- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Symmetry-enhanced counterdiabatic quantum algorithm for qudits

Alberto Bottarelli1,2,*,†, Mikel Garcia de Andoin3,4,5,*, Pranav Chandarana4,6,5, Koushik Paul4,5,‡, Xi Chen7, Mikel Sanz4,5,8,9, and Philipp Hauke1,2

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: alberto.bottarelli@unitn.it
  • ‡Contact author: koushikpal09@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043030 – Published 8 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6ldg-3w1f

Abstract

Qubit-based variational quantum algorithms have undergone rapid development in recent years but still face several challenges. Here, we introduce a symmetry-based enhancement to digitized counterdiabatic quantum algorithms, applicable for qudits of any dimension. This approach offers three types of compression compared to conventional variational circuits. First, compression in the circuit depth is achieved by counterdiabatic protocols. Second, information about the problem is compressed by replacing qubits with qudits, allowing for a more efficient representation of the problem. Finally, the number of parameters is reduced by employing the symmetries of the system. We illustrate this approach by tackling a graph-based optimization problem Max-3-Cut, a highly entangled state preparation, the qutrit W state, and a two-body only antiferromagnetic Ising problem. As our numerical results show, we achieve a better convergence with a lower circuit depth and less measurement overhead, albeit with some identified limitations for which we propose a work-around. This work leads to a better design of shallow variational quantum circuits, improving the feasibility of their implementation on near-term qudit devices.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (59)

  1. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  2. S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, R. König, and M. Tomamichel, Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits, Nat. Phys. 16, 1040 (2020).
  3. M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo, Assessing requirements to scale to practical quantum advantage, arXiv:2211.07629.
  4. F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  5. L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V. D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature (London) 606, 75 (2022).
  6. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  7. H.-S. Zhong et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  8. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing STOC'96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1996), pp. 212–219.
  9. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1484 (1999).
  10. K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022).
  11. A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris et al., Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation, Science 388, 199 (2025).
  12. Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Qudits and high-dimensional quantum computing, Front. Phys. 8, 589504 (2020).
  13. M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 18, 1053 (2022).
  14. L. E. Fischer, A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, D. J. Egger, S. Carretta, and I. Tavernelli, Universal qudit gate synthesis for transmons, PRX Quantum 4, 030327 (2023).
  15. D. González-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non-Abelian gauge theories with qudits on Rydberg platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160501 (2022).
  16. Y. Chi et al., A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 13, 1166 (2022).
  17. X. Gao, P. Appel, N. Friis, M. Ringbauer, and M. Huber, On the role of entanglement in qudit-based circuit compression, Quantum 7, 1141 (2023).
  18. S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, The future of quantum computing with superconducting qubits, J. Appl. Phys. 132, 160902 (2022).
  19. A. Osman, J. Fernández-Pendás, C. Warren, S. Kosen, M. Scigliuzzo, A. Frisk Kockum, G. Tancredi, A. Fadavi Roudsari, and J. Bylander, Mitigation of frequency collisions in superconducting quantum processors, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043001 (2023).
  20. S. Chandrasekharan and U. J. Wiese, Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B 492, 455 (1997).
  21. P. P. Popov, M. Meth, M. Lewestein, P. Hauke, M. Ringbauer, E. Zohar, and V. Kasper, Variational quantum simulation of U(1) lattice gauge theories with qudit systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013202 (2024).
  22. Y. Deller, S. Schmitt, M. Lewenstein, S. Lenk, M. Federer, F. Jendrzejewski, P. Hauke, and V. Kasper, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for qudit systems, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062410 (2023).
  23. M. H. S. Amin, N. G. Dickson, and P. Smith, Adiabatic quantum optimization with qudits, Quantum Inf. Proccess. 12, 1819 (2013).
  24. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  25. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  26. K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants, Phys. Rep. 1068, 1 (2024).
  27. T. Volkoff and P. J. Coles, Large gradients via correlation in random parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 025008 (2021).
  28. E. Grant, L. Wossnig, M. Ostaszewski, and M. Benedetti, An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits, Quantum 3, 214 (2019).
  29. A. Del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013).
  30. X. Chen, I. Lizuain, A. Ruschhaupt, D. Guéry-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Shortcut to adiabatic passage in two- and three-level atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123003 (2010).
  31. J. Yao, L. Lin, and M. Bukov, Reinforcement learning for many-body ground-state preparation inspired by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031070 (2021).
  32. F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, P. J. Coles, and C. Marco, Building spatial symmetries into parameterized quantum circuits for faster training, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 015029 (2024).
  33. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  34. Y. Suzuki, H. Yano, R. Raymond, and N. Yamamoto, Normalized gradient descent for variational quantum algorithms, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, USA, 2021), pp. 1–9.
  35. A. Kulshrestha, X. Liu, H. Ushijima-Mwesigwa, and I. Safro, Learning to optimize quantum neural networks without gradients, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, USA, 2023), Vol. 1, p. 263.
  36. A. Mandilara, B. Dellen, U. Jaekel, T. Valtinos, and D. Syvridis, Classification of data with a qudit, a geometric approach, Quantum Mach. Intell. 6, 17 (2024).
  37. X. You, S. Chakrabarti, and X. Wu, A convergence theory for over-parameterized variational quantum eigensolvers, arXiv:2205.12481.
  38. M. Ragone, B. N. Bakalov, F. Sauvage, A. F. Kemper, C. Ortiz Marrero, M. Larocca, and M. Cerezo, A unified theory of barren plateaus for deep parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 15, 7172 (2024).
  39. D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3909 (2017).
  40. P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-engineering counterdiabatic protocols in quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090602 (2019).
  41. D. Sun, P. Chandarana, Z.-H. Xin, and X. Chen, Optimizing counterdiabaticity by variational quantum circuits, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 380, 20210282 (2022).
  42. A. Ferrer-Sánchez, C. Flores-Garrigos, C. Hernani-Morales, J. J Orquín-Marqués, N. N. Hegade, A. G. Cadavid, I. Montalban, E. Solano, Y. Vives-Gilabert, and J. D Martín-Guerrero, Physics-informed neural networks for an optimal counterdiabatic quantum computation, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 5, 025035 (2024).
  43. K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity in Krylov space, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011032 (2024).
  44. P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarrán-Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Digitized-counterdiabatic quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013141 (2022).
  45. P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, I. Montalban, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Digitized counterdiabatic quantum algorithm for protein folding, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 014024 (2023).
  46. A. G. Cadavid, I. Montalban, A. Dalal, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Efficient digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization algorithm within the impulse regime for portfolio optimization, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 054037 (2024).
  47. A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund, Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory (Dover Publications, New York, 1996).
  48. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  49. R. Zeier and T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, Symmetry principles in quantum systems theory, J. Math. Phys. 52, 113510 (2011).
  50. K. Coolsaet, S. D’hondt, and J. Goedgebeur, House of graphs 2.0: A database of interesting graphs and more, Discrete Appl. Math. 325, 97 (2023).
  51. J. Siemons, Automorphism groups of graphs, Arch. Math. 41, 379 (1983).
  52. S. Foldes, Symmetries of directed graphs and the chinese remainder theorem, J. Comb. Theory B 28, 18 (1980).
  53. C. Hubig, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, and F. A. Wolf, Strictly single-site DMRG algorithm with subspace expansion, Phys. Rev. B 91, 155115 (2015).
  54. C. Hubig, Symmetry-protected tensor networks, Ph.D. thesis, Ludwig Maximilian University, 2017.
  55. C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis, Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 43, 425 (1991).
  56. F. Hadlock, Finding a maximum cut of a planar graph in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comput. 4, 221 (1975).
  57. M. J. D. Powell, A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation, in Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis (Springer, Dordrecht, 1994), p. 51.
  58. A. Frieze and M. Jerrum, Improved approximation algorithms for maxk-cut and max bisection, Algorithmica 18, 67 (1997).
  59. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski, A brief introduction to multipartite entanglement, arXiv:1612.07747.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043030– Published 8 October, 2025
  • Received 26 May 2025
  • Accepted 7 September 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation