pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.17259 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-21 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.CC· cs.CE· cs.DM· math-ph· math.MP

Fundamental Limitations of QAOA on Constrained Problems and a Route to Exponential Enhancement

Chinonso Onah , Kristel Michielsen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 20:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.CCcs.CEcs.DMmath-phmath.MP
keywords QAOAconstrained optimizationpermutation problemsfeasibility bottleneckconstraint embeddingXY mixerexponential enhancementquantum optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generic QAOA cannot concentrate probability on valid constrained solutions with sublinear depth, but constraint embedding delivers exponential feasible-mass gains.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that standard QAOA with a transverse-field mixer leaves almost all probability mass on invalid states for permutation-type constraints, even after angle tuning, because the feasible manifold is exponentially small inside the full hypercube. This creates an intrinsic bottleneck that persists for any depth that grows slower than linear in the number of variables. The authors replace the generic mixer with a block-local XY operator that stays inside the product one-hot subspace encoding the constraints. Under a mild polynomial-growth condition on the interaction hypergraph, the ratio of feasible probability between the two circuits grows exponentially in n squared for all depths up to a linear fraction of n.

Core claim

For permutation-constrained objectives the standard QAOA ansatz faces an intrinsic feasibility bottleneck: circuits whose depth grows at most sublinearly in n cannot raise the total probability mass on the feasible manifold much above the uniform baseline. The constraint-enhanced kernel, which mixes inside the product one-hot subspace with a block-local XY Hamiltonian, produces an angle-robust ratio of feasible masses that grows exponentially in n squared for depths up to a linear fraction of n under a mild polynomial growth condition on the interaction hypergraph.

What carries the argument

The minimal constraint-enhanced kernel (CE QAOA) that encodes permutations directly in a product one-hot subspace and mixes with a block-local XY Hamiltonian.

If this is right

  • Standard transverse-field QAOA remains exponentially suppressed on any low-dimensional constraint manifold for sublinear depth.
  • The CE QAOA construction yields a provable exponential separation in feasible mass that holds for all angles and for depths up to linear in n.
  • The same embedding technique extends to a broad class of NP-hard constrained optimization problems beyond permutations.
  • Problem-algorithm co-design that respects the constraint manifold can bypass the feasibility bottleneck that limits generic mixers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar subspace-restricted mixers could be designed for other combinatorial constraints such as graph coloring or scheduling.
  • The exponential separation suggests that generic variational algorithms may systematically underperform on structured constraints unless the ansatz is explicitly adapted to the feasible set.
  • Testing the polynomial-growth condition on real-world hypergraphs would determine how far the depth-linear regime can be pushed before the enhancement saturates.

Load-bearing premise

The interaction hypergraph satisfies a mild polynomial growth condition that keeps the number of interacting terms from exploding too fast with problem size.

What would settle it

Numerical or analytic computation of the feasible-probability ratio for a family of permutation problems with polynomially bounded hypergraph degree at depths proportional to n, checking whether the ratio remains bounded rather than growing exponentially in n squared.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17259 by Chinonso Onah, Kristel Michielsen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Constraint-Enhanced QAOA dominates generic QAOA at depth p=1. For medium￾size TSP instances from QOptLib[28], the unconstrained ansatz spreads its amplitude almost entirely outside the permutation subspace (n!/2 n 2 → 0), whereas the block-encoded circuit concentrates an Ω(n −m) fraction of its probability on valid tours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Empirical versus theoretical feasibility mass after parameter optimization on noiseless simula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Empirical versus theoretical feasibility gap with parameter transfer. Noiseless sim￾ulations at depth p = 1 for the three Qoplib benchmarks[28] wi3, wi4, and wi5, each executed with 500 000 shots so that Generic QAOA returns at least one feasible bit-string. Black dots: mea￾sured ratios P (block) 1 /P(generic) 1 ; green dashed line: analytic lower bound 2 n 2 /n n from Theorem 9 with n = 3, 4, 5. Every emp… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study fundamental limitations of the generic Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) on constrained problems where valid solutions form a low dimensional manifold inside the Boolean hypercube, and we present a provable route to exponential improvements via constraint embedding. Focusing on permutation constrained objectives, we show that the standard generic QAOA ansatz, with a transverse field mixer and diagonal r local cost, faces an intrinsic feasibility bottleneck: even after angle optimization, circuits whose depth grows at most sublinearly with n cannot raise the total probability mass on the feasible manifold much above the uniform baseline suppressed by the size of the full Hilber space. Against this envelope we introduce a minimal constraint enhanced kernel (CE QAOA) that operates directly inside a product one hot subspace and mixes with a block local XY Hamiltonian. For permutation constrained problems, we prove an angle robust, depth matched exponential enhancement where the ratio between the feasible mass from CE QAOA and generic QAOA grows exponentially in $n^2$ for all depths up to a linear fraction of n, under a mild polynomial growth condition on the interaction hypergraph. Thanks to the problem algorithm co design in the kernel construction, the techniques and guarantees extend beyond permutations to a broad class of NP-Hard constrained optimization problems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript establishes fundamental limitations of generic QAOA (transverse-field mixer, diagonal cost) on permutation-constrained problems, proving that even optimized circuits of sublinear depth cannot raise feasible probability mass substantially above the uniform baseline suppressed by the full Hilbert-space dimension. It introduces a minimal constraint-enhanced (CE) QAOA ansatz that works directly in the product one-hot subspace with a block-local XY mixer. For permutation problems the authors prove an angle-robust, depth-matched exponential separation: the ratio of feasible mass between CE QAOA and generic QAOA grows as exp(Θ(n²)) for all depths up to a linear fraction of n, provided the interaction hypergraph satisfies a mild polynomial-growth condition. The co-design techniques are claimed to extend to a broad class of NP-hard constrained optimization problems.

Significance. If the central proofs hold, the work supplies the first rigorous, angle-robust exponential separation between a standard QAOA ansatz and a constraint-embedded variant on a natural family of constrained problems. The depth-matched guarantee up to linear depth and the explicit analytic bounds (rather than post-hoc fitting) are notable strengths. The generalization claim, if substantiated, would influence the design of quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization with hard constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §4 (mixing analysis)] The exponential n² scaling of the feasible-mass ratio at linear depth p ≤ c n is load-bearing for the central claim yet is stated to hold only under the polynomial-growth condition on the interaction hypergraph. The manuscript must explicitly identify the theorem or lemma (likely in the mixing or concentration analysis) that shows this condition is necessary to extend the depth range while preserving the n² exponent; without that step the claimed advantage at linear depth reduces to the sublinear regime already known for generic QAOA.
  2. [§3 (generic QAOA limitation)] The feasibility-bottleneck argument for generic QAOA is proved only for sublinear depth. The direct ratio comparison with CE QAOA at linear depth therefore requires an explicit statement that angle optimization in the generic ansatz cannot close the gap even when its depth is increased to the largest sublinear value still allowed by the same hypergraph condition; otherwise the reported exponential ratio could be partly an artifact of depth mismatch.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2.2] The precise definition of the block-local XY mixer Hamiltonian should be written as an explicit operator equation rather than described only in words.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure captions should list the concrete hypergraph parameters (degree, support size) used for any numerical illustrations of the exponential ratio.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important points regarding the scope of our proofs and the clarity of our depth-matched comparisons. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract; §4 (mixing analysis)] The exponential n² scaling of the feasible-mass ratio at linear depth p ≤ c n is load-bearing for the central claim yet is stated to hold only under the polynomial-growth condition on the interaction hypergraph. The manuscript must explicitly identify the theorem or lemma (likely in the mixing or concentration analysis) that shows this condition is necessary to extend the depth range while preserving the n² exponent; without that step the claimed advantage at linear depth reduces to the sublinear regime already known for generic QAOA.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit identification is needed to clarify how the polynomial-growth condition enables the extension to linear depth while preserving the n² exponent. In the revised version we have added a direct reference to the relevant result (now labeled as Lemma 4.2 in the mixing analysis of §4), which derives the necessary bound on the hypergraph degree growth to control the error terms in the concentration estimates. This lemma shows that the condition is both sufficient and, in the sense of the proof technique, necessary for maintaining the exponential separation up to p = Θ(n). We have also updated the abstract and the statement of Theorem 4.1 to cross-reference this lemma explicitly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 (generic QAOA limitation)] The feasibility-bottleneck argument for generic QAOA is proved only for sublinear depth. The direct ratio comparison with CE QAOA at linear depth therefore requires an explicit statement that angle optimization in the generic ansatz cannot close the gap even when its depth is increased to the largest sublinear value still allowed by the same hypergraph condition; otherwise the reported exponential ratio could be partly an artifact of depth mismatch.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the bottleneck proof in §3 is stated for sublinear depth. While the generic QAOA cannot overcome the exponential suppression even at the largest sublinear depth permitted by the hypergraph condition (due to the same concentration-of-measure arguments), we acknowledge that the manuscript did not make this comparison explicit. In the revision we have inserted a new paragraph at the end of §3.2 that states: under the polynomial-growth condition the maximal sublinear depth for generic QAOA remains o(n), at which point the feasible mass is still exponentially small in n²; the ratio to CE QAOA at linear depth is therefore not an artifact of mismatched depths. We have also added a short remark in the caption of Figure 1 to this effect. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on explicit analytical bounds

full rationale

The paper presents a claimed proof of an exponential feasible-mass ratio between CE QAOA and generic QAOA for permutation-constrained problems, derived from direct comparison of two explicit Hamiltonians (transverse-field mixer vs. block-local XY mixer in the one-hot subspace) under a stated mild polynomial growth assumption on the interaction hypergraph. The limitation for generic QAOA is bounded for sublinear depth, while the CE QAOA enhancement extends to linear depth via the same analytical machinery. No steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the result is framed as a theorem with explicit assumptions rather than a renaming or ansatz smuggled from prior author work. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the paper's own equations and stated conditions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the polynomial growth condition on the interaction hypergraph and on the assumption that the feasible set is exactly the one-hot encoding of permutations; no new particles or forces are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The interaction hypergraph satisfies a mild polynomial growth condition that bounds the number of terms involving any given variable.
    Invoked to obtain the exponential separation up to linear depth; appears in the statement of the main theorem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1387 out tokens · 22011 ms · 2026-05-17T20:50:49.456833+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    Walsh–Fourier/Krawtchouk estimates showing that permutation one–hot constraints have exponentially small low-degree and high-degree Fourier mass; light-cone locality arguments that show shallow circuits cannot build the global correlations demanded by permutation constraints

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Optimal, Qubit-Efficient Quantum Vehicle Routing via Colored-Permutations

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A qubit-efficient colored-permutation encoding for CVRP enables Constraint-Enhanced QAOA to recover verified optimal solutions on benchmarks without additional capacity qubits.

  2. Finite-Depth, Finite-Shot Guarantees for Constrained Quantum Optimization via Fej\'er Filtering

    quant-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CE-QAOA with finite layers achieves dimension-free success probability bounds q0 ≥ x/(1+x) via Fejér filtering under a wrapped phase-separation condition.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone and S. Gutmann, “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Empirical Quantum Advantage in Constrained Optimization from Encoded Unitary Designs,

    C. Onah, R. Firt and K. Michielsen, “Empirical Quantum Advantage in Constrained Optimization from Encoded Unitary Designs,” arXiv:2511.14296 [cs.ET], 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,”Nature Communications9, 4812 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Variationalquantumalgorithms,

    M.Cerezo, A.Arrasmith, R.Babbushet al., “Variationalquantumalgorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics3, 625–644 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Analyzing variational quantum landscapes with information content,

    A. Pérez-Salinas, H. Wang and X. Bonet-Monroig, “Analyzing variational quantum landscapes with information content,”npj Quantum Information10, 27 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Energy Landscapes for the Quantum Approximate Opti- misation Algorithm,

    B. Choy and D. J. Wales, “Energy Landscapes for the Quantum Approximate Opti- misation Algorithm,” arXiv:2401.04784 [quant-ph], 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Analytical framework for quantum alternating operator ansätze,

    S. Hadfield, T. Hogg and E. G. Rieffel, “Analytical framework for quantum alternating operator ansätze,”Quantum Science and Technology8, 015017 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Obstacles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection,

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig and E. Tang, “Obstacles to variational quantum optimization from symmetry protection,”Physical Review Letters125, 260505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Avoiding barren plateaus using classical shadows,

    S. H. Sack, R. A. Medina, A. A. Michailidis, R. Kueng and M. Serbyn, “Avoiding barren plateaus using classical shadows,”PRX Quantum3, 020365 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Warm-starting quantum optimization,

    D. J. Egger, C. Gambella, T. Tomesh and S. Woerner, “Warm-starting quantum optimization,”PRX Quantum2, 040348 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, “The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,” Communications in Mathematical Physics28(3), 251–257 (1972)

    work page 1972

  12. [12]

    Locality in Quantum Systems

    M. B. Hastings, “Locality in quantum systems,” arXiv:1008.5137, 2010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case, April 2020

    E. Farhi, D. Gamarnik and S. Gutmann, “The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm needs to see the whole graph: A typical case,” arXiv:2004.09002 [quant-ph], 2020

    work page arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Performance and limitations of the QAOA at constant levels on large sparse hypergraphs and spin glass models,

    J. Basso, D. Gamarnik, S. Mei and L. Zhou, “Performance and limitations of the QAOA at constant levels on large sparse hypergraphs and spin glass models,” inProc. 63rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 335–343, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    The overlap gap property and the power of QAOA,

    D. Gamarnik and I. Zadik, “The overlap gap property and the power of QAOA,” arXiv:2111.06823 [cs.DS], 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Combinatorial NLTS from the overlap gap property,

    E. R. Anschuetz, D. Gamarnik and B. Kiani, “Combinatorial NLTS from the overlap gap property,”Quantum8, 1527 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Quantum advantage with shallow circuits,

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset and R. Koenig, “Quantum advantage with shallow circuits,” Science362, 308–312 (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz,

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli and R. Biswas, “From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz,”Algorithms12(2), 34 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Grover mixers for QAOA: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation,

    A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, “Grover mixers for QAOA: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation,” arXiv:2006.00354 [quant-ph], 2020. 36

    work page arXiv 2006

  20. [20]

    Constraint preserving mixers for the Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm,

    F. G. Fuchs and R. P. Bassa, “Constraint preserving mixers for the Quantum Approx- imate Optimization Algorithm,”Algorithms15(6), 202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    A feasibility- preserved quantum approximate solver for the capacitated vehicle routing problem,

    N. Xie, X. Lee, D. Cai, Y. Saito, N. Asai and H. C. Lau, “A feasibility- preserved quantum approximate solver for the capacitated vehicle routing problem,” arXiv:2308.08785 [quant-ph], 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Symmetries and dimension reduction in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,

    B. Tsvelikhovskiy, I. Safro and Y. Alexeev, “Symmetries and dimension reduction in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” arXiv:2309.13787 [quant-ph], 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Equivariant QAOA and the duel of the mixers,

    B. Tsvelikhovskiy, I. Safro and Y. Alexeev, “Equivariant QAOA and the duel of the mixers,” arXiv:2405.07211 [quant-ph], 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Transfer learning of optimal QAOA parameters in combinatorial optimization,

    J. A. Montañez-Barrera, D. Willsch and K. Michielsen, “Transfer learning of optimal QAOA parameters in combinatorial optimization,”Quantum Information Processing 24(5), 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Recursive QAOA outperforms the original QAOA for the MAX- CUT problem on complete graphs,

    E. Bae and S. Lee, “Recursive QAOA outperforms the original QAOA for the MAX- CUT problem on complete graphs,”Quantum Information Processing23(3), 78 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Quantum-informed recursive optimization algorithms,

    J. R. Finžgar, A. Kerschbaumer, M. J. A. Schuetz, C. B. Mendl and H. G. Katzgraber, “Quantum-informed recursive optimization algorithms,”PRX Quantum5(2), 020327 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Warm-starting QAOA with XY mixers: A novel approach for quantum- enhanced vehicle routing optimization,

    R. S. do Carmo, M. C. S. Santana, F. F. Fanchini, V. H. C. de Albuquerque and J. P. Papa, “Warm-starting QAOA with XY mixers: A novel approach for quantum- enhanced vehicle routing optimization,” arXiv:2504.19934 [quant-ph], 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    QOPTLib: Aquantum-computing-orientedbench- mark for combinatorial optimisation problems,

    E.OsabaandE.Villar-Rodríguez, “QOPTLib: Aquantum-computing-orientedbench- mark for combinatorial optimisation problems,” inProc. Quantum Tech 2024, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    O’Donnell,Analysis of Boolean Functions, Cambridge University Press, 2014

    R. O’Donnell,Analysis of Boolean Functions, Cambridge University Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan and D. B. Shmoys,The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization, Wiley, 1985

    work page 1985

  31. [31]

    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson,Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman, 1979

    work page 1979

  32. [32]

    A survey for the quadratic assignment problem,

    E. M. Loiola, N. M. M. de Abreu, P. O. Boaventura-Netto, P. Hahn and T. Querido, “A survey for the quadratic assignment problem,”European Journal of Operational Research176(2), 657–690 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Toth and D

    P. Toth and D. Vigo (eds.),Vehicle Routing: Problems, Methods, and Applications, 2nd ed., SIAM, 2014

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    P-complete approximation problems,

    S. Sahni and T. Gonzalez, “P-complete approximation problems,”Journal of the ACM 23(3), 555–565 (1976)

    work page 1976

  35. [35]

    Reducibilityamongcombinatorialproblems,

    R.M.Karp, “Reducibilityamongcombinatorialproblems,” inComplexity of Computer Computations, pp. 85–103, Plenum, 1972

    work page 1972

  36. [36]

    Alon and J

    N. Alon and J. H. Spencer,The Probabilistic Method, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2008

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    A generalization of Hölder’s inequality and some probability inequalities,

    H. Finner, “A generalization of Hölder’s inequality and some probability inequalities,” The Annals of Probability20(4), 1893–1901 (1992)

    work page 1901

  38. [38]

    Krawtchouk matrices from classical and quantum random walks

    P. Feinsilver and J. Kocik, “Krawtchouk matrices from classical and quantum random walks,” arXiv:quant-ph/0702173, 2007. 37

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    Towards a uni- versal qaoa protocol: Evidence of a scaling advantage in solving some combinatorial optimization problems,

    J. A. Montañez-Barrera and K. Michielsen, “Towards a universal QAOA protocol: Evidence of a scaling advantage in solving some combinatorial optimization problems,” arXiv:2405.09169 [quant-ph], 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems,

    A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many NP problems,”Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Scalable hardware maturity probe for quantum acceler- ators via harmonic analysis of QAOA,

    C. Onah and K. Michielsen, “Scalable hardware maturity probe for quantum acceler- ators via harmonic analysis of QAOA,” arXiv:2509.11450 [quant-ph], 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    G. B. Folland,Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    A generalized Schwarz inequality and algebraic invariants for operator algebras,

    R. V. Kadison, “A generalized Schwarz inequality and algebraic invariants for operator algebras,”Annals of Mathematics56(3), 494–503 (1952)

    work page 1952

  44. [44]

    V. I. Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2002. 38

    work page 2002