- 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

Mitigating the measurement overhead of ADAPT-VQE with optimized informationally complete generalized measurements

Anton Nykänen*, Matteo A. C. Rossi, Elsi-Mari Borrelli, Sabrina Maniscalco, Guillermo García-Pérez, and Adam Glos

  • Algorithmiq Ltd, Kanavakatu 3 C, FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland

  • *Contact author: anton.nykanen@algorithmiq.fi
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043114 – Published 29 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/t1hr-y7c8

Abstract

Adaptive derivative-assembled problem-tailored ansatz variational quantum eigensolver (ADAPT-VQE) stands out as a robust algorithm for constructing compact ansätze for molecular simulation. It enables to significantly reduce the circuit depth with respect to other methods, such as unitary coupled cluster singles and doubles, while achieving higher accuracy and not suffering from so-called barren plateaus that hinder the variational optimization of many hardware-efficient ansätze. In its standard implementation, however, it introduces a considerable measurement overhead in the form of gradient evaluations through estimations of many commutator operators. In this work, we mitigate this measurement overhead by exploiting a recently introduced method for energy evaluation relying on adaptive informationally complete generalized measurements (AIMs). Besides offering an efficient way to measure the energy itself, informationally complete (IC) measurement data can be reused to estimate all the commutators of the operators in the operator pool of ADAPT-VQE, using only classically efficient postprocessing. The framework is generic for any IC positive operator-valued measures (POVMs) implementation, and in this work, we demonstrate it’s effectiveness with dilation POVMs. We present the AIM-ADAPT-VQE scheme in detail, and investigate its performance with H4, N2, and 1,3,5,7-octatetraene Hamiltonians and several operator pools. Our numerical simulations indicate that the measurement data obtained to evaluate the energy can be reused to implement ADAPT-VQE with no additional measurement overhead for the systems considered here. In addition, we show that, if the energy is measured within chemical precision, the cnot count in the resulting circuits is close to the ideal one. With scarce measurement data, AIM-ADAPT-VQE still converges to the ground state with high probability, albeit with an increased circuit depth in some cases.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (76)

  1. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  2. 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).
  3. A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature (London) 607, 667 (2022).
  4. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  5. P. K. Barkoutsos, J. F. Gonthier, I. Sokolov, N. Moll, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, M. Ganzhorn, D. J. Egger, M. Troyer, A. Mezzacapo, S. Filipp, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle-hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expansions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022322 (2018).
  6. P. J. Ollitrault, A. Kandala, C.-F. Chen, P. K. Barkoutsos, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, S. Sheldon, S. Woerner, J. M. Gambetta, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum equation of motion for computing molecular excitation energies on a noisy quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043140 (2020).
  7. V. Lordi and J. M. Nichol, Advances and opportunities in materials science for scalable quantum computing, MRS Bull. 46, 589 (2021).
  8. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  9. 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).
  10. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016).
  11. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  12. L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algorithms is NP-hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021).
  13. J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 311 (2019).
  14. K. Mitarai, T. Yan, and K. Fujii, Generalization of the output of a variational quantum eigensolver by parameter interpolation with a low-depth ansatz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 044087 (2019).
  15. 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).
  16. Z. Holmes, K. Sharma, M. Cerezo, and P. J. Coles, Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3, 010313 (2022).
  17. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019).
  18. H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021).
  19. Y. S. Yordanov, V. Armaos, C. H. W. Barnes, and D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, Qubit-excitation-based adaptive variational quantum eigensolver, Commun. Phys. 4, 228 (2021).
  20. H. G. A. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D. P. Tew, and D. J. Wales, Exact electronic states with shallow quantum circuits from global optimisation, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 75 (2023).
  21. J. S. Van Dyke, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Scaling adaptive quantum simulation algorithms via operator pool tiling Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012030 (2024).
  22. Z. Lan and W. Liang, Amplitude reordering accelerates the adaptive variational quantum eigensolver algorithms, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 5267 (2022).
  23. P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, TETRIS-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit Ansätze, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013254 (2024).
  24. L. W. Bertels, H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Symmetry breaking slows convergence of the adapt variational quantum eigensolver, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 6656 (2022).
  25. V. O. Shkolnikov, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Avoiding symmetry roadblocks and minimizing the measurement overhead of adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers, Quantum 7, 1040 (2023).
  26. T. Tsuchimochi, M. Taii, T. Nishimaki, and S. L. Ten-No, Adaptive construction of shallower quantum circuits with quantum spin projection for fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033100 (2022).
  27. Z.-J. Zhang, T. H. Kyaw, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Mutual information-assisted adaptive variational quantum eigensolver, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 035001 (2021).
  28. H. R. Grimsley, G. S. Barron, E. Barnes, S. E. Economou, and N. J. Mayhall, Adaptive, problem-tailored variational quantum eigensolver mitigates rough parameter landscapes and barren plateaus, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 19 (2023).
  29. F. Zhang, N. Gomes, Y. Yao, P. P. Orth, and T. Iadecola, Adaptive variational quantum eigensolvers for highly excited states, Phys. Rev. B 104, 075159 (2021).
  30. A. Warren, L. Zhu, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Adaptive variational algorithms for quantum Gibbs state preparation, arXiv:2203.12757.
  31. J. Liu, Z. Li, and J. Yang, An efficient adaptive variational quantum solver of the Schrödinger equation based on reduced density matrices, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 244112 (2021).
  32. M. D. Sapova and A. K. Fedorov, Variational quantum eigensolver techniques for simulating carbon monoxide oxidation, Commun. Phys. 5, 199 (2022).
  33. J. F. Gonthier, M. D. Radin, C. Buda, E. J. Doskocil, C. M. Abuan, and J. Romero, Measurements as a roadblock to near-term practical quantum advantage in chemistry: Resource analysis, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033154 (2022).
  34. A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets arXiv:1907.07859.
  35. T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measuring all compatible operators in one series of single-qubit measurements using unitary transformations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2400 (2020).
  36. W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 23 (2021).
  37. P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, Minimizing state preparations in variational quantum eigensolver by partitioning into commuting families, arXiv:1907.13623.
  38. O. Crawford, B. v. Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli operators in the presence of finite sampling error, Quantum 5, 385 (2021).
  39. M. Paini and A. Kalev, An approximate description of quantum states, arXiv:1910.10543.
  40. X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Babbush, and T. E. O'Brien, Nearly optimal measurement scheduling for partial tomography of quantum states, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031064 (2020).
  41. J. Cotler and F. Wilczek, Quantum overlapping tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100401 (2020).
  42. I. Hamamura and T. Imamichi, Efficient evaluation of quantum observables using entangled measurements, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 56 (2020).
  43. G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nat. Phys. 14, 447 (2018).
  44. G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, G. Carleo, and A. Mezzacapo, Precise measurement of quantum observables with neural-network estimators, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022060 (2020).
  45. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  46. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Efficient estimation of Pauli observables by derandomization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 030503 (2021).
  47. C. Hadfield, S. Bravyi, R. Raymond, and A. Mezzacapo, Measurements of quantum Hamiltonians with locally-biased classical shadows, Commun. Math. Phys. 391, 951 (2022).
  48. Y. Quek, S. Fort, and H. K. Ng, Adaptive quantum state tomography with neural networks, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 105 (2021).
  49. D. Miller, L. E. Fischer, K. Levi, E. J. Kuehnke, I. O. Sokolov, P. Kl. Barkoutsos, J. Eisert, and I. Tavernelli, Hardware-tailored diagonalization circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 122 (2024).
  50. G. García-Pérez, M. A. Rossi, B. Sokolov, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Mazzola, I. Tavernelli, and S. Maniscalco, Learning to measure: Adaptive informationally complete generalized measurements for quantum algorithms, PRX Quantum 2, 040342 (2021).
  51. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).
  52. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Ann. Phys. 298, 210 (2002).
  53. S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians, arXiv:1701.08213.
  54. Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, Optimal fermion-to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning, Quantum 4, 276 (2020).
  55. M. Chiew and S. Strelchuk, Discovering optimal fermion-qubit mappings through algorithmic enumeration, Quantum 7, 1145 (2023).
  56. K. Setia and J. D. Whitfield, Bravyi-Kitaev superfast simulation of electronic structure on a quantum computer, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 164104 (2018).
  57. M. Steudtner and S. Wehner, Fermion-to-qubit mappings with varying resource requirements for quantum simulation, New J. Phys. 20, 063010 (2018).
  58. V. Havlíček, M. Troyer, and J. D. Whitfield, Operator locality in the quantum simulation of fermionic models, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032332 (2017).
  59. R. W. Chien and J. D. Whitfield, Custom fermionic codes for quantum simulation, arXiv:2009.11860.
  60. M. Steudtner and S. Wehner, Quantum codes for quantum simulation of fermions on a square lattice of qubits, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022308 (2019).
  61. A. Miller, Z. Zimborás, S. Knecht, S. Maniscalco, and G. García-Pérez, Bonsai algorithm: Grow your own fermion-to-qubit mappings, PRX Quantum 4, 030314 (2023).
  62. M. Ostaszewski, E. Grant, and M. Benedetti, Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits, Quantum 5, 391 (2021).
  63. J. Jäger, T. N. Kaldenbach, M. Haas, and E. Schultheis, Fast gradient-free optimization of excitations in variational quantum eigensolvers, arXiv:2409.05939 [quant-ph].
  64. P. G. Anastasiou, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, How to really measure operator gradients in ADAPT-VQE, arXiv:2306.03227 [quant-ph].
  65. A. F. Izmaylov, T.-C. Yen, R. A. Lang, and V. Verteletskyi, Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 190 (2020).
  66. A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Measurement reduction in variational quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062322 (2020).
  67. L. E. Fischer, D. Miller, F. Tacchino, P. K. Barkoutsos, D. J. Egger, and I. Tavernelli, Ancilla-free implementation of generalized measurements for qubits embedded in a qudit space, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033027 (2022).
  68. A. Glos, A. Nykänen, E.-M. Borrelli, S. Maniscalco, M. A. C. Rossi, Z. Zimborás, and G. García-Pérez, Adaptive POVM implementations and measurement error mitigation strategies for near-term quantum devices, arXiv:2208.07817.
  69. J. Malmi, K. Korhonen, D. Cavalcanti, and G. García-Pérez, Enhanced observable estimation through classical optimization of informationally overcomplete measurement data: Beyond classical shadows, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062412 (2024).
  70. S. Choi and A. F. Izmaylov, Measurement optimization techniques for excited electronic states in near-term quantum computing algorithms, arXiv:2302.11421 [quant-ph].
  71. J. S. Kottmann and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Optimized low-depth quantum circuits for molecular electronic structure using a separable-pair approximation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032449 (2022).
  72. K. Korhonen, Exploring the use of adaptive POVM measurements in the VQE (2022), http://hdl.handle.net/10138/345159.
  73. Y. S. Yordanov, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and C. H. W. Barnes, Efficient quantum circuits for quantum computational chemistry, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062612 (2020).
  74. A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph].
  75. C. Zhu, R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, and J. Nocedal, Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 23, 550 (1997).
  76. M. Cattaneo, M. A. C. Rossi, K. Korhonen, E.-M. Borrelli, G. García-Pérez, Z. Zimborás, and D. Cavalcanti, Self-consistent quantum measurement tomography based on semidefinite programming, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033154 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043114– Published 29 October, 2025
  • Received 8 August 2023
  • Accepted 16 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