Variational Quantum Circuit Updates With Adaptive Step Size

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional gradient-based methods for variational quantum eigenvalue calculations often require excessive iterations and prolonged calculation times due to the use of a fixed parameter (step size or learning rate) that may not be optimally suited for each stage of the optimization process.

Innovation Solution

Adopting a variable step size (ηk) determined by the ratio of consecutive cost function values (f(θi,k) and f(θi,k-1) to dynamically adjust the amount of change in parameter updates during the variational quantum eigenvalue calculation, using equations (2) and (3) to accelerate convergence.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If a fixed parameter (step size) is used in gradient-based optimization, then the update process is simple to implement, but the number of iterations increases and calculation time becomes long

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesimplicity of update processVSAvoidcalculation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies the dynamics principle by transforming the fixed step size parameter into a dynamic one that automatically adjusts during the optimization process. The step size is modified based on the ratio of consecutive cost function values, allowing the system to adapt its behavior according to the optimization progress. This resolves the contradiction by maintaining implementation simplicity while significantly reducing calculation time through adaptive parameter adjustment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements parameter changes by modifying the step size parameter based on the optimization trajectory. Specifically, the step size is scaled by a factor derived from the ratio of consecutive cost function values (f(θ_k)/f(θ_{k-1})). This parameter change enables the optimization process to take larger steps when progress is rapid and smaller steps when approaching convergence, thereby reducing total iteration count while maintaining ease of implementation through a straightforward parameter update rule.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Ease of operation

If a fixed parameter (step size) is used in gradient-based optimization, then the implementation is straightforward, but the energy convergence slows down

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestraightforward implementationVSAvoidenergy convergence speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by making the step size parameter adaptive rather than fixed. The step size dynamically adjusts based on the ratio of consecutive cost function values, enabling faster energy convergence while keeping the implementation straightforward. This resolves the contradiction by allowing the system to accelerate convergence without complicating the update process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback by using the ratio of consecutive cost function values to adjust the step size in subsequent iterations. This feedback mechanism allows the optimization process to learn from past performance and adapt accordingly, achieving faster energy convergence while maintaining straightforward implementation through a simple feedback-based parameter adjustment rule.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Loss of time

If the step size is increased to accelerate convergence, then calculation time reduces, but the optimization may overshoot and fail to converge

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecalculation timeVSAvoidconvergence reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of timeVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by making the step size adaptive rather than fixed or uniformly large. The step size automatically adjusts based on the ratio of consecutive cost function values, allowing large steps when progress is rapid while automatically reducing steps when approaching convergence or encountering oscillations. This resolves the contradiction by maintaining fast convergence while ensuring reliability through dynamic adaptation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements parameter changes by scaling the step size based on the ratio of consecutive cost function values. When the cost function decreases rapidly, the step size can be larger; when the decrease slows or oscillations occur, the step size automatically reduces. This parameter change strategy enables reduced calculation time while maintaining convergence reliability through automatic parameter adaptation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Reliability

If the step size is decreased to ensure stable convergence, then reliability improves, but the number of iterations increases and calculation time extends

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconvergence reliabilityVSAvoidcalculation time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by transforming the static, conservatively small step size into a dynamic parameter that adjusts based on optimization progress. The step size starts larger to enable rapid initial convergence and automatically reduces when approaching the minimum or encountering oscillations. This resolves the contradiction by achieving both high reliability and reduced calculation time through adaptive parameter adjustment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements parameter changes by scaling the step size based on the ratio of consecutive cost function values. This allows the system to use larger step sizes during phases where stability is less critical (early optimization) and automatically reduce step sizes when stability becomes crucial (near convergence). This parameter adaptation achieves both reduced calculation time and maintained reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP4679332A1Computer program, information processing method, and information processing apparatus
Publication Date: 2026.01.14 FUJITSU LTD
  • EP4679332A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4679332A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4679332A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

An information processing apparatus performs, a plurality of iterations, an update process of updating a value of a first parameter, which is a variable in a cost function, the value of the first parameter being applied to a variational quantum circuit for a variational quantum eigenvalue calculation. The information processing apparatus determines a value of a second parameter representing a weight for an amount of change to be applied to the value of the first parameter in each iteration of the update process, using the ratio between first and second values of the cost function, which are calculated by the variational quantum eigenvalue calculation using the values of the first parameter obtained in the k-th and (k-1)-th iterations of the update process, respectively. The information processing apparatus performs the (k+1)-th iteration of the update process using the amount of change weighted by the determined value of the second parameter.