Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Limitations of tensor network approaches for optimization and sampling: A comparison to quantum and classical Ising machines

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a deterministic tensor-network branch-and-bound solver, applied to the quasi-two-dimensional graphs of current quantum annealers, reaches energies 0.1% to 1% above the best solutions of a D-Wave quantum annealer and…

desk verdict A careful, reproducible benchmark showing TN branch-and-bound loses to Ising machines on large random Pegasus/Zephyr problems but wins on planted ones; the title overreaches slightly, but the evidence is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16431 v3 pith:T3WMXF2P submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.dis-nn quant-ph

Anna Maria Dziubyna , Tomasz Śmierzchalski , Bart{l}omiej Gardas , Marek M. Rams , Masoud Mohseni This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords tensornetworksIsingspinglassesbranchandboundquantumannealingsimulatedbifurcationmachinePegasusgraphboundarymatrixproductstatesrandomizedSVD
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 tries to establish where deterministic tensor-network (TN) methods stand as solvers for Ising spin-glass optimization on the quasi-two-dimensional graphs of current quantum annealers. It builds a branch-and-bound algorithm that groups spins into Potts-style clusters and ranks partial configurations using conditional probabilities obtained from approximate contractions of a PEPS tensor network. Benchmarked against a D-Wave quantum annealer and the classical Simulated Bifurcation Machine (SBM) on Pegasus and Zephyr graphs, the TN solver finds the best energies on small instances but on i.i.d. problems with over 5,000 spins lands 0.1% to 1% above the best Ising-machine solutions while running about two orders of magnitude slower. The paper attributes this gap to failures of the approximate tensor-network contraction, specifically instabilities of the randomized SVD used to build boundary matrix product states. It also reports a regime where TN wins: on embedded tile-planting instances it reaches about 0.1% from the planted ground state, a factor of 3 closer than the Ising machines.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a generalized Potts representation of the Ising Hamiltonian on a square lattice of clusters (24 spins per cluster for Pegasus, 16 for Zephyr), whose Boltzmann distribution at inverse temperature $\beta$ is encoded exactly as a PEPS tensor network with site tensors, bond tensors, and mediating tensors that carry diagonal interactions. A branch-and-bound sweep adds one cluster at a time, keeping the $M$ most probable partial configurations; the marginal probabilities $p(x_{n+1}|\partial x_n)$ are obtained from an approximate contraction of the PEPS via boundary matrix product states with bond dimension $\chi \approx 8$ to $10$, built by a variational zipper that uses randomized truncated SVD followed by 1-site variational overlap optimization. The paper's central diagnostic is that this approximate contraction, not the branch-and-bound search, is the load-bearing part: at larger $\beta$ and $\chi \geq 8$ the randomized SVD lands in local optima that the variational refinement cannot escape, producing different outcomes on repeated runs and collapsing ground-state success rates.

What would settle it

Run the 216-spin Pegasus class I benchmark with $\beta = 3$ and bond dimension $\chi = 8$ using the same randomized-SVD zipper: the paper predicts repeated runs with different random seeds will disagree about whether the ground state is found, with success rates well below 100%. If every run reliably found the ground state while the contraction spectrum still showed steeply decaying singular values, the attribution of failure to randomized-SVD instability would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that a deterministic TN-based branch-and-bound search can serve as a competitive low-energy solver for spin glasses on Pegasus and Zephyr graphs, but its practical ceiling is set by approximate contraction quality rather than by the search strategy. For random i.i.d. instances with more than 5,000 spins, the TN solver's best energies are 0.1% to 1% above the best energies found by the quantum annealer or SBM, and the TN solver is roughly two orders of magnitude slower; the paper traces this gap to approximate boundary-MPS contractions built with randomized truncated SVD, which become unstable at the inverse temperatures needed for the branch-and-bound resolution. For embedded tile-planting instances, the same algorithm reaches about 0.1% above the planted ground state, outperforming both Ising machines by a factor of about 3 in energy. On sampling diversity, all three solvers find a few mutually distant low-energy states, but the deterministic TN approach returns at most a handful of independent solutions, while the two randomized Ising machines can output sets of thousands.

Load-bearing premise

The whole search rests on the premise that a boundary matrix product state of bond dimension around 8 to 10, obtained via randomized SVD and a 1-site variational sweep, gives conditional probabilities accurate enough that the branch-and-bound procedure ranks partial configurations in the right order; the paper shows this premise failing at larger inverse temperatures and bond dimensions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Improving the stability of boundary-MPS contraction, for example by replacing randomized SVD with a more robust truncated decomposition or by adding gauge transformations, should directly improve the TN solver's energies on Pegasus and Zephyr problems, since the paper identifies contraction failure, not search width, as the bottleneck.
  • On tile-planted instances, the TN approach's factor-of-3 energy advantage over both Ising machines suggests that planted-structure problems are a favorable use case for deterministic tensor-network solvers even on current annealer geometries.
  • Because the branch-and-bound width $M$ caps the number of independent low-energy states the TN solver can return, applications that need thousands of diverse near-optimal solutions will continue to prefer randomized samplers such as the quantum annealer and SBM.
  • The same TN machinery applies to generalized Potts models and king's-graph problems, so the solver is not limited to Ising spin glasses; its failures on denser graphs also serve as a stress test for approximate TN contraction algorithms more broadly.
  • With runtimes two orders of magnitude longer than the Ising machines, tensor-network approaches will need either contraction-speed breakthroughs or a restriction to small or structured instances to be practically competitive in time-to-solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's diagnosis would be to swap the randomized SVD for a more robust truncated decomposition at the same bond dimension and check whether ground-state success on the 216-spin Pegasus instances is restored at $\beta \geq 3$; if it is not, the attribution of failure to randomized-SVD instability would need revision.
  • The observed correlation between graph connectivity and contraction hardness, with the square lattice easiest and Zephyr hardest, suggests that boundary-MPS accuracy degrades roughly as the number of diagonal and long-range couplings per unit cell increases, and a quantitative study of truncation error versus diagonal-coupling density would make this concrete.
  • Because the solver never reaches the discarded-probability bound that would certify a ground state, TN optimization on these geometries is heuristic in practice; making it certifying would require exact or nearly exact contractions, which are #P-hard, so the certification gap is likely structural rather than a matter of tuning.
  • The diversity results suggest a natural hybrid: use the TN solver to enumerate a small set of high-quality deterministic solutions and a randomized sampler to populate the rest of the low-energy manifold, combining TN's energy precision on structured instances with the samplers' coverage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a tensor-network (TN) based branch-and-bound algorithm for the low-energy spectrum of Ising spin glasses on the Pegasus and Zephyr graphs of current D-Wave processors. The method groups spins into large unit cells (24 or 16 spins), builds an exact PEPS representation of the Boltzmann distribution, and uses boundary-MPS approximate contraction with a zipper scheme and randomized SVD to compute conditional probabilities; an optional loopy belief propagation stage reduces the local dimension. The solver is benchmarked against a D-Wave quantum annealer and the Simulated Bifurcation Machine on four instance classes, with time-to-solution curves for energy error and for a diversity metric based on maximum cliques in Hamming-distance graphs. For large i.i.d. instances (5376 spins on Pegasus), the TN solver reaches energies 0.1%-1% above the best Ising-machine solutions while taking two orders of magnitude longer, which the authors attribute to approximate contraction failures; for tile-planted instances the TN solver is about a factor of 3 more accurate in energy. The paper includes a stability analysis (Sec. VI) identifying randomized-SVD instability as a key failure mode, and releases the Julia code and data.

Significance. If the conclusions are accepted, the paper provides a valuable, carefully controlled benchmark of a nontrivial TN heuristic on realistic quantum-annealing geometries, and it identifies a concrete numerical bottleneck (randomized-SVD boundary MPS) that limits this class of algorithms. Strengths include: medians over 20 instances with bootstrapped error bars, sensitivity analysis over beta and bond dimension, a clear discussion of the diversity metric and its limitations, and public release of the implementation and data. The paper also demonstrates a useful positive result on planted instances. Nevertheless, the scope of the 'limitations' claim is narrower than the title suggests, because the evidence is tied to a specific contraction subroutine and to a memory-limited bond dimension.

major comments (3)
  1. [Title/Abstract and Sec. VI] The title and abstract generalize the demonstrated limitations to 'tensor network approaches', but the evidence in Sec. VI and Sec. VII supports a limitation of the present branch-and-bound TN implementation: the authors show that randomized truncated SVD gets stuck in local optima for D>=8 at large beta, and they explicitly state that 'any improvement in the randomized SVD performance should translate to improved quality of the results.' The benchmark does not compare against other TN optimization strategies such as tropical tensor networks (Ref. [36]) or hyperoptimized approximate contraction (Ref. [35]), so the title/abstract overclaim. I recommend rewording to 'a tensor-network approach' or 'current boundary-MPS contraction techniques' and qualifying the attribution in the abstract, e.g., 'We provide evidence that these gaps are caused by instabilities in the approximate contraction subroutine used here.'
  2. [Sec. V.C, Fig. 10, and Appendix E] The time-to-solution comparison for the D-Wave annealer excludes programming and access overhead. The caption of Fig. 10 estimates QA time as annealing time plus 100 us, but Appendix E reports a typical programming time of roughly 14.2 ms for the Advantage system and a QPU delay of 21 us per sample. Since the paper's central quantitative claim is that the TN solver is 'two orders of magnitude slower' than the Ising machines, the QA timing curve should include programming overhead (standard in time-to-solution studies) or the authors should provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the conclusion is unchanged. Without this, the relative standing of QA in the timing plots is not directly comparable to SBM and TN.
  3. [Sec. VI and abstract] The causal attribution of the performance gap to 'approximate contraction failures' is only partially separated from branch-and-bound failures. Figure 12(a) shows that for beta < 0.25 the branch-and-bound procedure fails independently of the contraction quality, and for larger beta the failure correlates with randomized-SVD instability. However, the paper does not perform a controlled experiment that isolates the contraction error from the pruning error of the branch-and-bound, e.g., by comparing against exact contraction on small lattices or by using a deterministic full-rank SVD where feasible (as is done only for square lattices in Appendix B). The statement in the abstract that the results are attributed to approximate contraction failures is therefore an interpretation rather than a demonstrated fact. I suggest either adding such a control or softening the attribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III] The algorithm is described as 'deterministic', but Sec. VI shows that randomized SVD makes repeated runs produce different outcomes; please qualify the determinism claim, e.g., 'deterministic apart from the randomized SVD subroutine'.
  2. [Fig. 12(b)] The quantity described as 'max(min(Schmidt value))' is confusing; it appears to be the maximum over cuts of the smallest retained singular value, and should be stated explicitly in the caption.
  3. [Sec. V.C] The text says 'We further show the influence of beta on the quality of the results in the following section and in Appendix C'; Sec. VI focuses on stability and success rate rather than the time-to-solution quality, so please adjust the cross-reference.
  4. [Eq. (14)] The factor 2 in the denominator of dE is non-standard; please justify it or replace with the more conventional (E - E_best)/|E_best|.
  5. [Appendix A, Fig. A1 caption] The caption refers to 'class II, III and VI' but the fourth class is 'IV'; please correct the typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central performance claims are benchmarked against external solvers and planted ground states, and the contraction-failure diagnosis is supported by independent stability diagnostics.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are not self-referential. The TN solver is benchmarked against D-Wave quantum annealing hardware and the classical Simulated Bifurcation Machine on shared instances, and for class IV instances the ground state is known a priori from tile planting, so the reported energy gaps and the factor-of-3 improvement over Ising solvers are measured against external references rather than against the paper's own inputs. The relative energy metric dE in Eq. (14) is normalized by the best energy found across all solvers, but this is a standard evaluation convention and does not make the TN result an input to itself. The algorithm is described from first principles in Sec. III: the Potts clustering, PEPS construction, boundary-MPS zipper scheme, and branch-and-bound search are all specified within the paper, and the cited prior work [31, 46] is used as methodological background rather than as a load-bearing uniqueness or existence theorem. Most importantly, the attribution of degraded performance to approximate tensor-network contraction is not assumed; it is diagnosed independently in Sec. VI through success-rate curves versus inverse temperature, truncation singular-value spectra, and repeated-run disagreement caused by randomized-SVD instability, and Appendix B additionally compares the randomized-SVD zipper against a full-rank-SVD contraction procedure. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the conditional nature of its limitations, stating that any improvement in randomized SVD performance should translate to improved results, which is a transparent robustness caveat rather than a circular derivation. The diversity metric D_total is defined from the union of all solvers' outputs, which is a mild self-referential evaluation choice, but the paper states this definition explicitly and this metric does not enter the energy-based comparisons or planted-instance results. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no prediction or fitted parameter reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central claim depends on algorithmic hyperparameters (beta, chi, M, truncation levels) and on the accuracy of approximate tensor-network contraction and LBP marginals. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • inverse temperature beta for Pegasus = 0.5
    Set per graph after stability tests to balance branch-and-bound resolution against contraction stability; see Sec. V C and Appendix C.
  • inverse temperature beta for Zephyr = 1.0
    Same as above; chosen based on single-instance sweeps in Appendix C.
  • boundary MPS bond dimension chi = 8 (up to 10)
    Limited by GPU memory and contraction cost (footnote [45]); affects truncation error.
  • branch-and-bound width M = 1024
    Computational budget controlling number of partial configurations retained; directly limits diversity.
  • LBP truncation levels = 2^20, 2^16 (Pegasus); 2^14, 2^12 (Zephyr)
    Optional local dimension reduction; can exclude the ground state, see Sec. V C.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Low-energy states of the Ising Hamiltonian have sufficiently high probability under the Boltzmann distribution p(x) proportional to exp(-beta H) for branch-and-bound to find them
    Used throughout Sec. III A; the paper shows this fails for small beta, where the search gets stuck in local minima (Sec. VI).
  • domain assumption Boundary MPS with bond dimension chi around 8 to 10 approximates the exact PEPS contraction accurately enough to rank conditional probabilities
    Loading assumption; Sec. VI shows contraction failures at large beta and instability from randomized SVD.
  • standard math The conditional probability p(x_{n+1}|x_n) depends only on the boundary partial configuration (Eq. 9)
    This is a Markov blanket property of the 2D grid; exact for the graph structure.
  • domain assumption Randomized truncated SVD and 1-site variational optimization converge to a good boundary MPS
    Sec. III B 2 and Sec. VI show this assumption breaks at large beta and D>=8.
  • domain assumption Loopy belief propagation marginals, despite non-convergence, identify the most probable local cluster configurations for dimensional reduction
    Sec. IV and Sec. V C note this can fail, e.g., dimension reduction to 2^16 excludes ground-state configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Limitations of tensor network approaches for optimization and sampling: A comparison to quantum and classical Ising machines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3WMXF2P

@misc{pith2026241116431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Limitations of tensor network approaches for optimization and sampling: A comparison to quantum and classical Ising machines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3WMXF2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16431}
}
abstract

Optimization problems pose challenges across various fields. In recent years, quantum annealers have emerged as a promising platform for tackling such challenges. To provide a new perspective, we develop a heuristic tensor network (TN) based algorithm to reveal the low-energy spectrum of Ising spin-glass systems with interaction graphs relevant to present-day quantum annealers. Our deterministic approach combines a branch-and-bound search strategy with an approximate calculation of marginals via TN contractions. Its application to quasi-two-dimensional lattices with large unit cells of up to 24 spins, realized in current quantum annealing processors, requires a dedicated approach that utilizes sparse structures in the TN representation and GPU hardware acceleration. We benchmark our approach on random problems defined on Pegasus and Zephyr graphs with up to a few thousand spins, comparing it against the D-Wave Advantage quantum annealer and Simulated Bifurcation algorithm. Apart from the quality of the best solutions, we compare the diversity of low-energy states sampled by all the solvers. For the biggest considered i.i.d. problems with over 5000 spins, the state-of-the-art TN approach leads to solutions that are $0.1\%$ to $1\%$ worse than the best solutions obtained by Ising machines while being two orders of magnitude slower. We attribute those results to approximate contraction failures. For embedded tile planting instances, our approach gets to approximately $0.1\%$ from the planted ground state, a factor of $3$ better than the Ising solvers. While all three methods can output diverse low-energy solutions, e.g., differing by at least a quarter of spins with energy error below $1\%$, our deterministic branch-and-bound approach finds sets of a few such states at most. On the other hand, both Ising machines prove capable of sampling sets of thousands of such solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Graph geometries appearing in the current D-Wave processors. We show the interaction structures of the so-called [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Compressed interaction matrices in clustered Hamil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Branch and bound algorithm. We translate the problem of identification of the low-energy configurations to the problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Excited states in the branch and bound algorithm. In each step of the sweep, we bound the set of candidate partial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representation of the partition function as a tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Sparse structure of PEPS tensor. Huge bond dimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Systematic approximation of the lower half of PEPS lattice via boundary MPS. In panel (a), a boundary MPS for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Local dimension reduction. To lower the numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Time to approximation ratio. We focus on class I instances for Pegasus and Zephyr for a selection of system sizes. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Time to diversity ratio. We show the time needed to reach a given median fraction of diverse solutions within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Contraction stability. We focus on a minimal Pe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    A. A. Gangat and J. Gray, Hyperoptimized approxi- mate contraction of tensor networks for rugged-energy- landscape spin glasses on periodic square and cubic lat- tices, Phys. Rev. E110, 065306 (2024)

    2024

  2. [35]

    Frias-Perez, M

    M. Frias-Perez, M. Marien, D. P. Garcia, M. C. Banuls, and S. Iblisdir, Collective Monte Carlo updates through tensor network renormalization, SciPost Phys.14, 123 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Specifically, for asitetensor the bond dimensionsD l, Du, Dr,D d, see 7 χ Dl χ χ Dr χ Du Dd = d χ Dr χ χ Dl χ Dx′ Dx′′ = dnmdmn dmn′ dnm′ dmn′′ dnm′′ (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG

    Employing sparsity of tensors Sizes of tensors appearing in the TN representation of marginal probabilities for Pegasus and Zephyr geome- tries prevent their direct construction. Specifically, for asitetensor the bond dimensionsD l, Du, Dr,D d, see 7 χ Dl χ χ Dr χ Du Dd = d χ Dr χ χ Dl χ Dx′ Dx′′ = dnmdmn dmn′ dnm′ dmn′′ dnm′′ (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 7. Spar...

    work page

  4. [2]

    A particular challenge here is the bond dimensions of MPO tensors (siteandmediating tensors); see the previous section

    Variational zipper algorithm for boundary MPS Construction of boundary MPS, which we employ in approximate PEPS contraction, requires systematic ap- proximation of MPO-MPS product by an MPS with a limited bond dimensionχ. A particular challenge here is the bond dimensions of MPO tensors (siteandmediating tensors); see the previous section. To that end, we...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Barahona, On the computational complexity of Ising spin glass models, J

    F. Barahona, On the computational complexity of Ising spin glass models, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.15, 3241 (1982)

    1982

  6. [4]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys.2, 5 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [5]

    De las Cuevas and T

    G. De las Cuevas and T. S. Cubitt, Simple universal mod- els capture all classical spin physics, Science351, 1180 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimiza- tion by simulated annealing, Science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    Metropolis and S

    N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, The Monte Carlo method, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.44, 335–341 (1949)

    1949

  2. [8]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970)

    1970

  3. [9]

    D. J. Earl and M. W. Deem, Parallel tempering: Theory, applications, and new perspectives, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.7, 3910 (2005)

    2005

  4. [10]

    Houdayer, A cluster Monte Carlo algorithm for 2- dimensional spin glasses, Eur

    J. Houdayer, A cluster Monte Carlo algorithm for 2- dimensional spin glasses, Eur. Phys. J. B22, 479 (2001). 15

    2001

  5. [11]

    Z. Zhu, A. J. Ochoa, and H. G. Katzgraber, Efficient cluster algorithm for spin glasses in any space dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 077201 (2015)

    2015

  6. [12]

    Mohseni, D

    M. Mohseni, D. Eppens, J. Strumpfer, R. Marino, V. Denchev, A. K. Ho, S. V. Isakov, S. Boixo, F. Ricci- Tersenghi, and H. Neven, Nonequilibrium Monte Carlo for unfreezing variables in hard combinatorial optimiza- tion, arXiv:2111.13628 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Selby, Efficient subgraph-based sampling of Ising-type models with frustration, arXiv:1409.3934 (2014)

    A. Selby, Efficient subgraph-based sampling of Ising-type models with frustration, arXiv:1409.3934 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Isakov, I

    S. Isakov, I. Zintchenko, T. Rønnow, and M. Troyer, Op- timised simulated annealing for Ising spin glasses, Com- put. Phys. Commun.192, 265 (2015)

    2015

  9. [15]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  10. [16]

    G. E. Santoro, R. Martoˇ n´ ak, E. Tosatti, and R. Car, The- ory of quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass, Science 295, 2427 (2002)

    2002

  11. [17]

    A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud,et al., Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000- qubit programmable spin glass, Nature617, 61 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    Bernaschi, I

    M. Bernaschi, I. Gonz´ alez-Adalid Pemart ´ ın, V. Mart ´ ın- Mayor, and G. Parisi, The quantum transition of the two- dimensional Ising spin glass, Nature631, 749 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    Munoz-Bauza and D

    H. Munoz-Bauza and D. Lidar, Scaling advantage in ap- proximate optimization with quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 160601 (2025)

    2025

  14. [20]

    A. D. King, S. Suzuki, J. Raymond, A. Zucca, T. Lanting, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, S. Ejtemaee, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang,et al., Coherent quantum annealing in a pro- grammable 2000-qubit Ising chain, Nat. Phys.18, 1324 (2022)

    2022

  15. [21]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris,et al., Beyond-classical compu- tation in quantum simulation, Science388, 199 (2025)

    2025

  16. [22]

    Bando, Y

    Y. Bando, Y. Susa, H. Oshiyama, N. Shibata, M. Ohzeki, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, D. A. Lidar, S. Suzuki, A. del Campo, and H. Nishimori, Probing the universality of topolog- ical defect formation in a quantum annealer: Kibble- Zurek mechanism and beyond, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033369 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    Kashimata, M

    T. Kashimata, M. Yamasaki, R. Hidaka, and K. Tat- sumura, Efficient and scalable architecture for multiple- chip implementation of simulated bifurcation machines, IEEE Access12, 36606–36621 (2024)

    2024

  18. [24]

    H. Goto, K. Tatsumura, and A. R. Dixon, Combinatorial optimization by simulating adiabatic bifurcations in non- linear Hamiltonian systems, Sci. Adv.5, eaav2372 (2019)

    2019

  19. [25]

    H. Goto, K. Endo, M. Suzuki, Y. Sakai, T. Kanao, Y. Hamakawa, R. Hidaka, M. Yamasaki, and K. Tat- sumura, High-performance combinatorial optimization based on classical mechanics, Sci. Adv.7, eabe7953 (2021)

    2021

  20. [26]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix Prod- uct States, Projected Entangled Pair States, and varia- tional renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys.57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  21. [27]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys.349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    Biamonte and V

    J. Biamonte and V. Bergholm, Tensor networks in a nut- shell, arXiv:1708.00006 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [29]

    S.-J. Ran, E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein,Tensor Network Contractions(Springer, 2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 173 (2023)

    2023

  25. [31]

    Nishino, Y

    T. Nishino, Y. Hieida, K. Okunishi, N. Maeshima, Y. Akutsu, and A. Gendiar, Two-dimensional tensor product variational formulation, Progr. Theor. Phys. 105, 409 (2001)

    2001

  26. [32]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Computational complexity of projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 140506 (2007)

    2007

  27. [33]

    M. M. Rams, M. Mohseni, D. Eppens, K. Ja lowiecki, and B. Gardas, Approximate optimization, sampling, and spin-glass droplet discovery with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. E104, 025308 (2021)

    2021

  28. [34]

    K. Ueda, R. Otani, Y. Nishio, A. Gendiar, and T. Nishino, Snapshot observation for 2D classical lattice models by corner transfer matrix renormalization group, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.74, 111 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Gray and G

    J. Gray and G. K.-L. Chan, Hyperoptimized approximate contraction of tensor networks with arbitrary geometry, Phys. Rev. X14, 011009 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and P. Zhang, Tropical tensor net- work for ground states of spin glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 090506 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Mezard and A

    M. Mezard and A. Montanari,Information, physics, and computation, Oxford graduate texts (Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York, 2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Dattani, S

    N. Dattani, S. Szalay, and N. Chancellor, Pegasus: The second connectivity graph for large-scale quantum an- nealing hardware, arXiv:1901.07636 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Boothby, P

    K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, J. Raymond, and A. Roy, Next- Generation Topology of D-Wave Quantum Processors, arXiv:2003.00133 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Boothby, A

    K. Boothby, A. D. King, and J. Raymond, Zephyr Topol- ogy of D-Wave Quantum Processors, Tech. Rep. D-Wave (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, Criticality, the area law, and the computational power of projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Ba˜ nuls, Unifying pro- jected entangled pair state contractions, New J. Phys. 16, 033014 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Halko, P.-G

    N. Halko, P.-G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions, SIAM Rev.53, 217 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Martinsson and J

    P.-G. Martinsson and J. A. Tropp, Randomized numer- ical linear algebra: Foundations and algorithms, Acta Numer.29, 403 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Our numerical tests were performed on an Nvidia RTX3090/4090 GPUs with 24GB of memory

  40. [48]

    Sinha, M

    A. Sinha, M. M. Rams, and J. Dziarmaga, Efficient repre- sentation of minimally entangled typical thermal states 16 in two dimensions via projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B109, 045136 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan,Matrix computations (The Johns Hopkins Press Ltd., London, 1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    Pearl, Reverend Bayes on inference engines: A distributed hierarchical approach, inProbabilistic and Causal Inference(Association for Computing Machinery, 1982)

    J. Pearl, Reverend Bayes on inference engines: A distributed hierarchical approach, inProbabilistic and Causal Inference(Association for Computing Machinery, 1982)

    1982

  43. [51]

    Yedidia, W

    J. Yedidia, W. Freeman, and Y. Weiss, Understanding belief propagation and its generalizations, inExploring Artificial Intelligence in the New Millennium, edited by G. Lakemeyer and B. Nebel (Morgan Kaufmann Publish- ers, 2003) Chap. 8, pp. 239–236

    2003

  44. [52]

    As some of the qubits and couplers that would form an ideal Pegasus/Zephyr lattice are not available in the quantum annealing hardware, we set the corresponding local fields and couplings to zero so that all solvers use the same instances

  45. [53]

    Tasseff, T

    B. Tasseff, T. Albash, Z. Morrell, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, S. Misra, and C. Coffrin, On the emerging po- tential of quantum annealing hardware for combinatorial optimization, Journal of Heuristics30, 325–358 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Perera, F

    D. Perera, F. Hamze, J. Raymond, M. Weigel, and H. G. Katzgraber, Computational hardness of spin-glass problems with tile-planted solutions, Phys. Rev. E101, 023316 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Perera, I

    D. Perera, I. Akpabio, F. Hamze, S. Mandra, N. Rose, M. Aramon, and H. G. Katzgraber, Chook – a compre- hensive suite for generating binary optimization problems with planted solutions, arXiv:2005.14344 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vodeb, V

    J. Vodeb, V. Erˇ zen, T. Hrga, and J. Povh, Accuracy and performance evaluation of quantum, classical and hy- brid solvers for the max-cut problem, arXiv:2412.07460 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Mohseni, M

    M. Mohseni, M. M. Rams, S. V. Isakov, D. Eppens, S. Pielawa, J. Strumpfer, S. Boixo, and H. Neven, Sampling diverse near-optimal solutions via algorithmic quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. E108, 065303 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Zucca, H

    A. Zucca, H. Sadeghi, M. Mohseni, and M. H. Amin, Diversity metric for evaluation of quantum annealing, arXiv:2110.10196 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    I. M. Bomze, M. Budinich, P. M. Pardalos, and M. Pelillo, The maximum clique problem, inHandbook of Combi- natorial Optimization: Supplement Volume A, edited by D.-Z. Du and P. M. Pardalos (Springer US, Boston, MA,

  52. [60]

    At each step of the iteration, a configuration is added to the list of independent states if it is independent of all configura- tions already in the list

    We iterate over the list of states in a random order, build- ing in the process a set of independent states. At each step of the iteration, a configuration is added to the list of independent states if it is independent of all configura- tions already in the list. We select th...

  53. [61]

    J. Chen, J. Jiang, D. Hangleiter, and N. Schuch, Sign problem in tensor-network contraction, PRX Quantum 6, 010312 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Otten, N. A. Aadit, Y. Alexeev, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y. Camsari, B. Chapman, S. Chatterjee, G. A. Dag- new, A. Esposito, F. Fahim, M. Fiorentino, A. Gajjar, A. Khalid, X. Kong, B. Kulchytskyy, E. Kyoseva, R. Li, P. A. Lott,...

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Pedretti, F

    G. Pedretti, F. B¨ ohm, M. Hizzani, T. Bhattacharya, P. Bruel, J. Moon, S. Serebryakov, D. Strukov, J. Stra- chan, J. Ignowski,et al., Zeroth and higher-order logic with content addressable memories, in2023 International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM)(2023) pp. 1–4

    2023

  56. [64]

    Chowdhury, A

    S. Chowdhury, A. Grimaldi, N. A. Aadit, S. Niazi, M. Mohseni, S. Kanai, H. Ohno, S. Fukami, L. Theog- arajan, G. Finocchio, S. Datta, and K. Y. Camsari, A full-stack view of probabilistic computing with p-bits: Devices, architectures, and algorithms, IEEE Journal on Explorator...

    2023

  57. [65]

    ´Smiechrzalski, A

    T. ´Smiechrzalski, A. M. Dziubyna, K. Ja lowiecki, Z. Mzaouali, L. Pawela, B. Gardas, and M. M. Rams, Spinglasspeps.jl: Tensor-network pack- age for ising-like optimization on quasi-two- dimensional graphs, arXiv:2502.02317 (2025), https://github.com/euro-hpc-pl/SpinGlassPEPS....

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.