{"id":18025,"date":"2025-07-23T13:16:13","date_gmt":"2025-07-23T13:16:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/18025\/"},"modified":"2025-07-23T13:16:13","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T13:16:13","slug":"increasing-the-hardness-of-posiform-planting-using-random-qubos-for-programmable-quantum-annealer-benchmarking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/18025\/","title":{"rendered":"Increasing the hardness of posiform planting using random QUBOs for programmable quantum annealer benchmarking"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kadowaki, T. & Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355\u20135363 (1998).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S. & Sipser, M. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/quant-ph\/0001106<\/a> (2000).<\/p>\n

Morita, S. & Nishimori, H. Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing. J. Math. Phys. 49, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1063\/1.2995837<\/a> (2008).<\/p>\n

Das, A. & Chakrabarti, B. K. Colloquium: quantum annealing and analog quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061 (2008).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hauke, P., Katzgraber, H. G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H. & Oliver, W. D. Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations. Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 054401 (2020).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Johnson, M. W. et al. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature 473, 194\u2013198 (2011).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Bunyk, P. I. et al. Architectural considerations in the design of a superconducting quantum annealing processor. IEEE Trans. Appl. Superconductivity 24, 1\u201310 (2014).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Johnson, M. W. et al. A scalable control system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization processor. Superconductor Sci. Technol. 23, 065004 (2010).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Lanting, T. et al. Entanglement in a quantum annealing processor. Phys. Rev. X 4, 021041 (2014).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Albash, T., Hen, I., Spedalieri, F. M. & Lidar, D. A. Reexamination of the evidence for entanglement in a quantum annealer. Phys. Rev. A 92, 062328 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D. et al. Coherent quantum annealing in a programmable 2000-qubit Ising chain. Nat. Phys. 18, 1324\u20131328 (2022).<\/p>\n

CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D. et al. Quantum critical dynamics in a 5000-qubit programmable spin glass. Nature 617, 61\u201366 (2023).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D. et al. Scaling advantage over path-integral Monte Carlo in quantum simulation of geometrically frustrated magnets. Nat. Commun. 12, 1113 (2021).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D. et al. Computational supremacy in quantum simulation. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2403.00910<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n

Tasseff, B. et al. On the emerging potential of quantum annealing hardware for combinatorial optimization. J Heuristics 30, 325\u2013358 (2022).<\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., B\u00e4rtschi, A. & Eidenbenz, S. Short-depth QAOA circuits and quantum annealing on higher-order Ising models. npj Quantum Inf. (2024).<\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., B\u00e4rtschi, A. & Eidenbenz, S. Quantum annealing vs. QAOA: 127 qubit higher-order ising problems on NISQ computers. In Proc. International Conference on High Performance Computing ISC HPC\u201923, 240\u2013258 (2023).<\/p>\n

King, A. D. et al. Quantum annealing simulation of out-of-equilibrium magnetization in a spin-chain compound. PRX Quantum 2, 030317 (2021).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Bauza, H. M. & Lidar, D. A. Scaling advantage in approximate optimization with quantum annealing. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2401.07184<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n

Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Adiabatic quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Born, M. & Fock, V. Beweis des adiabatensatzes. Z. Phys. 51, 165\u2013180 (1928).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Lucas, A. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Front. Phys. 2, 1\u201315 (2014).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Boros, E., Hammer, P. & Tavares, G. Preprocessing of unconstrained quadratic binary optimization. Rutcor Res. Rep. RRR 10-2006, 1\u201358 (2006).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Boros, E., Hammer, P. & Tavares, G. Local search heuristics for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO). J. Heuristics 13, 99\u2013132 (2007).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Venturelli, D. et al. Quantum optimization of fully connected spin glasses. Phys. Rev. X 5, 031040 (2015).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pudenz, K. L., Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Quantum annealing correction for random ising problems. Phys. Rev. A 91, 042302 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D., Hoskinson, E., Lanting, T., Andriyash, E. & Amin, M. H. Degeneracy, degree, and heavy tails in quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. A 93, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1103\/PhysRevA.93.052320<\/a> (2016).<\/p>\n

Mehta, V., Jin, F., De Raedt, H. & Michielsen, K. Quantum annealing for hard 2-satisfiability problems: distribution and scaling of minimum energy gap and success probability. Phys. Rev. A 105, 062406 (2022).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., Hahn, G. & Djidjev, H. N. Parallel quantum annealing. Sci. Rep. 12, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-022-08394-8<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n

Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Demonstration of a scaling advantage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing. Phys. Rev. X 8, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1103\/PhysRevX.8.031016<\/a> (2018).<\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., Hahn, G. & Djidjev, H. N. Solving larger maximum clique problems using parallel quantum annealing. Quantum Inf. Process. 22, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11128-023-03962-x<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., Hahn, G. & Djidjev, H. N. Noise dynamics of quantum annealers: estimating the effective noise using idle qubits. Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 035005 (2023).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Vysko\u010dil, T., Pakin, S. & Djidjev, H. N. Embedding inequality constraints for quantum annealing optimization. In Proc. First International Workshop on Quantum Technology and Optimization Problems, QTOP 2019, Munich, Germany, March 18, 2019, Proceedings 1, 11\u201322 https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-030-14082-3_2<\/a> (Springer, 2019).<\/p>\n

K\u00f6nz, M. S., Lechner, W., Katzgraber, H. G. & Troyer, M. Embedding overhead scaling of optimization problems in quantum annealing. PRX Quantum 2, 040322 (2021).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Cai, J., Macready, W. G. & Roy, A. A practical heuristic for finding graph minors. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.1406.2741<\/a> (2014).<\/p>\n

Lucas, A. Hard combinatorial problems and minor embeddings on lattice graphs. Quantum Inf. Process. 18, 1\u201338 (2019).<\/p>\n

MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Choi, V. Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II. minor-universal graph design. Quantum Inf. Process. 10, 343\u2013353 (2011).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Choi, V. Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I. the parameter setting problem. Quantum Inf. Process. 7, 193\u2013209 (2008).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pearson, A., Mishra, A., Hen, I. & Lidar, D. A. Analog errors in quantum annealing: doom and hope. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 107 (2019).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Lanting, T. et al. Probing environmental spin polarization with superconducting flux qubits. arXiv preprint. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2003.14244<\/a> (2020).<\/p>\n

Nelson, J., Vuffray, M., Lokhov, A. Y. & Coffrin, C. Single-qubit fidelity assessment of quantum annealing hardware. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 2, 1\u201310 (2021).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Zaborniak, T. & de Sousa, R. Benchmarking hamiltonian noise in the d-wave quantum annealer. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 2, 1\u20136 (2021).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Grant, E. & Humble, T. S. Benchmarking embedded chain breaking in quantum annealing. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025029 (2022).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., Hahn, G. & Djidjev, H. N. Reducing quantum annealing biases for solving the graph partitioning problem. In: Proc. 18th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers, CF\u201921, 133\u2013139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3457388.3458672<\/a> (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).<\/p>\n

Vinci, W., Albash, T., Paz-Silva, G., Hen, I. & Lidar, D. A. Quantum annealing correction with minor embedding. Phys. Rev. A 92, 042310 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Vinci, W., Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Nested quantum annealing correction. npj Quantum Inf. 2, 1\u20136 (2016).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pudenz, K. L., Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Error-corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits. Nat. Commun. 5, 1\u201310 (2014).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hen, I. et al. Probing for quantum speedup in spin-glass problems with planted solutions. Phys. Rev. A 92, 042325 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

King, A. D., Lanting, T. & Harris, R. Performance of a quantum annealer on range-limited constraint satisfaction problems. 1502.02098 (2015).<\/p>\n

Perera, D., Hamze, F., Raymond, J., Weigel, M. & Katzgraber, H. Computational hardness of spin-glass problems with tile-planted solutions. Phys. Rev. E 101, 023316 (2020).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Wang, W., Mandr\u00e0, S. & Katzgraber, H. Patch-planting spin-glass solution for benchmarking. Phys. Rev. E 96, 023312 (2017).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pei, Y., Manukian, H. & Di Ventra, M. Generating weighted MAX-2-SAT instances with frustrated loops: an RBM case study. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 1\u201355 (2020).<\/p>\n

MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hamze, F. et al. From near to eternity: spin-glass planting, tiling puzzles, and constraint-satisfaction problems. Phys. Rev. E 97, 043303 (2018).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Kowalsky, M., Albash, T., Hen, I. & Lidar, D. 3-regular three-XORSAT planted solutions benchmark of classical and quantum heuristic optimizers. Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 025008 (2022).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hen, I. Equation planting: a tool for benchmarking ising machines. Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 011003 (2019).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Perera, D. et al. Chook\u2014a comprehensive suite for generating binary optimization problems with planted solutions 1\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2005.14344<\/a> (2021).<\/p>\n

Carleton Coffrin. D-Wave Instance Generator (D-WIG). https:\/\/github.com\/lanl-ansi\/dwig<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n

King, J. et al. Quantum annealing amid local ruggedness and global frustration. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1701.04579<\/a> (2017).<\/p>\n

Denchev, V. S. et al. What is the computational value of finite-range tunneling? Phys. Rev. X 6, 031015 (2016).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Mandr\u00e1, S., Katzgraber, H. G. & Thomas, C. The pitfalls of planar spin-glass benchmarks: raising the bar for quantum annealers (again). Quantum Sci. Technol. 2, 038501 (2017).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hahn, G., Pelofske, E. & Djidjev, H. N. Posiform planting: generating QUBO instances for benchmarking. Front. Comput. Sci. 5, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fcomp.2023.1275948<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n

Isermann, S. A note on posiform planting (2024).<\/p>\n

Aspvall, B., Plass, M. & Tarjan, R. A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified boolean formulas. Inf. Process. Lett. 8, 121\u2013123 (1979).<\/p>\n

MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Dattani, N., Szalay, S. & Chancellor, N. Pegasus:the second connectivity graph for large-scale quantum annealing hardware. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1901.07636<\/a> (2019).<\/p>\n

Boothby, K., Bunyk, P., Raymond, J. & Roy, A. Next-generation topology of d-wave quantum processors. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2003.00133<\/a> (2020).<\/p>\n

Boothby, K., King, A. D. & Raymond, J. Zephyr topology of D-Wave quantum processors. https:\/\/www.dwavesys.com\/media\/2uznec4s\/14-1056a-a_zephyr_topology_of_d-wave_quantum_processors.pdf<\/a> (2021).<\/p>\n

Katzgraber, H. G., Hamze, F. & Andrist, R. S. Glassy chimeras could be blind to quantum speedup: designing better benchmarks for quantum annealing machines. Phys. Rev. X 4, 021008 (2014).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Weigel, M., Katzgraber, H. G., Machta, J., Hamze, F. & Andrist, R. S. Erratum: glassy chimeras could be blind to quantum speedup: designing better benchmarks for quantum annealing machines [phys. rev. x 4, 021008 (2014)]. Phys. Rev. X 5, 019901 (2015).<\/p>\n

CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Jaum\u00e1, G., Garc\u00eda-Ripoll, J. J. & Pino, M. Exploring quantum annealing architectures: a spin glass perspective. 2307.13065 (2023).<\/p>\n

Matsuda, Y., Nishimori, H. & Katzgraber, H. G. Quantum annealing for problems with ground-state degeneracy. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 143, 012003 (2009).<\/p>\n


\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Zhu, Z., Ochoa, A. J. & Katzgraber, H. G. Fair sampling of ground-state configurations of binary optimization problems. Phys. Rev. E 99, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1103\/PhysRevE.99.063314<\/a> (2019).<\/p>\n

Mandr\u00e0, S., Zhu, Z. & Katzgraber, H. G. Exponentially biased ground-state sampling of quantum annealing machines with transverse-field driving hamiltonians. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070502 (2017).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Albash, T., R\u00f8nnow, T., Troyer, M. & Lidar, D. Reexamining classical and quantum models for the d-wave one processor: the role of excited states and ground state degeneracy. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 224, 111\u2013129 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Zhang, B. H., Wagenbreth, G., Martin-Mayor, V. & Hen, I. Advantages of unfair quantum ground-state sampling. Sci. Rep. 7, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-017-01096-6<\/a> (2017).<\/p>\n

Boixo, S., Albash, T., Spedalieri, F. M., Chancellor, N. & Lidar, D. A. Experimental signature of programmable quantum annealing. Nat. Commun. 4, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/ncomms3067<\/a> (2013).<\/p>\n

K\u00f6nz, M. S., Mazzola, G., Ochoa, A. J., Katzgraber, H. G. & Troyer, M. Uncertain fate of fair sampling in quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. A 100, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1103\/PhysRevA.100.030303<\/a> (2019).<\/p>\n

Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt Jr, C. D. & Vecchi, M. P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220, 671\u2013680 (1983).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pelofske, E. Comparing three generations of D-Wave quantum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial optimization problems. Quantum Science and Technology, 10, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1088\/2058-9565\/adb029<\/a> (2025).<\/p>\n

Willsch, D. et al. Benchmarking advantage and D-Wave 2000Q quantum annealers with exact cover problems. Quantum Inf. Process. 21, 141 (2022).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Morrell, Z. et al. Signatures of open and noisy quantum systems in single-qubit quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034053 (2023).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Grant, E., Humble, T. S. & Stump, B. Benchmarking quantum annealing controls with portfolio optimization. Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 014012 (2021).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n CAS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Gilbert, V., Rodriguez, J. & Louise, S. Benchmarking quantum annealers with near-optimal minor-embedded instances. https:\/\/arxiv.org\/html\/2405.01378v1<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n

Boros, E. & Hammer, P. Pseudo-boolean optimization. Discret. Appl Math. 123, 155\u2013225 (2002).<\/p>\n

MathSciNet<\/a>\u00a0
\n MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In: Proc. 7th Python in Science Conference SciPy\u201908, 11\u201315. https:\/\/www.osti.gov\/biblio\/960616<\/a> (2008).<\/p>\n

Kernighan, B. W. & Lin, S. An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 49, 291\u2013307 (1970).<\/p>\n

MATH<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

Pelofske, E., Hahn, G., O\u2019Malley, D., Djidjev, H. N. & Alexandrov, B. S. Quantum annealing algorithms for boolean tensor networks. Sci. Rep. 12, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-022-12611-9<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n

Albash, T., Vinci, W., Mishra, A., Warburton, P. A. & Lidar, D. A. Consistency tests of classical and quantum models for a quantum annealer. Phys. Rev. A 91, 042314 (2015).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

IBM ILOG CPLEX. V12.10.0: User\u2019s Manual for CPLEX. 46, 157 (International Business Machines Corporation, 2019).<\/p>\n

E\u00e9n, N. & S\u00f6rensson, N. MiniSat solver. http:\/\/minisat.se<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n

R\u00f8nnow, T. F. et al. Defining and detecting quantum speedup. Science 345, 420\u2013424 (2014).<\/p>\n

ADS<\/a>\u00a0
\n PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n

D-Wave Systems. Simulated annealing D-Wave Github. https:\/\/github.com\/dwavesystems\/dwave-neal<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n

Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual. https:\/\/www.gurobi.com<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Kadowaki, T. & Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355\u20135363 (1998).…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18026,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[15605,49,48,15603,15607,285,15606,15604,1100,314,290,5964,61,15608],"class_list":["post-18025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-computing","tag-applied-science","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-computational-science","tag-computer-hardware","tag-computing","tag-mathematical-models-of-cognitive-processes-and-neural-networks","tag-mathematics-and-computing","tag-multidisciplinary","tag-physics","tag-quantum-computing","tag-quantum-physics","tag-technology","tag-theory-of-computation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18025\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}