ratio and the result predicted by the cost estimator. A strong correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.85) between the estimated value and the label is observed, indicating that the cost estimator trained on the extended mixer operator pool can act as a reliable performance indicator for QAOA. - **Table 1:** This table lists previous works that have introduced the Pauli-Y operator as a candidate mixer Hamiltonian: | Works | Mixer Hamiltonian | |---------------|-------------------| | DC-QAOA [Chandarana et al, 2022] | $\{X,Y,ZY,YZ,XY,YX\}$| | ADAPT-QAOA [Zhu et al., 2022] | $\bigcup_{i \in [N]} \{X_i,Y_i\} \bigcup \{\sum_{i\in [N]}Y_i\} \bigcup \{\sum_{i\in[N]}X_i\}\bigcup _{i,j\in[N]\times [N]}\{B_iC_j\|B_i,C_j \in\{X,Y,Z\}\}$ | - **Figure 2**: This figure describes the distribution of achieved approximation ratios related to different mixer operators with the same number of tunable parameters. The results indicate that mixer Hamiltonians with different operators randomly sampled from PauliX and PauliY and the same number of parameters behave differently. For example, the minimum, maximum, and standard deviation of achieved cost for a set of mixer Hamiltonians with 2 parameters are -1.45, -0.14, and 0.27, respectively.

Area Chair YDfN2024-08-07

General response and the uploaded file posted above

Dear Reviewer xXN5, It looks from me that the authors have posted the general response and the uploaded file with readers including all reviewers who have submitted reviews. I have sent a reminder message in that thread. Please let me know in case you still cannot see them. Best wishes, AC

Reviewer xXN52024-08-08

I have gone through all the responses and newly uploaded materials, and I've no further questions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-08

Dear Reviewer xXN5, We appreciate your efforts in reviewing our materials. Could you please clarify if your reply was intended for the Area Chair (AC) or in response to our rebuttal? We want to ensure that all your concerns are adequately addressed. Best regards, Authors

Area Chair YDfN2024-08-07

Global Response and Uploaded File from Authors

Dear Reviewers (cc Authors), This is the message sent by the authors for global response with an uploaded PDF file. The readers contain "reviewers submitted", so you should be able to see the response message and the PDF file. Please let me know if you cannot see them. Best wishes, AC

Reviewer DGPC2024-08-08

I want to thank the authors for their detailed responses to my comments and questions and for considering them in their revised paper.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

Dear Reviewer DGPC, Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to review our responses. We are glad that our revisions and clarifications addressed your concerns, and we are grateful for your constructive feedback throughout this process. Best regards, Authors

Reviewer aG1x2024-08-09

I thank the authors for the detailed response.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

A6: Update the results of onehot encoding and integer encoding

There are two key differences between the implementation of position encoding and one-hot or integer encoding: 1. **Vector length.** The length of the one-hot-encoded vector $\mathbf{x}_p$ depends on the predefined maximum value of $p$, while the length of the integer-encoded vector $\mathbf{x}_p$ is 1. In contrast, we adjust the length of position-encoded vector $\mathbf{x}_p$ according to the dimension of $\mathbf{x}_C$ and $\mathbf{x}_M$; 2. **Integration strategy.** When using one-hot or integer encoding, we employ concatenation as the integration strategy for the three features $\mathbf{x}_C$, $\mathbf{x}_M$ and $\mathbf{x}_p$ rather than summation. The achieved approximation ratios for 6-qubit MaxCut problems using different depth encoding methods are shown below: | **Depth encoding method** | **Approximation ratio** | | ---------------------------- | -----------------------| | Integer | $0.981\pm 0.004$ | | One-hot | $0.984\pm 0.003$| | Position | $0.99\pm 0.0004$

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC