The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) is designed to run on a gate model quantum computer and has shallow depth. It takes as input a combinatorial optimization problem and outputs a string that satisfies a high fraction of the maximum number of clauses that can be satisfied. For certain problems the lowest depth version of the QAOA has provable performance guarantees although there exist classical algorithms that have better guarantees. Here we argue that beyond its possible computational value the QAOA can exhibit a form of Quantum Supremacy in that, based on reasonable complexity theoretic assumptions, the output distribution of even the lowest depth version cannot be efficiently simulated on any classical device. We contrast this with the case of sampling from the output of a quantum computer running the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm (QADI) with the restriction that the Hamiltonian that governs the evolution is gapped and stoquastic. Here we show that there is an oracle that would allow sampling from the QADI but even with this oracle, if one could efficiently classically sample from the output of the QAOA, the Polynomial Hierarchy would collapse. This suggests that the QAOA is an excellent candidate to run on near term quantum computers not only because it may be of use for optimization but also because of its potential as a route to establishing quantum supremacy.

Main idea

depth-1 QAOA generates a distribution that cannot be efficiently sampled

They also discuss the adiabatic algorithm (they call it QADI, but others call it QAA);
they show that even with a quantum adiabatic oracle, efficiently sampling from depth-1 QAOA would collapse PH.

From the paper:

Our paper is organized as follows. First we review the basic ingredients of the QAOA. Since weare going to use complexity theory arguments to argue that it is difficult to simulate this algorithm,we review some of the needed complexity theory. We explain what the Polynomial Hierarchy (PH)is and what it means for it to collapse. In Section 3, we show why the ability to compute ona classical computer the matrix elements of the QAOA would collapse the PH. But to discusswhy sampling the output distribution of the QAOA is also hard for complexity theory reasons weneed to discuss Post-Selected Quantum Computing which we do in Section 4. Using Post-SelectedQuantum Computing as a tool, in Section 5 we show that the efficient sampling of the output ofan arbitrary quantum circuit implies the collapse of the PH. This leads up to our new result (inSections 6 and 7) that efficient sampling from the output of the QAOA also collapses the PH. InSection 8 we turn to a discussion of sampling from the output of the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithmbeing run in optimization mode. We review the assumptions needed to enable efficient samplingfrom this type of quantum circuit. Here we argue that this may in fact be easier than sampling fromthe output of the QAOA. We conclude with a discussion of what these results mean for near-termquantum computers