Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

From quantum-enhanced to quantum-inspired Monte Carlo

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Quantum-enhanced Monte Carlo may not need a quantum computer: approximate tensor-network proposals can preserve its scaling advantage over classical samplers.

desk verdict The MPS quantum-inspired proposal is a genuinely new idea, but the scaling advantage rests on small-system fits with no error bars and deserves a conditional refereeing, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17821 v2 pith:7X3ZXJAN submitted 2024-11-26 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.comp-ph

Johannes Christmann , Petr Ivashkov , Mattia Chiurco , Guglielmo Mazzola This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.comp-ph MSC 81P6882B8065C05 PACS 03.67.Ax05.10.Ln75.10.Nr
keywords quantum-enhancedMonteCarloquantum-inspiredalgorithmsmatrixproductstatesspectralgapscalingspinglassesMarkovchainTrotterizationquantumadvantage
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

This paper studies quantum-enhanced Monte Carlo (QEMC), an algorithm in which a short Hamiltonian evolution proposes spin configurations that a classical Metropolis step accepts. It tries to establish two things: that QEMC has a stable optimal working point, with a mixing strength near the model's phase transition and a total evolution time that grows only linearly with system size, and that the proposal step can be moved from quantum hardware to a classical approximate simulator. The central numerical finding is that a matrix-product-state simulator with bond dimension $\chi=4$, although far too small to represent the exact quantum state for $n>5$, reproduces the ideal spectral-gap scaling exponent $k\approx0.23$ up to $n=9$, matching the exact quantum value $k=0.24$. If this persists at larger sizes, the empirical speedup of QEMC would not require exact quantum dynamics or quantum hardware, turning it into a quantum-inspired sampling method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the proposal matrix $Q(s|s_0)=|\langle s|U|s_0\rangle|^2$ generated by time evolution under $H=(1-\gamma)\alpha H_c+\gamma H_{\mathrm{mix}}$, with a symmetric $U$ so that detailed balance reduces to the classical Metropolis rule. The paper replaces the exact unitary with a Trotterized time evolution (at step $dt\approx0.8$) implemented on a matrix product state—a compressed tensor-network representation of a quantum state—via time-evolving block decimation, truncating to bond dimension $\chi$. The central quantity is the spectral gap $\delta$ of the full transition matrix $P(s_0\to s)=Q(s|s_0)A(s|s_0)$; its exponential closing rate $k$ is the figure of merit that lets a small-$\chi$ approximate state match the quantum proposal's scaling.

What would settle it

Run the quantum-inspired proposal with a heavily compressed tensor network (a compression level that is exact only up to five spins) for $n=10$ to $14$ and measure the spectral-gap or autocorrelation exponent; if the exponent rises from roughly 0.23 toward 0.96–1.0, or if the time to reach a fixed gap grows faster than linearly, the claimed advantage is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the efficiency of QEMC survives approximate classical emulation of its proposal dynamics. It shows that the spectral gap $\delta$ of the resulting Markov chain closes as $\delta \propto 2^{-kn}$ with $k\approx0.23$ for a matrix-product-state proposal at bond dimension $\chi=4$ (and $\chi=8$), statistically indistinguishable from the exact continuous-time quantum proposal ($k=0.24$), while uniform and local classical proposals close much faster ($k\approx0.96$-$1.0$). Because the acceptance step is classical and exact, approximation errors alter only the proposal quality, never the equilibrium distribution. The paper also finds a clear optimal proposal regime: a fixed mixing weight $\gamma\approx0.45$, slightly below the finite-size critical value $\gamma_c\approx0.50$, with total evolution time $t=12$, slightly outperforms the original randomized parameter choice, and the time to reach a fixed gap $\delta=0.01$ grows roughly linearly with $n$, suggesting circuit depth is not an exponential bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that scaling trends measured for systems of 3 to 9 spins—especially the linear growth of the needed evolution time and the preserved speedup of a heavily compressed tensor-network proposal—continue to hold at larger sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A fixed working point ($\gamma\approx0.45$, $t=12$) is at least as good as the original randomized proposal, so the method may not require instance-by-instance fine-tuning.
  • The roughly linear growth of $t_{0.01}$ with $n$ means the total evolution time—and hence circuit depth—does not erase the polynomial speedup.
  • The optimal Trotter step coincides with $dt=0.8$, the value used in the original hardware experiment, so the hardware-friendly setting is also computationally near-optimal.
  • Approximation in the proposal step cannot corrupt the sampler: because acceptance is exact, the equilibrium distribution is protected, and only mixing efficiency can degrade.
  • A bond dimension $\chi=4$ matrix product state, despite being inexact for $n>5$, preserves the quantum scaling exponent $k\approx0.23$ up to $n=9$, implying the speedup may be reproducible classically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\chi=4$ scaling survives at larger $n$, the practical race shifts from building noisy quantum hardware to engineering a classical tensor-network or neural-network proposal with a competitive prefactor.
  • The same robustness argument suggests other cheap approximate quantum dynamics—e.g., neural quantum states or tree tensor networks with sublinear connectivity—could also preserve part of the speedup, which the paper lists but does not test.
  • A direct test would be to run the matrix-product-state proposal with $\chi=4$ on systems $n=10$-$14$ using Markov-chain autocorrelation estimates rather than exact diagonalization; the paper's exponential matrix construction limits this regime.
  • The optimal $\gamma$ sitting just below $\gamma_c$ hints that the proposal's power comes from enhanced fluctuations near the spin-glass transition; if so, temperature or field schedules tuned to that critical region could further improve scaling.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the quantum-enhanced Markov chain Monte Carlo (QEMC) algorithm of Layden et al. (Nature 619, 282) and investigates three questions: the optimal choice of the mixing Hamiltonian strength and total evolution time; alternative proposal circuits (time-dependent schedules and a symmetric QAOA ansatz); and a classical quantum-inspired version in which the proposal step is approximately generated by a matrix product state (MPS) simulation. The central claim is that an MPS with small bond dimension (chi = 4), below the value required for exact state representation, reproduces the quantum spectral-gap scaling exponent k = 0.23 up to n = 9, matching the exact Trotterized quantum proposal (k = 0.24) and giving a large advantage over classical local (k ~ 1.0) and uniform (k ~ 0.96) updates. The authors also report an optimal gamma near the quantum phase transition, a linear growth of the time-to-target t_0.01 with n, and an optimal Trotter step dt = 0.8, and they provide cost estimates for the MPS proposal.

Significance. If the scaling claims hold, the paper would be significant in two ways: it identifies favorable operating regimes for QEMC, and it suggests that the QEMC scaling advantage does not require exact quantum evolution, opening the door to quantum-inspired classical samplers. The paper is also careful in several respects: it uses exact spectral-gap diagonalization for all reported gaps (the gold standard for mixing-time comparisons at the sizes considered), it reports averages over 100 disorder instances, and it includes a transparent cost model for the MPS proposal in Appendix F and Table I, with an explicit threshold formula. The work is framed as a proof of principle, and the authors repeatedly acknowledge the small-system limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.B.2, Fig. 9] The load-bearing claim that an MPS with chi = 4 maintains the quantum scaling exponent k = 0.23 rests on an exponential fit over n = 3 to 9, but chi = 4 is exact for n <= 5 (the maximum bond dimension is 2^{floor(n/2)} = 4 for n <= 5). Only n = 6, 7, 8, 9 actually probe the approximate, truncated regime, and the fit includes no confidence intervals or error bars. With four approximate points, the fitted exponent cannot robustly distinguish k = 0.23 from substantially larger values, especially because Fig. 8 shows that the symmetry-breaking ratio Phi deviates more strongly with n for fixed chi. Please report fit uncertainties, refit excluding the n <= 5 exact points, and, if possible, extend to n = 10-12 using the sampling-based or iterative methods mentioned in the outlook.
  2. [Sec. V.B.1 and V.B.2] The role of the symmetry-breaking ratio Phi in the spectral-gap calculation of Fig. 9 is ambiguous. The text in Sec. V.B.1 states that for chi < 2^{n/2} one must include the ratio Q(s|s')/Q(s'|s) explicitly in the acceptance step, doubling the computation. However, Fig. 9 and its caption do not state whether the reported spectral gaps were obtained with this corrected acceptance rule or with the naive symmetric acceptance of Eq. (8). If the naive rule was used, the Markov chain does not satisfy detailed balance with respect to pi, and the computed 'spectral gap' is not the convergence rate to the target distribution. If the corrected rule was used, the authors should state this explicitly and explain how Phi was evaluated for the full transition matrix, since the proposal matrix is then no longer symmetric and the cost of constructing P changes.
  3. [Sec. III.A/B, Figs. 1-3, Eq. (12)] The parameters gamma = 0.45 and t = 12 are selected by a grid search on the same n = 3 to 9 instances used to evaluate performance, so the comparison with the randomized strategy in Fig. 3 is in-sample. The monotonic decrease of gamma_opt with n in Fig. 1(c) means there is no evidence that a fixed gamma = 0.45 remains optimal at larger sizes; the flattening at n = 9 is only three points. Similarly, the linear scaling of t_0.01 in Fig. 2(b) is based on seven points with no error bars, and this linearity is used in Sec. II.D to argue that the circuit depth does not spoil the asymptotic scaling advantage. Please provide out-of-sample tests (e.g., hold out instances or re-optimize on one half and test on the other) and report fit statistics, or at least explicitly quantify the sensitivity of the scaling conclusions to the parameter-choice procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The displayed equality e^{-2iH_Z dt} [U_2nd]^T e^{+2iH_Z dt} = [U_2nd]^T is not generally correct, since H_Z is a non-trivial diagonal matrix and does not commute with the full second-order Trotterized unitary. The symmetry of the second-order Trotterized proposal follows from each Trotter factor being symmetric; please correct the derivation or remove the misleading intermediate expression.
  2. [Sec. V.B.1] There is a typo in the sentence 'Q(s'|s) ≠ Q(s'|s) for chi < 2^{n/2}'; the two quantities should be Q(s'|s) and Q(s|s').
  3. [Sec. II] The phrase 'requirements fo practical quantum advantage' should be 'requirements for practical quantum advantage'.
  4. [Fig. 1] The labels 'avg' and 'opt' in the inset of panels (b) and (c) are not defined in the caption; please add a definition or use a legend.
  5. [Sec. IV.A, Appendix B] The number of free parameters in the Bayesian optimization schedule (five equidistant interpolation points) appears only in Appendix B; stating this in the main text would help the reader assess the expressiveness of the optimized schedules in Fig. 12.
  6. [Table I] The memory and time estimates assume a local spin dimension d = 2; this assumption is implicit and should be stated in the table caption or in the text around Eq. (20).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral-gap scalings are computed from first principles and the MPS results are independent numerical simulations, not reductions to input parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical results are obtained by directly constructing the proposal matrix Q from the Born rule (Eq. 7), building the full transition matrix P, and diagonalizing it to obtain the spectral gap delta (Eq. 5) for n <= 9. The scaling exponents k are then exponential fits to these independently computed gaps; they are descriptive fits of the computed data, not predictions forced by construction. The fixed working point gamma = 0.45, t = 12 is selected by grid search on the same benchmark systems, and the paper explicitly labels the resulting comparison empirical ('While these observations cannot be considered conclusive'), so this is in-sample hyperparameter selection rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The MPS-QIMC scaling claim (Fig. 9) is likewise an independent TEBD simulation; the paper explicitly notes that chi = 4 is not exact for n > 5 and relies on the n = 6..9 approximate points for the 'unconverged' claim, so the result does not reduce to an identity. The paper's self-citations (Refs. 10, 11) are background and benchmark sources; the current QEMC exponents are recomputed (e.g., randomized quantum k = 0.27 vs. Ref. 11's kq = 0.264), and no load-bearing conclusion is imported from a self-citation chain. The authors also acknowledge that larger-scale verification is required for the t0.01 scaling and the quantum-inspired advantage, which is an honest limitation, not a circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The main numerical claims rest on standard MCMC theory (spectral gap, detailed balance), a particular instance model (fully connected SK, disorder distribution not explicitly specified), and on extrapolation of fits from n<=9. The free parameters (gamma, t, dt, QAOA angles, BO schedules) are chosen by grid search or optimization on the same spectral-gap objective used for the headline comparisons, creating mild in-sample selection. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • gamma (mixing Hamiltonian weight) = 0.45 fixed; gamma_opt ~0.42 (n=9)
    Grid search over spectral gap (Fig 1) for each n; used as the fixed strategy in Figs 3, 4, 6, 9.
  • t (total evolution time) = 12
    Chosen from grid search where delta plateaus (Fig 2a); fixed strategy in the main comparisons.
  • dt (Trotter time step) = 0.8
    Maximizes f(dt;n)=delta*dt/t at n=9 (Fig 6b); matches the original hardware value from Ref [11].
  • QAOA angle theta (single shared angle) = optimized per n, depth p=5..50
    One-parameter constraint following Ref [14]; optimized on spectral gap or acceptance rate, Sec IV B.
  • BO schedule parameters (5 interpolation points for gamma(s)) = optimized per n=4..9
    Bayesian optimization over the schedule shape, Appendix B; used in Fig 4.
  • gamma_c (critical field) = 0.50 +/- 0.02
    Critical field from Binder crossing (Fig 11); used to compare with gamma_opt and support the phase-transition conjecture.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Detailed balance and Metropolis-Hastings acceptance rule (Eq. 4) guarantee convergence to the target Boltzmann distribution.
    Foundation for all spectral-gap calculations in Sec. II B; requires Q(s|s') to be known and reversible with respect to the acceptance rule.
  • standard math The spectral gap delta (Eq. 5) is the correct scalar metric for comparing MCMC mixing times.
    Used throughout the paper; requires diagonalizing the full transition matrix, limiting systems to n<10.
  • domain assumption The fully connected Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass with random couplings and fields is a representative hard testbed.
    Sec. II A justifies this by citing Ref. [11] and saying it is 'more challenging'; no argument that results transfer to other graph types.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed trends (gamma_opt flattening, linear t0.01 scaling, MPS chi=4 scaling) continue to larger system sizes.
    Sec. III A/B and Sec. V B 2; the authors state verification requires larger-scale simulations.
  • domain assumption The MPS proposal matrix can be evaluated for all 2^n transitions at n<=9 by repeated TEBD evolution, allowing exact construction of the full transition matrix.
    Sec. V B 2; this is what makes the spectral-gap analysis possible but limits the study to n<=9.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase transition at gamma_c=0.50 determined by Binder cumulants is related to optimal QEMC performance.
    Sec. III A: the authors conjecture that critical fluctuations help proposals; not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From quantum-enhanced to quantum-inspired Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7X3ZXJAN

@misc{pith2026241117821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From quantum-enhanced to quantum-inspired Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7X3ZXJAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17821}
}
read the original abstract

We perform a comprehensive analysis of the quantum-enhanced Monte Carlo method [Nature, 619, 282-287 (2023)], aimed at identifying the optimal working point of the algorithm. We observe an optimal mixing Hamiltonian strength and analyze the scaling of the total evolution time with the size of the system. We also explore extensions of the circuit, including the use of time-dependent Hamiltonians and reverse digitized annealing. Additionally, we propose that classical, approximate quantum simulators can be used for the proposal step instead of the original real-hardware implementation. We observe that tensor-network simulators, even with unconverged settings, can maintain a scaling advantage over standard classical samplers. This may extend the utility of quantum-enhanced Monte Carlo as a quantum-inspired algorithm, even before the deployment of large-scale quantum hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17821 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Grid search over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Spectral gap as a function of the total evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectral gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. QAOA-inspired circuit. The variation of the spectral gap with system size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Impact of Trotter step size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Impact of different bond dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Standard deviation of the logarithmically rescaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Phase diagram of a quantum spin glass with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Optimized schedules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Spectral gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]

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

  1. Quantum Annealing Enhanced Markov-Chain Monte Carlo

    quant-ph 2025-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    QAEMCMC uses quantum annealing outputs as Metropolis-Hastings proposals and claims faster mixing for the N=10 Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, but the reported advantage rests on oracle-tuning tau and one scaling table ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We define the ratio Φ(s, s′, n, t, χ) = Q(s|s′; n, t, χ) Q(s′|s; n, t, χ) , (19) which quantifies the impact of the bond dimension on the symmetry condition

    Symmetry error The first thing to check is whether the approximation error disrupts the symmetry of the proposal. We define the ratio Φ(s, s′, n, t, χ) = Q(s|s′; n, t, χ) Q(s′|s; n, t, χ) , (19) which quantifies the impact of the bond dimension on the symmetry condition. In principle, Q(s|s′; n, t, χ) ∈ [0, 1], which implies that Φ( s, s′, n, t, χ) ∈ [0, ...

  2. [2]

    To do so, we perform the usual gap scaling analysis

    Scaling of the approximate MPS-QEMC We now analyze whether this quantum-inspired strat- egy has the potential to be advantageous compared to traditional classical updates. To do so, we perform the usual gap scaling analysis. We apply Trotter evolution with the MPS, using three different choices of bond di- mensions. For simplicity, we use the optimal time...

  3. [3]

    However, as mentioned in Sec

    Threshold for practical quantum inspired advantage In the preceding section, we showed that the quantum- inspired Monte Carlo (QIMC) can in principle replicate the spectral gap scaling of the QEMC using bond di- mensions much smaller than what is needed for an ex- act simulation ( χ ≪ 2n/2). However, as mentioned in Sec. II D, the spectral gap scaling doe...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Binder, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics, Vol

    K. Binder, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics, Vol. 7 (Springer, 2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    C. M. Bishop and H. Bishop, Deep Learning: Founda- tions and Concepts(Springer, 2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt Jr, and M. P. Vecchi, Opti- mization by simulated annealing, science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer simulation of liquids (Oxford university press, 2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Mazzola, Quantum computing for chemistry and physics applications from a monte carlo perspective, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 010901 (2024)

    G. Mazzola, Quantum computing for chemistry and physics applications from a monte carlo perspective, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 010901 (2024). 16

    2024

  2. [10]

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum walks: a comprehen- sive review, Quantum Information Processing 11, 1015 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Lemieux, B

    J. Lemieux, B. Heim, D. Poulin, K. Svore, and M. Troyer, Efficient quantum walk circuits for metropolis-hastings algorithm, Quantum 4, 287 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, M. Newman, C. Gid- ney, S. Boixo, and H. Neven, Focus beyond quadratic speedups for error-corrected quantum advantage, PRX Quantum 2, 010103 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Mazzola, Sampling, rates, and reaction currents through reverse stochastic quantization on quantum com- puters, Physical Review A 104, 022431 (2021)

    G. Mazzola, Sampling, rates, and reaction currents through reverse stochastic quantization on quantum com- puters, Physical Review A 104, 022431 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Layden, G

    D. Layden, G. Mazzola, R. V. Mishmash, M. Motta, P. Wocjan, J.-S. Kim, and S. Sheldon, Quantum- enhanced markov chain monte carlo, Nature 619, 282 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Orfi and D

    A. Orfi and D. Sels, Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm, Physical Review A 110, 052414 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Orfi and D

    A. Orfi and D. Sels, Quantum enhanced markov chains require fine-tuned quenches, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07881 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nakano, H

    Y. Nakano, H. Hakoshima, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Markov-chain monte carlo method enhanced by a quan- tum alternating operator ansatz, Physical Review Re- search 6, 033105 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Lockwood, P

    O. Lockwood, P. Weiss, F. Aronshtein, and G. Verdon, Quantum dynamical hamiltonian monte carlo, Physical Review Research 6, 033142 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ferguson and P

    S. Ferguson and P. Wallden, Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo for systems larger than a quantum computer, Physical Review Research 7, 013231 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    B. Heim, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, and M. Troyer, Quantum versus classical annealing of ising spin glasses, Science 348, 215 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    S. V. Isakov, G. Mazzola, V. N. Smelyanskiy, Z. Jiang, S. Boixo, H. Neven, and M. Troyer, Understanding quan- tum tunneling through quantum monte carlo simulations, Physical Review Letters 117, 180402 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Mazzola, V

    G. Mazzola, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and M. Troyer, Quantum monte carlo tunneling from quantum chemistry to quan- tum annealing, Physical Review B 96, 134305 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    M´ ezard, G

    M. M´ ezard, G. Parisi, and M. A. Virasoro,Spin glass the- ory and beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications, Vol. 9 (World Scientific Publishing Company, 1987)

    1987

  18. [26]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, Theory of spin glasses, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics 5, 965 (1975)

    1975

  20. [28]

    Barahona, On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 3241 (1982)

    F. Barahona, On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 3241 (1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Binder and A

    K. Binder and A. P. Young, Spin glasses: Experimen- tal facts, theoretical concepts, and open questions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    De las Cuevas and T

    G. De las Cuevas and T. S. Cubitt, Simple universal mod- els capture all classical spin physics, Science 351, 1180 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

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

    2015

  24. [32]

    Barzegar, C

    A. Barzegar, C. Pattison, W. Wang, and H. G. Katz- graber, Optimization of population annealing Monte Carlo for large-scale spin-glass simulations, Phys. Rev. E 98, 053308 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Houdayer, A cluster monte carlo algorithm for 2- dimensional spin glasses, The European Physical Jour- nal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 22, 479 (2001)

    J. Houdayer, A cluster monte carlo algorithm for 2- dimensional spin glasses, The European Physical Jour- nal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 22, 479 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    M. W. Johnson, M. H. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Jo- hansson, P. Bunyk, et al., Quantum annealing with man- ufactured spins, Nature 473, 194 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Boixo, T

    S. Boixo, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, Z. Wang, D. Wecker, D. A. Lidar, J. M. Martinis, and M. Troyer, Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hun- dred qubits, Nature physics 10, 218 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Defining and detecting quantum speedup, science 345, 420 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Baldassi and R

    C. Baldassi and R. Zecchina, Efficiency of quantum vs. classical annealing in nonconvex learning problems, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 1457 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Pagano, A

    G. Pagano, A. Bapat, P. Becker, K. S. Collins, A. De, P. W. Hess, H. B. Kaplan, A. Kyprianidis, W. L. Tan, C. Baldwin, et al., Quantum approximate optimization of the long-range ising model with a trapped-ion quan- tum simulator, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Robert and G

    C. Robert and G. Casella, A short history of markov chain monte carlo: Subjective recollections from incom- plete data, Statistical Science , 102 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calcula- tions by fast computing machines, The journal of chem- ical physics 21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  33. [41]

    D. A. Levin and Y. Peres, Markov chains and mixing times, Vol. 107 (American Mathematical Soc., 2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Yamamoto and H

    T. Yamamoto and H. Ishii, A perturbation expansion for the sherrington-kirkpatrick model with a transverse field, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics20, 6053 (1987)

    1987

  35. [43]

    Young, Stability of the quantum sherrington- kirkpatrick spin glass model, Physical Review E 96, 032112 (2017)

    A. Young, Stability of the quantum sherrington- kirkpatrick spin glass model, Physical Review E 96, 032112 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    M. Guo, R. N. Bhatt, and D. A. Huse, Quantum crit- ical behavior of a three-dimensional ising spin glass in a transverse magnetic field, Physical review letters 72, 4137 (1994)

    1994

  37. [45]

    Gidney and A

    C. Gidney and A. G. Fowler, Efficient magic state fac- tories with a catalyzed |ccz > to 2 |t > transformation, Quantum 3, 135 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Baity-Jesi, R

    M. Baity-Jesi, R. A. Banos, A. Cruz, L. A. Fer- nandez, J. M. Gil-Narvion, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, M. Guidetti, D. Iniguez, A. Maiorano, F. Mantovani, E. Marinari, V. Martin-Mayor, J. Monforte-Garcia, A. Munoz Sudupe, D. Navarro, G. Parisi, M. Pivanti, S. Perez-Gaviro, F. Ricci-...

    2012

  39. [47]

    Orfi, Near-Term Quantum Algorithms for Classical Sampling, Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2023)

    A. Orfi, Near-Term Quantum Algorithms for Classical Sampling, Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Rajak, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Classical-to-quantum crossover in the critical behavior of the transverse-field sherrington-kirkpatrick spin glass model, Physical Review E 92, 042107 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    B. F. Schiffer, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Adiabatic spec- troscopy and a variational quantum adiabatic algorithm, PRX Quantum 3, 020347 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Matsuura, S

    S. Matsuura, S. Buck, V. Senicourt, and A. Zaribafiyan, Variationally scheduled quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052435 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Passarelli, R

    G. Passarelli, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Optimal quan- tum annealing: A variational shortcut-to-adiabaticity approach, Physical Review A 105, 022618 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    J. R. Finˇ zgar, M. J. Schuetz, J. K. Brubaker, H. Nishi- mori, and H. G. Katzgraber, Designing quantum anneal- ing schedules using bayesian optimization, Physical Re- view Research 6, 023063 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Crosson and D

    E. Crosson and D. Lidar, Prospects for quantum en- hancement with diabatic quantum annealing, Nature Re- views Physics 3, 466 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    J. Mockus, The bayesian approach to global optimiza- tion, in System Modeling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 10th IFIP Conference New York City, USA, Au- gust 31–September 4, 1981(Springer, 2005) pp. 473–481

    1981

  47. [55]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Scriva, N

    G. Scriva, N. Astrakhantsev, S. Pilati, and G. Mazzola, Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise, Physical Review A 109, 032408 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. C. Knee and W. J. Munro, Optimal trotterization in universal quantum simulators under faulty control, Phys- ical Review A 91, 052327 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Miessen, D

    A. Miessen, D. J. Egger, I. Tavernelli, and G. Mazzola, Benchmarking digital quantum simulations above hun- dreds of qubits using quantum critical dynamics, PRX Quantum 5, 040320 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Earnest, C

    N. Earnest, C. Tornow, and D. J. Egger, Pulse-efficient circuit transpilation for quantum applications on cross- resonance-based hardware, Physical Review Research 3, 043088 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Review 59, 65 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of physics 349, 117 (2014)

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

    2014

  56. [64]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher di- mensions, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0407066 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    V. Murg, F. Verstraete, ¨O. Legeza, and R. M. Noack, Simulating strongly correlated quantum systems with tree tensor networks, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 82, 205105 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Donatella, Z

    K. Donatella, Z. Denis, A. Le Boit´ e, and C. Ciuti, Dy- namics with autoregressive neural quantum states: Ap- plication to critical quench dynamics, Physical Review A 108, 022210 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Sinibaldi, C

    A. Sinibaldi, C. Giuliani, G. Carleo, and F. Vicentini, Un- biasing time-dependent variational monte carlo by pro- jected quantum evolution, Quantum 7, 1131 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Carleo, F

    G. Carleo, F. Becca, M. Schir´ o, and M. Fabrizio, Lo- calization and glassy dynamics of many-body quantum systems, Scientific reports 2, 243 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical review letters 93, 040502 (2004)

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical review letters 93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollw¨ ock, and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states, Annals of Physics 411, 167998 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The iten- sor software library for tensor network calculations, Sci- Post Physics Codebases , 004 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Han and J.-H

    K.-H. Han and J.-H. Kim, Quantum-inspired evolution- ary algorithm for a class of combinatorial optimization, IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 6, 580 (2002)

    2002

  65. [73]

    Jarret and B

    M. Jarret and B. Lackey, Substochastic monte carlo al- gorithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.09014 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Tang, A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for rec- ommendation systems, in Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing(2019) pp

    E. Tang, A quantum-inspired classical algorithm for rec- ommendation systems, in Proceedings of the 51st annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing(2019) pp. 217–228

    2019

  67. [75]

    J. M. Arrazola, A. Delgado, B. R. Bardhan, and S. Lloyd, Quantum-inspired algorithms in practice, Quantum 4, 307 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Shi, L.-M

    Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal, Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor net- work, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 74, 022320 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    A. A. Gangat, Linear-time classical approximate op- timization of cubic-lattice classical spin glasses, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17267 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Castellani and A

    T. Castellani and A. Cavagna, Spin-glass theory for pedestrians, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P05012 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    J. R. de Almeida and D. J. Thouless, Stability of the sherrington-kirkpatrick solution of a spin glass model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 11, 983 (1978)

    1978

  72. [80]

    Parisi, Order parameter for spin-glasses, Phys

    G. Parisi, Order parameter for spin-glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1946 (1983)

    1983

  73. [81]

    Wilson, F

    J. Wilson, F. Hutter, and M. Deisenroth, Maximizing acquisition functions for bayesian optimization, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Tibaldi, D

    S. Tibaldi, D. Vodola, E. Tignone, and E. Ercolessi, Bayesian optimization for qaoa, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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