- 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

Learning parameter curves in feedback-based quantum algorithms

Vicente Peña Pérez1,2,*, Matthew D. Grace2, Christian Arenz1,†, and Alicia B. Magann2,‡

  • *Contact author: vpenaper@asu.edu
  • †Contact author: carenz1@asu.edu
  • ‡Contact author: abmagan@sandia.gov
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033378 – Published 29 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/pgbz-zm8h

Abstract

Feedback-based quantum algorithms (FQAs) operate by iteratively growing a quantum circuit to optimize a given task. At each step, feedback from qubit measurements is used to inform the next quantum circuit update. In practice, the sampling cost associated with these measurements can be significant. Here, we ask whether FQA parameter sequences can be predicted using classical machine learning, obviating the need for qubit measurements altogether. To this end, we train a teacher-student model to map problem instances to associated FQA parameter curves in a single classical inference step. We first study weighted MaxCut problem instances, where numerical experiments show that this machine learning model can accurately predict FQA parameter curves across a range of problem sizes, including sizes not seen during model training. We then extend the analysis to transverse-field Ising models on graphs and analyze how this learning strategy performs and generalizes beyond the original MaxCut setting. To evaluate performance, we compare the predicted parameter curves in simulation against FQA reference curves and linear quantum annealing schedules. We observe similar results to the former and performance improvements over the latter. These results suggest that machine learning can offer a heuristic, practical path to reducing sampling costs and resource overheads in quantum algorithms.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (79)

  1. J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem, SIAM J. Comput. 35, 1070 (2006).
  2. D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Preparing ground states of quantum many-body systems on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 130503 (2009).
  3. A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys. 2, 5 (2014).
  4. T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998).
  5. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106.
  6. A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061 (2008).
  7. T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
  8. 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).
  9. 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).
  10. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  11. A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 250502 (2022).
  12. A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Lyapunov-control-inspired strategies for quantum combinatorial optimization, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062414 (2022).
  13. S. Grivopoulos and B. Bamieh, Lyapunov-based control of quantum systems, in 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2003), Vol. 1, pp. 434–438.
  14. S. Cong and F. Meng, A survey of quantum Lyapunov control methods, Sci. World J. 2013, 967529 (2013).
  15. M. Alam, A. Ash-Saki, and S. Ghosh, Accelerating quantum approximate optimization algorithm using machine learning, in 2020 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2020), pp. 686–689.
  16. N. Jain, B. Coyle, E. Kashefi, and N. Kumar, Graph neural network initialisation of quantum approximate optimisation, Quantum 6, 861 (2022).
  17. N. Xie, X. Lee, D. Cai, Y. Saito, and N. Asai, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm parameter prediction using a convolutional neural network, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2595, 012001 (2023).
  18. P. Zentilini, S. Corli, and E. Prati, Emulating QAOA via graph neural networks, in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 472–473.
  19. I. Tyagin, M. H. Farag, K. Sherbert, K. Shirali, Y. Alexeev, and I. Safro, QAOA-GPT: Efficient generation of adaptive and regular quantum approximate optimization algorithm circuits, in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2025), Vol. 1, pp. 1505–1515.
  20. J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042308 (2002).
  21. M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des adiabatensatzes, Z. Phys. 51, 165 (1928).
  22. L. P. García-Pintos, L. T. Brady, J. Bringewatt, and Y.-K. Liu, Lower bounds on quantum annealing times, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 140601 (2023).
  23. L. P. García-Pintos, M. Sahasrabudhe, and C. Arenz, Tighter lower bounds on quantum annealing times, SciPost Phys. 18, 159 (2025).
  24. G. B. Mbeng, R. Fazio, and G. Santoro, Quantum annealing: A journey through digitalization, control, and hybrid quantum variational schemes, arXiv:1906.08948.
  25. L. K. Kovalsky, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, M. D. Grace, A. B. Magann, J. B. Larsen, A. D. Baczewski, and M. Sarovar, Self-healing of Trotter error in digital adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060602 (2023).
  26. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  27. H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959).
  28. M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many body problems, Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976).
  29. M. Wiedmann, D. Burgarth, G. Dirr, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, E. Malvetti, and C. Arenz, On the convergence of the variational quantum eigensolver and quantum optimal control, arXiv:2509.05295.
  30. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
  31. M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 12, 1791 (2021).
  32. S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas, From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz, Algorithms 12, 34 (2019).
  33. Z.-C. Yang, A. Rahmani, A. Shabani, H. Neven, and C. Chamon, Optimizing variational quantum algorithms using Pontryagin’s minimum principle, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021027 (2017).
  34. L. T. Brady, C. L. Baldwin, A. Bapat, Y. Kharkov, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal protocols in quantum annealing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 070505 (2021).
  35. L. T. Brady, L. Kocia, P. Bienias, A. Bapat, Y. Kharkov, and A. V. Gorshkov, Behavior of analog quantum algorithms, arXiv:2107.01218.
  36. F. G. S. L. Brandao, M. Broughton, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and H. Neven, For fixed control parameters the quantum approximate optimization algorithm’s objective function value concentrates for typical instances, arXiv:1812.04170.
  37. D. J. Egger, J. Marecek, and S. Woerner, Warm-starting quantum optimization, Quantum 5, 479 (2021).
  38. S. H. Sack and M. Serbyn, Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum 5, 491 (2021).
  39. L. Zhu, H. L. Tang, G. S. Barron, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Adaptive quantum approximate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033029 (2022).
  40. A. B. Magann, S. E. Economou, and C. Arenz, Randomized adaptive quantum state preparation, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033227 (2023).
  41. R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, Optimizing quantum circuits with Riemannian gradient flow, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062421 (2023).
  42. H. L. Tang, Y. Chen, P. Biswas, A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, and S. E. Economou, Nonvariational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023275 (2025).
  43. E. Malvetti, C. Arenz, G. Dirr, and T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, Randomized gradient descents on Riemannian manifolds: Almost sure convergence to global minima in and beyond quantum optimization, arXiv:2405.12039.
  44. N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, Equating quantum imaginary time evolution, Riemannian gradient flows, and stochastic implementations, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 023024 (2026).
  45. H. G. Clausen, S. A. Rahman, Ö. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Measurement-based control for minimizing energy functions in quantum systems, IFAC-Pap. 56, 5171 (2023).
  46. J. B. Larsen, M. D. Grace, A. D. Baczewski, and A. B. Magann, Feedback-based quantum algorithms for ground state preparation, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033336 (2024).
  47. S. Abdul Rahman, O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Weighted feedback-based quantum algorithm for excited states calculation, in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 169–175.
  48. R. K. Malla, H. Sukeno, H. Yu, T.-C. Wei, A. Weichselbaum, and R. M. Konik, Feedback-based quantum algorithm inspired by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043068 (2024).
  49. L. Bertuzzi, J. P. Engster, E. C. R. da Rosa, and E. I. Duzzioni, Shadow measurements for feedback-based quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. A 112, 022419 (2025).
  50. D. Arai, K. N. Okada, Y. Nakano, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Scalable circuit depth reduction in feedback-based quantum optimization with a quadratic approximation, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013035 (2025).
  51. L. A. M. Rattighieri, G. E. L. Pexe, B. L. Bernardo, and F. F. Fanchini, Accelerating feedback-based quantum algorithms through time rescaling, Phys. Rev. A 112, 042607 (2025).
  52. S. Abdul Rahman, Ö. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Feedback-based quantum strategies for constrained combinatorial optimization problems, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 174, 107979 (2026).
  53. R. Kosloff, A. D. Hammerich, and D. Tannor, Excitation without demolition: Radiative excitation of ground-surface vibration by impulsive stimulated Raman scattering with damage control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2172 (1992).
  54. M. Sugawara and Y. Fujimura, Control of quantum dynamics by a locally optimized laser field. Application to ring puckering isomerization, J. Chem. Phys. 100, 5646 (1994).
  55. M. Sugawara and Y. Fujimura, Control of quantum dynamics by a locally optimized laser field. Multi-photon dissociation of hydrogen fluoride, Chem. Phys. 196, 113 (1995).
  56. Y. Ohtsuki, Y. Yahata, H. Kono, and Y. Fujimura, Application of a locally optimized control theory to pump–dump laser-driven chemical reactions, Chem. Phys. Lett. 287, 627 (1998).
  57. M. Sugawara, General formulation of locally designed coherent control theory for quantum system, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 6784 (2003).
  58. M. Mirrahimi, G. Turinici, and P. Rouchon, Reference trajectory tracking for locally designed coherent quantum controls, J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 2631 (2005).
  59. D. J. Tannor, R. Kosloff, and A. Bartana, Laser cooling of internal degrees of freedom of molecules by dynamically trapped states, Faraday Discuss. 113, 365 (1999).
  60. V. Engel, C. Meier, and D. J. Tannor, Local control theory: Recent applications to energy and particle transfer processes in molecules, in Advances in Chemical Physics (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2009), pp. 29–101.
  61. M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming, J. ACM 42, 1115 (1995).
  62. G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, this work was presented at the NIPS 2014 Deep Learning Workshop, arXiv:1503.02531.
  63. J. Gilmer, S. S. Schoenholz, P. F. Riley, O. Vinyals, and G. E. Dahl, Neural message passing for quantum chemistry, in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2017) (PMLR, Cambridge, MA, 2017), Vol. 70, pp. 1263–1272.
  64. W. Hu, B. Liu, J. Gomes, M. Zitnik, P. Liang, V. S. Pande, and J. Leskovec, Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks, in 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2020), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26–30, 2020 (OpenReview.net, Amherst, MA, 2020).
  65. Y. Shi, Z. Huang, S. Feng, H. Zhong, W. Wang, and Y. Sun, Masked label prediction: Unified message passing model for semi-supervised classification, in Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-21), edited by Z.-H. Zhou (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, California, 2021), pp. 1548–1554.
  66. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2015).
  67. T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta, and M. Koyama, Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework, in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019), pp. 2623–2631.
  68. D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Martínez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019).
  69. D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3909 (2017).
  70. M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Phys. Rep. 697, 1 (2017).
  71. 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).
  72. S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22, 1345 (2010).
  73. Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Laviolette, M. Marchand, and V. Lempitsky, Domain-adversarial training of neural networks, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1 (2016).
  74. E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, Adversarial discriminative domain adaptation, in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2017), pp. 2962–2971.
  75. C. Finn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks, in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (PMLR, Cambridge, MA, 2017), Vol. 70, pp. 1126–1135.
  76. T. Hospedales, A. Antoniou, P. Micaelli, and A. Storkey, Meta-learning in neural networks: A survey, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 44, 5149 (2022).
  77. E. Khaleghian, A. Fath Lipaei, A. Bahrampour, M. Nikaeen, and A. Bahrampour, Development of neural network-based optimal control pulse generator for quantum logic gates using the GRAPE algorithm in NMR quantum computer Quantum Inf. Process. 25, 131 (2026).
  78. Y. Li, D. Tarlow, M. Brockschmidt, and R. Zemel, Gated graph sequence neural networks, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2016).
  79. O. Vinyals, S. Bengio, and M. Kudlur, Order matters: Sequence to sequence for sets, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033378– Published 29 September, 2026
  • Received 16 January 2026
  • Accepted 4 September 2026
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