Unfolding as Quantum Annealing

Kyle Cormier; Peter Wittek; Riccardo Di Sipio

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Unfolding as Quantum Annealing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Regularized unfolding of detector-smeared spectra can be encoded as a QUBO problem and solved on a quantum annealer, with a five-bin toy model recovering the true distribution and matching the standard iterative Bayesian method.

desk verdict First QUBO map of regularized unfolding on a quantum annealer, but the 'likelihood-based' claim is wrong and the agreement is oversold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08519 v2 pith:NLQWIQA7 submitted 2019-08-22 physics.data-an hep-exquant-ph

Kyle Cormier , Riccardo Di Sipio , Peter Wittek This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.data-anhep-exquant-ph

keywords unfoldingquantumannealingQUBOIsingmodelTikhonovregularizationinverseproblemsnuisanceparametershigh-energyphysics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the routine high-energy-physics task of unfolding — correcting measured distributions for detector smearing and inefficiency — can be cast as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem, which is exactly the form a programmable quantum annealer solves. The authors translate the regularized least-squares unfolding objective into a binary quadratic cost and test it on a five-bin toy model with sizeable bin-to-bin migrations. Both a classical simulated-annealing solver and the quantum annealing hardware recover the truth distribution within about one standard deviation, matching the iterative Bayesian unfolding method commonly used at the LHC. The formulation is then extended to include nuisance parameters that represent systematic uncertainties, with a penalty on their deviation from zero. If correct, this establishes a proof of principle that a mainstream precision-measurement procedure can be executed on quantum annealing hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QUBO matrix built from the regularized unfolding objective. The real-valued truth-level spectrum $x$ is replaced by a fixed-point binary expansion with per-bin offsets and scalings, $x_i = \alpha_i + \beta_i \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} 2^j q_{n i + j}$, so that the continuous objective $\Vert Rx-d\Vert^2 + \lambda \Vert Dx\Vert^2$ collapses into a quadratic form $y = q^T C q$ over binary variables. The matrix elements follow from expanding the objective in index notation: for $W = R^T R + \lambda D^T D$, the off-diagonal QUBO weights are $c_{ab} = 2 W_{jk} \beta_{ja} \beta_{kb}$ and the diagonal weights absorb the offset terms, giving $c_{aa} = 2 W_{jk} \alpha_k \beta_{ja} + W_{jk} \beta_{ja}\beta_{ka} - 2 R_{ij} d_i \beta_{ja}$. In the systematic-uncertainty extension, $W$ is replaced by $R^T R + \lambda D^T D + \gamma S^T S$ over an extended vector that interleaves the spectrum bins and the nuisance-parameter strengths. This mapping is what turns a hardware Ising annealer into an unfolding engine, with the classical side managing the encoding range.

What would settle it

Rerun the five-bin toy with each response-matrix entry perturbed by a few percent (within plausible simulation uncertainties) and compare the QUBO-unfolded spectrum to the truth; if the result moves outside the quoted one-standard-deviation band, the known-response assumption is the limiting factor. Alternatively, enumerate all binary assignments of the same QUBO and check whether the annealer's output is the global minimum for each $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that likelihood-based regularized unfolding can be rewritten as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization in a way that preserves the statistical content of the problem, and that the resulting QUBO can be solved on a quantum annealer to recover the underlying spectrum. Concretely, the objective $\Vert Rx-d\Vert^2 + \lambda \Vert Dx\Vert^2$ — where $R$ is the detector response matrix, $d$ the observed counts, $D$ the discrete Laplacian used as a Tikhonov smoothing operator, and $\lambda$ the regularization strength — is converted into a quadratic form over binary variables by expanding each truth-level bin as $x_i = \alpha_i + \beta_i \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} 2^j q_{n i + j}$. The linear terms of the resulting QUBO come from the data agreement, the quadratic terms from the smoothness prior, and the offsets and scalings $\alpha_i, \beta_i$ are chosen on the classical side. On a five-bin toy spectrum, solutions from simulated annealing and from the quantum processor agree with the truth within one standard deviation and are comparable to the iterative Bayesian benchmark; the unregularized version also handles a steeply falling spectrum, while too-large $\lambda$ flattens it. The authors further show that appending the strength of a shape systematic as an extra binary-encoded variable, penalized by a term $\gamma \Vert S \tilde{x}\Vert^2$, allows the systematic shift to be estimated in the same optimization, and they argue that a hybrid classical-quantum search is the route to larger problems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the detector response matrix is perfectly known: the paper applies the same matrix to generate both the pseudo-data and the reference truth, so it never tests how errors in the response matrix propagate into the unfolded spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Unfolding, a frequent step in LHC precision measurements, can in principle be delegated to a quantum annealer without changing the statistical formulation beyond the Gaussian approximation of the Poisson likelihood.
The same QUBO encoding handles nuisance parameters natively: systematic strengths become additional binary variables with a tunable penalty, so unfolding and systematic-shift estimation happen in a single optimization.
On the toy model, the quantum-annealer result agrees with the truth within one standard deviation, and a hybrid classical-quantum run reproduces the simulated-annealing solution, indicating that hybrid search is the practical mode for larger problems.
Because the final object is a standard QUBO, any current or future quantum or classical QUBO solver can substitute for the hardware without reformulating the physics.
The method inherits the known problem-dependence of Tikhonov regularization: the regularization strength $\lambda$ must be tuned per measurement, since large values over-smooth steeply falling spectra.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test, not performed here, is to relax the perfect-response-matrix assumption: perturbing $R$ within its simulated uncertainties and rerunning the five-bin toy would show how response errors propagate through the QUBO encoding, which the current error bars do not cover.
Because the QUBO form is agnostic to the physics, the same construction could be applied to other inverse problems with a response matrix and a smoothness prior, such as image deconvolution or astrophysical source reconstruction.
The paper notes that the quantum processor occasionally misses the brute-force ground state; a systematic comparison of annealer outputs against brute-force enumeration on the same five-bin instances would separate hardware and embedding errors from encoding errors.
The offsets and scalings $\alpha_i, \beta_i$ are chosen heuristically and bound the representable spectrum; an adaptive procedure that tests whether the optimum saturates the encoding range would make the method more robust.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a legitimate proof-of-concept. The authors are the first to carry a Tikhonov-regularized unfolding problem into QUBO form and run it on a D-Wave annealer, and they release the code. The appendix derivation is algebraically correct for what it minimizes, and the CPU simulated-annealing results confirm that the QUBO objective recovers the truth in their toy model when the regularization is tuned. The extension to nuisance parameters is a nice touch, and the hybrid classical-quantum discussion is sensible. The citation pattern is also reasonable, building on ToQ.jl and standard HEP unfolding tools.

The soft spot is real and central: the paper calls this 'likelihood-based' and writes a Poisson likelihood in Eq. 1.6, but the objective actually minimized in Eq. 2.3 is an unweighted L2 loss, ||R x - d||^2 + lambda ||D x||^2. That is not the Gaussian approximation to the Poisson log-likelihood for count data with unequal variances. For bins with small expectations, unweighted least squares overweights low-statistics bins and biases the unfolded spectrum. The fix is straightforward—premultiply by the inverse square root of the covariance, which stays QUBO-compatible—but as written, the statistical model advertised is not the one implemented.

The abstract also overstates the agreement. In the peaked spectrum, the unfolded points are within about one sigma. For the steeply falling spectrum, the unregularized solution agrees well, but Fig. 3 shows that increasing lambda flattens the result and the agreement degrades visibly. The QPU runs, by their own admission, are less accurate due to hardware limitations. So 'very good agreement' is true at best for a narrow setting.

Other limitations are minor given the scope: the response matrix is assumed perfectly known (standard for a first test but not for LHC measurements), the binary encoding offsets are heuristic, and the scaling argument for hundreds of nuisance parameters is untested. These are addressable in follow-up work.

Who gets value: anyone working on NISQ applications in HEP, or on QUBO mappings for inverse problems. It is not a demonstration of practical quantum advantage, and the statistical flaw needs to be corrected. I would send it to peer review—it deserves referee time—but the authors need to replace 'likelihood-based' with 'regularized least squares' or variance-weight the objective, and temper the abstract.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a QUBO/Ising formulation of regularized unfolding and demonstrates it on a D-Wave quantum annealer. The authors define a Poisson-likelihood unfolding problem with Tikhonov regularization (Eq. 1.6), replace the Poisson term by the squared L2 norm (Eq. 2.3), derive binary encodings with offset and scale parameters, provide explicit QUBO weights in the appendix (Eqs. 6.11-6.12), and extend the formulation to shape-type nuisance parameters (Eq. 3.4). They test the method on a 5-bin toy model with peaked and steeply falling spectra, comparing CPU simulated annealing, two D-Wave QPUs, a hybrid solver, and D'Agostini iterative Bayesian unfolding. The central claim is that likelihood-based regularized unfolding can be implemented on a quantum annealer and achieves very good agreement with the true distribution.

Significance. The proof-of-concept is timely and contains genuinely useful elements: an explicit algebraic mapping, open-source code, and validation of the QUBO algebra by simulated annealing and brute-force checks on a small problem. If the formulation is corrected, it could motivate hybrid quantum-classical solvers for unfolding. As it stands, however, the paper's central statistical claim is not established: the objective in Eq. (2.3) is not the Gaussian approximation to the Poisson likelihood in Eq. (1.6), and the QPU results in Fig. 3 do not support the abstract's 'very good agreement' for the falling spectrum. The 5-bin, perfectly known response matrix test also leaves the scaling discussion in Section 6 speculative.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (2.3); Section 1, Eq. (1.6)] The replacement of the Poisson term by ||Rx-d||^2 is described as taking the Gaussian approximation, but for Poisson bin counts with expectation mu_i the Gaussian log-likelihood is proportional to -sum_i (d_i-mu_i)^2/mu_i (or, in the Neyman variant, /d_i), not the unweighted residual sum of squares. Consequently, the QUBO coefficients in Eqs. (6.11)-(6.12) minimize a different statistical objective from the likelihood advertised in Eq. (1.6); bins with low expected counts and bins with high expected counts in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 receive equal weight. This is an internal mismatch, not merely a scope limitation, because it changes the optimum when counts vary by orders of magnitude. It is repairable: premultiplying R and d by the inverse square root of the Poisson covariance preserves QUBO form.
[Abstract; Section 5, Fig. 3] The abstract's 'very good agreement' is not supported by the QPU results for the steeply falling spectrum. Section 5 itself states that larger lambda values produce 'flatter and flatter solutions which do not agree well with the truth level,' and Fig. 3 shows the QPU lambda=1 point substantially below the true distribution in every bin. The abstract should be qualified to refer to the peaked-spectrum case with appropriately chosen regularization, or to the CPU/hybrid results only.
[Appendix, Eq. (6.8); Section 5] The representable solution space is fixed by the user-supplied offset alpha_i and scaling beta_i, and the appendix acknowledges that these are chosen by a heuristic. If the chosen range does not contain the true bin contents, the ground state of the QUBO cannot be the desired unfolding; no criterion or automatic update rule is given. Since the central claim is that this QUBO encodes the unfolding problem, the method's validity is conditional on this external choice. At minimum, the paper should state the ranges used in the toy and explain why they are guaranteed to bracket the truth.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1.9)] As typeset, the smoothness penalty reads (theta_{j+1}+theta_{j-1})^2, which is not the discrete second derivative used in Eq. (6.1). Please correct to (theta_{j+1}-2 theta_j+theta_{j-1})^2 or clarify the intended penalty.
[Eq. (3.3)] The definition of S x-tilde is hard to parse; it should be stated as an explicit matrix S multiplying the extended vector x-tilde. The present typesetting makes the penalty term look like a product of two vectors.
[Figures 3-5] The QPU results are reported as averages over 20 runs but no error bars are shown; a table of means and standard deviations, or error bars in the figures, would make the comparison with the truth-level distribution quantitatively assessable.
[Section 5] No quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., chi2/ndf) is given for any of the comparisons; statements such as 'agreement always in the order of about one standard deviation' in Fig. 2 are therefore not testable.
[Section 5 and appendix] The paper does not state the D-Wave software release, embedding parameters, or the exact simulated-annealing settings; adding these would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QUBO objective is derived algebraically from the stated Tikhonov objective, lambda and gamma are scanned rather than fitted to truth, and the pseudo-data tests are independent closure tests.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The QUBO objective in Eq. 2.3 (equivalently Eq. 6.2) is constructed directly from the stated problem inputs: the response matrix R, the observed data d, the Laplacian regularization operator D, and the regularization strength lambda. The QUBO coefficients in Eqs. 6.11 and 6.12 are obtained by explicit algebraic expansion of this objective after the binary encoding of Eq. 2.4 / Eq. 6.8; no term in those coefficients is defined in terms of the unfolded output or fitted to the truth distribution. The validation procedure is a standard closed-loop test: pseudo-data reco-level histograms are generated by applying the same response matrix to truth-level distributions, and then the known response matrix is used to unfold the independent pseudo-data back to truth. Agreement with the truth in that setting is not forced by construction; it would fail if the QUBO encoding, the solver, or the embedding were incorrect. The regularization strength lambda is scanned over a range rather than optimized against the truth, and the paper explicitly notes that larger lambda values flatten the spectrum and that the optimal value must be estimated from simulation. Likewise, the systematic study injects a known nuisance-parameter value of -0.75 into the pseudo-data and then checks whether the unpenalized annealer recovers it; this is an injection test, not a fitted-input-as-prediction. The statement 'We assume that the distortions introduced by the detector are perfectly known' is a stated scope limitation, not a circular step. The only substantive statistical concern is that Eq. 2.3 replaces the Poisson likelihood of Eq. 1.6 with an unweighted sum of squares, which is only a Gaussian approximation for equal-variance bins; that is a modeling-correctness issue about whether the objective matches the advertised likelihood, not a circularity in which an output is equivalent to an input by definition. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation appears in the paper: the reference to Ref. [21] is external prior work for the QUBO conversion technique, and the D'Agostini and TUnfold comparisons are independent benchmarks. The central claim therefore has independent content and is not reduced to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on a standard least-squares-plus-Tikhonov objective; the main inputs are the response matrix (taken as known), the hand-chosen regularization and penalty parameters, and the binary encoding offsets and scales. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

lambda (regularization strength) = scanned over 0 to 1
Controls the smoothness penalty; the paper shows the optimal value is problem-dependent and must be tuned; no objective criterion is given.
gamma (systematic penalty) = 0 or 1000
Penalizes deviation of nuisance parameters from zero; chosen by hand.
alpha_i (offset per binary-encoded bin) = heuristic
Defines the range of the solution space; selected by an unspecified heuristic.
beta_i (scaling per binary-encoded bin) = heuristic
Scales binary digits; selected by the same unspecified heuristic.
number of bits n = 4 or 8
Determines numerical precision and chain length; chosen by the authors.
number of QPU reads and executions = 5000 reads, 20 executions
Used to estimate the spread of annealer outputs; arbitrary choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Detector response matrix is perfectly known
Section 5 states this explicitly; in real experiments R has uncertainties.
domain assumption Gaussian approximation of the Poisson likelihood
Section 2 replaces the Poisson term with the square of the L2 norm; valid for large counts but not for low-statistics bins.
domain assumption Tikhonov regularization via second derivative is appropriate
Common choice in TUnfold; the paper notes the optimal strength is problem-dependent.
domain assumption The D-Wave annealer returns low-energy states representative of the QUBO minimum
The QPU results are less accurate than the simulator, so this assumption holds only approximately.
ad hoc to paper The binary encoding with offset and scaling spans the relevant solution space
The offset and scaling parameters are set heuristically; if they are mis-set, the true solution may not be representable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unfolding as Quantum Annealing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLQWIQA7

@misc{pith2026190808519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unfolding as Quantum Annealing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLQWIQA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08519}
}

read the original abstract

High-energy physics is replete with hard computational problems and it is one of the areas where quantum computing could be used to speed up calculations. We present an implementation of likelihood-based regularized unfolding on a quantum computer. The inverse problem is recast in terms of quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), which has the same form of the Ising hamiltonian and hence it is solvable on a programmable quantum annealer. We tested the method using a model that captures the essence of the problem, and compared the results with a baseline method commonly used in precision measurements at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. The unfolded distribution is in very good agreement with the original one. We also show how the method can be extended to include the effect of nuisance parameters representing sources of systematic uncertainties affecting the measurement.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Optimization-based Unfolding in High-Energy Physics
quant-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Unfolding is recast as a QUBO optimization problem solvable on quantum annealers, implemented in open-source QUnfold and benchmarked competitively against RooUnfold methods on synthetic data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Cern openlab whitepaper on future it challenges in scientiﬁc research,

A. Di Meglio, M. Girone, A. Purcell, and F. Rademakers, “Cern openlab whitepaper on future it challenges in scientiﬁc research,” 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018
[3]

Solving a Higgs optimization problem with quantum annealing for machine learning,

A. Mott, J. Job, J.-R. Vlimant, D. Lidar, and M. Spiropulu, “Solving a Higgs optimization problem with quantum annealing for machine learning,” Nature, vol. 550, no. 7676, p. 375–379, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

A pattern recognition algorithm for quantum annealers,

F. Bapst, W. Bhimji, P. Calaﬁura, H. Gray, W. Lavrijsen, and L. Linder, “A pattern recognition algorithm for quantum annealers,” 2019

work page 2019
[5]

A quantum algorithm for high energy physics simulations,

C. W. Bauer, B. Nachman, D. Provasoli, and W. A. De Jong, “A quantum algorithm for high energy physics simulations,” 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,

M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolkacheva, C. J. S. Truncik, S. Uchaikin, J. Wang, B. Wilson, and G. Rose, “Quantum annealing with manuf...

work page 2011
[7]

Tanaka, R

S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum spin glasses, annealing and computation. Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Cowan, Statistical data analysis

G. Cowan, Statistical data analysis . Oxford University Press, 1998

1998

Show all 34 references

[9]

Measurements of t¯t diﬀerential cross-sections of highly boosted top quarks decaying to all-hadronic ﬁnal states in pp collisions at √s = 13 tev using the ATLAS detector,

The ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of t¯t diﬀerential cross-sections of highly boosted top quarks decaying to all-hadronic ﬁnal states in pp collisions at √s = 13 tev using the ATLAS detector,” Physical Review D, vol. 98, no. 1, p. 012003, 2018

2018
[10]

Measurement of inclusive and diﬀerential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

The CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive and diﬀerential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 183, 2019. – 11 –

2019
[11]

Aperture synthesis with a non-regular distribution of interferometer baselines,

J. H¨ ogbom, “Aperture synthesis with a non-regular distribution of interferometer baselines,” Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series , vol. 15, p. 417, 1974

1974
[12]

Geant4—a simulation toolkit,

GEANT4 Collaboration, “Geant4—a simulation toolkit,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 506, no. 3, pp. 250–303, 2003

2003
[13]

FLUKA as a new high energy cosmic ray generator,

G. Battistoni, A. Margiotta, S. Muraro, and M. Sioli, “FLUKA as a new high energy cosmic ray generator,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 626-627, pp. S191–S192, 2011

2011
[14]

DELPHES 3: a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

J. de Favereau, , C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3: a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” Journal of High Energy Physics , vol. 2014, no. 2, p. 57, 2014

2014
[15]

Detector image slightly modiﬁed from source

“Detector image slightly modiﬁed from source.” http://www.particleadventure.org/modern_detect.html. Accessed: 2019-08-07

2019
[16]

A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 178, no. 11, pp. 852–867, 2008

2008
[17]

Herwig 7.0/herwig++ 3.0 release note,

J. Bellm, S. Gieseke, D. Grellscheid, S. Pl¨ atzer, M. Rauch, C. Reuschle, P. Richardson, P. Schichtel, M. H. Seymour, A. Si´ odmok, A. Wilcock, N. Fischer, M. A. Harrendorf, G. Nail, A. Papaefstathiou, and D. Rauch, “Herwig 7.0/herwig++ 3.0 release note,” The European Physica...

2016
[18]

TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration eﬀects in high energy physics,

S. Schmitt, “TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration eﬀects in high energy physics,” Journal of Instrumentation , vol. 7, pp. T10003–T10003, oct 2012

2012
[19]

A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem,

G. D’Agostini, “A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , vol. 362, no. 2-3, pp. 487–498, 1995

1995
[20]

Fully Bayesian unfolding,

G. Choudalakis, “Fully Bayesian unfolding,” 2012

2012
[21]

ToQ.jl: A high-level programming language for D-Wave machines based on Julia,

D. O’Malley and V. V. Vesselinov, “ToQ.jl: A high-level programming language for D-Wave machines based on Julia,” in 2016 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), 2016

2016
[22]

A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nat. Commun., vol. 5, p. 4213, dec 2014

2014
[23]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,” tech. rep., MIT, nov 2014

2014
[24]

Quantum neural network: Optical neural networks operating at the quantum limit,

QNNCloud, “Quantum neural network: Optical neural networks operating at the quantum limit,” 2017

2017
[25]

What is the computational value of ﬁnite range tunneling?,

V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Babbush, V. Smelyanskiy, J. Martinis, and H. Neven, “What is the computational value of ﬁnite range tunneling?,” Physical Review X, vol. 6, p. 031015, Aug. 2016

2016
[26]

Simulated Quantum Annealing Can Be Exponentially Faster Than Classical Simulated Annealing,

E. Crosson and A. W. Harrow, “Simulated Quantum Annealing Can Be Exponentially Faster Than Classical Simulated Annealing,” in 2016 IEEE 57th Annu. Symp. Found. Comput. Sci., vol. 2016-Decem, pp. 714–723, IEEE, oct 2016. – 12 –

2016
[27]

A deceptive step towards quantum speedup detection,

S. Mandr´ a and H. G. Katzgraber, “A deceptive step towards quantum speedup detection,” Quantum Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 04LT01, 2018

2018
[28]

Simulated annealing sampler

“Simulated annealing sampler.”
[29]

Measurement of diﬀerential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

The CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of diﬀerential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 97, p. 112003. 91 p, Mar 2018. * Temporary entry *

2018
[30]

CERN, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding , (Geneva), CERN, 2011

2011
[31]

Tabu search—Part I,

F. Glover, “Tabu search—Part I,” ORSA Journal on Computing , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 190–206, 1989

1989
[32]

Tabu search—Part II,

F. Glover, “Tabu search—Part II,” ORSA Journal on Computing , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 4–32, 1990

1990
[33]

Pegasus: The second connectivity graph for large-scale quantum annealing hardware,

N. Dattani, S. Szalay, and N. Chancellor, “Pegasus: The second connectivity graph for large-scale quantum annealing hardware,” 2019

2019
[34]

A practical way to regularize unfolding of sharply varying spectra with low data statistics,

A. Gaponenko, “A practical way to regularize unfolding of sharply varying spectra with low data statistics,” 2019. – 13 – Appendix This appendix gives the detailed derivation of mapping the unfolding problem to a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO). After derivi...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cern openlab whitepaper on future it challenges in scientiﬁc research,

A. Di Meglio, M. Girone, A. Purcell, and F. Rademakers, “Cern openlab whitepaper on future it challenges in scientiﬁc research,” 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

2018

[3] [3]

Solving a Higgs optimization problem with quantum annealing for machine learning,

A. Mott, J. Job, J.-R. Vlimant, D. Lidar, and M. Spiropulu, “Solving a Higgs optimization problem with quantum annealing for machine learning,” Nature, vol. 550, no. 7676, p. 375–379, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

A pattern recognition algorithm for quantum annealers,

F. Bapst, W. Bhimji, P. Calaﬁura, H. Gray, W. Lavrijsen, and L. Linder, “A pattern recognition algorithm for quantum annealers,” 2019

work page 2019

[5] [5]

A quantum algorithm for high energy physics simulations,

C. W. Bauer, B. Nachman, D. Provasoli, and W. A. De Jong, “A quantum algorithm for high energy physics simulations,” 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Quantum annealing with manufactured spins,

M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C. Thom, E. Tolkacheva, C. J. S. Truncik, S. Uchaikin, J. Wang, B. Wilson, and G. Rose, “Quantum annealing with manuf...

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Tanaka, R

S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum spin glasses, annealing and computation. Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Cowan, Statistical data analysis

G. Cowan, Statistical data analysis . Oxford University Press, 1998

1998