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

Distribution-adaptive dynamic shot optimization for variational quantum algorithms

Youngmin Kim1, Enhyeok Jang1, Hyungseok Kim1, Seungwoo Choi1, Changheon Lee1, Donghwi Kim2, Woomin Kyoung2, Kyujin Shin2,*, and Won Woo Ro1,†

  • 1School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea
  • 2Materials Research & Engineering Center, R&D Division, Hyundai Motor Company, Uiwang 16082, Republic of Korea

  • *Contact author: shinkj@hyundai.com
  • †Contact author: wro@yonsei.ac.kr

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043253 – Published 5 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/vwhk-22b8

Abstract

Variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) have attracted remarkable interest over the past few years because of their potential computational advantages on near-term quantum devices. They leverage a hybrid approach that integrates classical and quantum computing resources to solve high-dimensional problems that are challenging for classical approaches alone. In the training process of variational circuits, constructing an accurate probability distribution for each epoch is not always necessary, creating opportunities to reduce computational costs through shot reduction. However, existing shot allocation methods that capitalize on this potential often lack adaptive feedback or are tied to specific classical optimizers, which limits their applicability to common VQAs and broader optimization techniques. Our observations indicate that the information entropy of a quantum circuit’s output distribution exhibits an approximately exponential relationship with the number of shots needed to achieve a target Hellinger distance. In this work, we propose a distribution-adaptive dynamic shot (DDS) framework that efficiently adjusts the number of shots per iteration in VQAs using the entropy distribution from the prior training epoch. Our results demonstrate that the DDS framework sustains inference accuracy while achieving an ∼50% reduction in average shot count compared to fixed-shot training, and ∼60% higher accuracy than recently proposed tiered shot allocation methods. Furthermore, in noisy simulations that reflect the error rates of actual IBM quantum systems, DDS achieves an ∼30% reduction in the total number of shots compared to the fixed-shot method with minimal degradation in accuracy and offers ∼70% higher computational accuracy than tiered shot allocation methods.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (56)

  1. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Rev. 41, 303 (1999).
  2. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 1996), pp. 212–219.
  3. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  4. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  5. E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, Quantum supremacy through the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1602.07674.
  6. R. Jozsa, Quantum algorithms and the Fourier transform, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 454, 323 (1998).
  7. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  8. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
  9. P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, and S. Lloyd, Quantum support vector machine for big data classification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 130503 (2014).
  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. V. Havlíček, A. D. Córcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature (London) 567, 209 (2019).
  12. J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  13. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  14. K. Ito, Latency-aware adaptive shot allocation for run-time efficient variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2302.04422.
  15. K. Ito and K. Fujii, SantaQlaus: A resource-efficient method to leverage quantum shot-noise for optimization of variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2312.15791.
  16. D. Luo, J. Shen, R. Dangovski, and M. Soljacic, QuACK: Accelerating gradient-based quantum optimization with Koopman operator learning, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2023), Vol. 36, pp. 25662–25692.
  17. J. M. Kübler, A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, An adaptive optimizer for measurement-frugal variational algorithms, Quantum 4, 263 (2020).
  18. A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, R. D. Somma, and P. J. Coles, Operator sampling for shot-frugal optimization in variational algorithms, arXiv:2004.06252.
  19. A. Gu, A. Lowe, P. A. Dub, P. J. Coles, and A. Arrasmith, Adaptive shot allocation for fast convergence in variational quantum algorithms, arXiv:2108.10434.
  20. S. Choi, I. Loaiza, and A. F. Izmaylov, Fluid fermionic fragments for optimizing quantum measurements of electronic Hamiltonians in the variational quantum eigen-solver, Quantum 7, 889 (2023).
  21. T.-C. Yen, A. Ganeshram, and A. F. Izmaylov, Deterministic improvements of quantum measurements with grouping of compatible operators, non-local transformations, and covariance estimates, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 14 (2023).
  22. S. Choi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Improving quantum measurements by introducing “ghost” pauli products, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 7394 (2022).
  23. S. Tamiya and H. Yamasaki, Stochastic gradient line Bayesian optimization for efficient noise-robust optimization of parameterized quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 90 (2022).
  24. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015).
  25. O. Crawford, B. van 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).
  26. S. M. Mniszewski, P. A. Dub, S. Tretiak, P. M. Anisimov, Y. Zhang, and C. F. Negre, Reduction of the molecular Hamiltonian matrix using quantum community detection, Sci. Rep. 11, 4099 (2021).
  27. Z.-J. Zhang, K. Nakaji, M. Choi, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A composite measurement scheme for efficient quantum observable estimation, arXiv:2305.02439.
  28. L. Zhu, S. Liang, C. Yang, and X. Li, Optimizing shot assignment in variational quantum eigensolver measurement, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 2390 (2024).
  29. S. Liang, L. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Yang, and X. Li, Artificial-intelligence-driven shot reduction in quantum measurement, Chemical Physics Reviews 5, 041401 (AIP Publishing, Melville, NY, 2024).
  30. S. S. Kahani and A. Nobakhti, A novel framework for shot number minimization in quantum variational algorithms, arXiv:2307.04035.
  31. K. Phalak and S. Ghosh, Shot optimization in quantum machine learning architectures to accelerate training, IEEE Access 11, 41514 (2023).
  32. R. Ayanzadeh, N. Alavisamani, P. Das, and M. Qureshi, FrozenQubits: Boosting fidelity of QAOA by skipping hotspot nodes, in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 2023), Vol. 2, pp. 311–324.
  33. C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Sys. Tech. J. 27, 379 (1948).
  34. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond Bell’s theorem, in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Springer, Dordrecht, 1989), pp. 69–72.
  35. E. Hellinger, Neue Begründung der Theorie quadratischer Formen von unendlichvielen Veränderlichen, J. Angew. Math. 1909 210 (1909).
  36. A. Li, S. Stein, S. Krishnamoorthy, and J. Ang, QASMBench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for NISQ evaluation and simulation, ACM Trans. Quantum Comput. 4, 1 (2023).
  37. IBM, IBM quantum, 2024, https://quantum-computing.ibm.com/.
  38. 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. Software 23, 550 (1997).
  39. T. Miki, D. Tsukayama, R. Okita, M. Shimada, and J. Shirakashi, Quantum-classical variational approaches with single-qubit operation on near-term quantum processors, in 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Nanotechnology (NANO) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2022), pp. 303–306.
  40. L. Zhao, Q. Wang, J. J. Goings, K. Shin, W. Kyoung, S. Noh, Y. M. Rhee, and K. Kim, Enhancing the electron pair approximation with measurements on trapped-ion quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 76 (2024).
  41. A. Eddins, M. Motta, T. P. Gujarati, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, C. Hadfield, and S. Sheldon, Doubling the size of quantum simulators by entanglement forging, PRX Quantum 3, 010309 (2022).
  42. W. J. Huggins, B. A. O'Gorman, N. C. Rubin, D. R. Reichman, R. Babbush, and J. Lee, Unbiasing fermionic quantum Monte Carlo with a quantum computer, Nature (London) 603, 416 (2022).
  43. T. P. Gujarati, M. Motta, T. N. Friedhoff, J. E. Rice, N. Nguyen, P. K. Barkoutsos, R. J. Thompson, T. Smith, M. Kagele, M. Brei et al., Quantum computation of reactions on surfaces using local embedding, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 88 (2023).
  44. D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat-Allah et al., Variational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems, Science 386, 296 (2024).
  45. V. Cimini, M. Valeri, S. Piacentini, F. Ceccarelli, G. Corrielli, R. Osellame, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Variational quantum algorithm for experimental photonic multiparameter estimation, npj Quantum Inf. 10, 26 (2024).
  46. M. A. Rahman, M. S. Akter, E. Miller, B. Timofti, H. Shahriar, M. Masum, and F. Wu, Fine-tuned variational quantum classifiers for cyber attacks detection based on parameterized quantum circuits and optimizers, in 2024 IEEE 48th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 1067–1072.
  47. M. Wang, P. Das, and P. J. Nair, Qoncord: A multi-device job scheduling framework for variational quantum algorithms, in 2024 57th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 735–749.
  48. 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).
  49. 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).
  50. H. R. Grimsely, 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).
  51. X. Liu, A. Angone, R. Shaydulin, I. Safro, Y. Alexeev, and L. Cincio, Layer VQE: A variational approach for combinatorial optimization on noisy quantum computers, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 3, 1 (2022).
  52. 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).
  53. L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021067 (2020).
  54. 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).
  55. 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).
  56. E. Grant, L. Wossnig, M. Ostaszewski, and M. Benedetti, An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits, Quantum 3, 214 (2019).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation