Near-term quantum approaches to combinatorial optimization are limited by qubit counts, circuit fidelity, sampling cost, and the difficulty of encoding constraints, while machine learning is increasingly used to configure and control quantum optimization workflows. We call such workflows adaptive: decisions conventionally fixed in advance, from formulation and penalties to shot budgets, backends, and whether to invoke a quantum processor at all, are made by learned policies that respond to the instance, the progress of the solve, or the hardware. This review examines three paradigms, AI for quantum optimization, quantum for AI-driven optimization, and AI-quantum co-optimization, and organizes the literature by the decision being learned rather than by application. A structured search identified a 119-paper corpus, of which 67 papers form an evidence core coded in detail. The evidence is considerably stronger for AI-assisted quantum optimization than for the reverse direction: learning already reduces quantum evaluations, improves initialization, supports decomposition and penalty control, and mitigates noise, whereas evidence that quantum computation improves learned optimizers remains largely confined to small-scale simulation. Experimental controls are thin: of 52 studies in the three paradigms, 22 include no classical baseline, the quantum contribution is fully isolated in 10 of 24 where an ablation applies, and the median largest experiment uses 16 qubits. We introduce an M0-M5 evidence hierarchy, from simulation to practical quantum advantage, and find no broadly convincing result at the highest level. We argue that scaling is increasingly a systems problem: the question is not only whether a problem fits on a quantum processor, but how classical and quantum resources should be allocated across the optimization process.

翻译：暂无翻译