Oct 4, 2026, quant-phJ/K move · Enter open · S save
Vojtěch Novák, Ivan Zelinka, Silvie Illésová, Swagatam Das+1
Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB – Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic · IT4Innovations National Supercomputing Center, VSB – Technical University of Ostrava, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic · Department of Informatics and Statistics, Marine Research Institute, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania+3
Variational quantum algorithms turn choices of Hamiltonian, ansatz, and parameterization into a classical nonconvex optimization problem. We study how this objective function can be visualized and characterized in ways that help explain optimizer behavior. We distinguish two properties of the objective: the number of local minima encountered along sampled directions and the differences in quality among local-search endpoints. We then ask how a local optimizer, represented by BFGS, compares with adaptive differential evolution, represented by jSO. Rather than comparing jSO with a single local run, we allow BFGS multiple starts within the same function-evaluation budget. This gives local search repeated opportunities to explore different basins and provides a stronger baseline for asking when a global evolutionary solver is useful. We study these questions using VQE and QAOA, focusing on how frustra- tion, circuit depth, parameter tying, mixed locality, and nonlinear repa- rameterization change the Hamiltonian expectation-value objective seen by the classical optimizer. Increasing independent circuit depth raises the sampled local-minimum count without making global search more effective. Parameter tying, by contrast, produces both more repeated local structure and much larger differences in quality among local-search endpoints, and in this regime adaptive differential evolution outperforms function-evaluation-matched multistart BFGS. The comparison shows that the number of local minima alone does not determine whether global search is advantageous: the important distinction is whether different basins lead to similarly good solutions or to substantially different objective values. These results provide a practical workflow for connecting model construction, objective- function geometry, empirical diagnostics, and optimizer choice.