Application of quantum annealing for scalable robotic assembly line optimization: a case study

Jan Schnabel; Marcel Albus; Marco Roth; Moritz Willmann

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Application of quantum annealing for scalable robotic assembly line optimization: a case study

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a robotic assembly line balancing problem can be encoded as a QUBO and solved on current quantum annealing hardware, reproducing the exact optimal solution on a small case study while deferring any scaling benefit…

desk verdict A careful QUBO encoding of RALB with a reusable toolbox, but the quantum evaluation is in-sample: Lagrange parameters are tuned on the same instance with the answer known, so the demonstration supports the encoding, not the 'potential' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09239 v1 pith:JH5MLAS4 submitted 2024-12-12 quant-ph

Moritz Willmann , Marcel Albus , Jan Schnabel , Marco Roth This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumannealingQUBOroboticassemblylinebalancingintegerprogrammingIsingmodelhybridquantum-classicaloptimizationD-Wavemanufacturing

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 aims to show that a real manufacturing optimization problem, robotic assembly line balancing, can be carried through the standard quantum-optimization pipeline: write it as an integer program, convert it to a QUBO, map that to an Ising model, and sample solutions with a hybrid quantum-classical annealer. On a deliberately small four-task, two-workstation instance, the pipeline returns the known optimal assignment with cost 160,000, matching an exact IP solution while also producing additional valid line balances. The authors are explicit that this instance shows no runtime advantage: the exact solver takes 0.03 seconds and simulated annealing finds more optimal samples than the quantum processor. The contribution is a reproducible QUBO-transformation path and a baseline for future hardware, not a demonstration of quantum advantage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QUBO reformulation of the RALBP integer program. Binary variables encode equipment-to-workstation and task-to-workstation assignments; the equality constraint that every task is assigned once, the two cycle-time inequalities, and the precedence constraints are folded into the quadratic objective as penalty terms with four Lagrange multipliers, with slack variables in binary representation introduced for the inequalities. The resulting 64-variable quadratic form is mapped onto an Ising Hamiltonian, and the hybrid QBSolv algorithm partitions the QUBO, sending subproblems to the D-Wave Advantage 4.1 QPU while a classical tabu-style search combines the results. The Lagrange multipliers are tuned beforehand by a grid search over simulated-annealing samples, using the known optimum as the success criterion.

What would settle it

Run the same four-task case with the QUBO penalties chosen by a blind rule or by cross-validation that never sees the known optimum, count how often the hybrid quantum sampler returns the optimal assignment, and compare that rate with the rate obtained under the simulated-annealing-tuned parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a practical robotic assembly line balancing problem can be formulated as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem and solved with a hybrid quantum-classical annealing sampler, and that on a small case study this pipeline returns constraint-satisfying solutions including the global optimum. The QUBO is built from an integer program whose binary variables encode equipment-to-workstation and task-to-workstation assignments; the four constraint families become penalty terms with Lagrange multipliers, and the cycle-time and precedence inequalities are handled with binary slack variables. On the four-task, two-workstation instance the QBSolv algorithm on the D-Wave Advantage 4.1 QPU produced valid solutions including the optimal assignment at cost 160,000, while the exact IP solved the same instance in 0.03 seconds and simulated annealing produced more optimal samples than the QPU. The authors state plainly that no speed-up is expected on this instance and that the motivation is a scaling advantage on larger instances once hardware improves.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum results depend on the unverified assumption that the same penalty settings that let a classical simulated-annealing search find the optimum will also work well on the quantum machine, and that hardware noise is small next to those settings; if either part fails, the reported success rates do not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Manufacturers can use the authors' released Python library to turn their own RALBP instances into QUBO form and run them on any QUBO solver, not only on quantum hardware.
A working sampler returns a batch of valid alternative line balances for the same cost, so additional objectives can be screened without extra sampling.
On the demonstrated instance, classical exact solving is fastest and simulated annealing returns more optimal solutions than the QPU, so the case for quantum annealing rests on expected scaling behaviour rather than on current runtime or solution quality.
The hybrid approach must fix the number of workstations in advance; choosing too many inflates the QUBO and choosing too few can make feasible solutions impossible, so a conservative guess is required.
As QPU connectivity and coherence improve, the authors expect the hybrid search overhead to shrink and larger RALBP instances to become addressable, which is where they expect scaling benefits.

Reading between the lines

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

The scalability premise is not tested: the case study has only 64 binary variables and a known optimum, so it cannot distinguish a quantum sampling advantage from a well-tuned classical penalty search; a fair test would need a benchmark family with hundreds of variables and no known optimum.
Because the Lagrange parameters are tuned against the known optimum using simulated annealing, the reported QPU optimal-solution counts partly measure how well classical annealing's preferences transfer to the QPU; that transfer assumption is unverified and could be tested by fixing penalties on one instance and evaluating on held-out instances.
The QUBO size grows with slack variables as $\lceil\log_2(C)\rceil$ per cycle-time inequality and $\lceil\log_2(nrm)\rceil$ per precedence edge, so the encoding itself may become the bottleneck before qubit count does; estimating that growth on realistic RALBP instances would show whether the scaling argument survives.
The authors' emphasis on multiple valid solutions suggests a testable angle: quantum sampling might deliver more diverse near-optimal line balances than classical samplers at equal solution count, which could matter for robustness even without a runtime speedup.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it does something genuinely useful: it gives a clean, explicit QUBO formulation of the robotic assembly line balancing problem with all four constraint types, and it ships a Python library that automates the transformation. Second, the evaluation of the quantum solver is compromised by an in-sample, oracle-assisted tuning procedure. The stress-test note is right on target.

The QUBO encoding itself is standard — Lucas-style penalties, slack variables for the inequalities — but the specific RALB mapping is new in this combination, and the paper is honest about the limitations. It reports that the classical IP solver finds the optimum in 0.03 seconds, that simulated annealing beats the quantum hybrid on solution counts, and that no speedup is expected at this scale. That kind of candor is welcome and rare in this subfield. The presentation is clear, the notation is consistent, and the math in Sections III.A–III.B checks out.

The soft spot, as the reader and stress-test both flag, is Section III.D. All four Lagrange parameters are chosen by a simulated annealing grid search on the exact case-study instance, using the known global optimum as the success criterion. The QBSolv run in Section IV.B then uses those tuned parameters on the same instance. That is not an independent evaluation. The abstract's claim that the case study demonstrates 'potential for quantum computing to enhance manufacturing productivity and reduce costs' is not supported by an experiment designed this way. At best, it shows that with hyperparameters tuned to the answer of a 64-variable problem, QBSolv can occasionally return that answer. The two stated assumptions — that a favorable SA landscape transfers to QA, and that hardware noise is minor compared to Lagrange parameter changes — are asserted, not tested.

There are also smaller issues: the referenced Python library has no URL or repository identifier in the bibliography, and the paper lacks any statistical analysis beyond raw counts. These are minor relative to the evaluation protocol, but they matter for reproducibility.

Who is this for? Researchers working on QUBO encodings for manufacturing who want a template or a baseline. The central theoretical content is sound, and the paper is a useful case study despite the flawed demonstration. It deserves a serious referee, but only if the authors are pushed to temper the abstract and either provide the code link or remove the claim. I would not cite the results as evidence of quantum advantage, but I might cite the encoding if the toolbox were actually retrievable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a QUBO formulation for a robotic assembly line balancing problem (RALBP), along with an open-source Python library for automatic transformation from integer programming to QUBO. A small case study with four tasks and two workstations is solved using the D-Wave Advantage 4.1 system through the hybrid QBSolv algorithm, and the results are compared with an exact IP solution and with simulated annealing. All methods find the optimal solution; the IP solver is fastest (0.03 s) and the QBSolv run takes about 10,110.5 s. The paper openly discusses hardware limitations, the need for fixed workstations, and the absence of a speedup for this instance.

Significance. If the evaluation were valid, the paper would provide a useful proof-of-concept for encoding RALBP as a QUBO and solving it on current quantum hardware, and the accompanying software library is a reproducible artifact that other researchers can use. However, the central demonstration is undermined by the in-sample, oracle-assisted selection of Lagrange parameters: the hyperparameters are tuned on the exact instance being evaluated, using the known global optimum as the success criterion. The paper's own stated assumptions about the transferability of simulated-annealing behavior to quantum annealing are asserted but not tested. As a result, the abstract's claim that the case study demonstrates 'potential for quantum computing to enhance manufacturing productivity and reduce costs' is not supported by the experimental design. The contribution is best described as a transparent, small-scale demonstration of QUBO encoding, not as evidence of a quantum advantage or of scalability.

major comments (3)

[Section III D and Section IV B] The Lagrange parameters in Eq. (7) are selected by a grid search that maximizes the number of optimal solutions on the exact case-study instance, with the global optimum known from the IP solution. The QBSolv evaluation in Section IV B then uses those parameters on the same instance. This is an in-sample, oracle-assisted tuning procedure: the reported optimal-solution counts do not measure how the pipeline would perform on an unseen instance. The two assumptions stated in Section III D (that an energy landscape favorable to simulated annealing is also favorable to quantum annealing, and that hardware errors are minor relative to Lagrange-parameter modifications) are asserted without supporting data or tests. To support the paper's claims, the authors should either evaluate the pipeline on held-out instances with a fixed parameter-selection rule, or explicitly reframe the results as a demonstration of the QUBO encoding rather than of quantum annealing's problem-solving capability.
[Abstract and Section V] The abstract claims the case study demonstrates 'potential for quantum computing to enhance manufacturing productivity and reduce costs,' but Section V states that a speedup is neither the primary goal nor expected, and the reported runtimes show IP solving the instance in 0.03 s versus QBSolv's 10,110.5 s. As designed, the study shows only that the QUBO encoding is correct and that QBSolv can return the known optimum of a 64-variable instance when the hyperparameters are tuned to that optimum. This discrepancy between the stated potential and the evidence is load-bearing. Please temper the claims, or provide concrete evidence for a potential benefit, such as a scaling argument or results on larger instances with a parameter-selection rule that does not use the known optimum.
[Title, Introduction, and Section V] The title and introduction emphasize 'scalable' robotic assembly line optimization, and Section V says the central premise is 'scaling advantages that might be harvested in larger instances.' However, the paper contains only a single 4-task, 2-workstation instance and no larger experiments or quantitative analysis of how QUBO size or solver performance scales beyond the presented case. To justify the scalability framing, the authors should either provide a synthetic larger instance with a fixed parameter-selection rule, or restrict the title and claims to a small proof-of-concept.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typos and style issues: 'challanges' in the Introduction, 'developped' in Section III B, 'Tabular-search' should be 'Tabu search' in Section III C, and reference [30] lists 'D-Wave Systens Inc.' instead of 'D-Wave Systems Inc.'
[Section III B] The formula for the number of slack variables, ns = (r + rm)⌈log2(C)⌉ + |E|⌈log2(nrm)⌉, uses ⌈log2(C)⌉; for a cycle-time constraint of the form sum t x <= C, the slack variable must represent values up to C, which generally requires ⌈log2(C+1)⌉ bits. Please clarify the exact bit-counting convention and reconcile it with the stated QUBO dimension of 64.
[Section IV B] The QUBO dimension of 64 is stated but not derived. Please provide a short breakdown of the variable counts (equipment-assignment variables y_jk, task-assignment variables x_ijk, and slack variables) for the case study to make the instance definition fully reproducible.
[Figure 2] The caption says the diagonal plots show 'the maximal number of optimal solutions for a single fixed Lagrange parameter aggregated over all combinations of the other Lagrange parameters.' This description is ambiguous because a one-dimensional histogram cannot display a maximum over all combinations without an explicit aggregation procedure; please clarify how the diagonal entries are computed.
[Reference [12]] The software library 'ALB QUBO' is cited as reference [12] but no URL or repository identifier is provided in the bibliography. Please include a link or DOI so that the reproducibility claim can be verified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Evaluation is in-sample: Lagrange parameters are tuned on the same instance using the known IP optimum, so the reported optimal-solution counts are the fitting metric, not an independent prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section III D (Lagrange Parameter Search) and Section IV B (Results)]
"For each combination, the QUBO is sampled 1,000 times, selecting the combination with the highest number of optimal solutions. A solution is considered optimal if it is valid, i. e., all constraints are satisfied, and the cost equals the global minimum of the RALBP. ... Using the optimal Lagrange parameters detailed in Figure 2, we obtain 64 optimal solutions out of 1,000 samples with the dwave-neal simulated annealer."

The grid search selects Lagrange parameters by maximizing the number of optimal solutions on the exact case-study instance, using the known IP global optimum as the optimality criterion. The later report that the selected parameters yield 64 optimal simulated-annealing solutions is the same quantity that was maximized during the search, so this success count is an in-sample, oracle-assisted measurement rather than an independent result. The simulated-annealing performance metric is therefore forced by the fitting procedure, and the subsequent QBSolv run inherits parameters chosen on the same instance.
fitted input called prediction [Section III D and Section IV B (QBSolv on D-Wave Advantage 4.1)]
"To limit QPU execution time, we use simulated annealing from the dwave-neal package [30] instead of direct quantum computer execution. ... We assume that 1) an energy landscape that is favorable for simulated annealing benefits also quantum annealing, and 2) real quantum hardware errors are minor compared to Lagrange parameter modifications. ... For the selected set of Lagrange parameters, we further run the QBSolv algorithm on the D-Wave Advantage 4.1 QPU, sampling 1,000 solutions."

The QBSolv evaluation is performed on the same instance whose known optimum was used to select the Lagrange parameters via simulated annealing. The paper does not test whether the simulated-annealing-derived parameters transfer to quantum annealing; it merely assumes the transfer. Thus the reported QBSolv optimal-solution counts are an in-sample demonstration, not an out-of-sample validation, and they do not independently support the abstract's claim of demonstrating potential for quantum computing to enhance manufacturing productivity and reduce costs.

full rationale

The mathematical derivation from the integer program to the QUBO is standard and self-contained: the cost function, equality-constraint penalty in Eq. (7), slack-variable encoding, and Ising mapping are all standard transformations and are not circular. The paper also honestly states that no speedup is expected and that the classical IP solver is fastest, so the central modeling content is independent. The circularity lies in the evaluation protocol, not the mathematics. Section III D fits all four Lagrange parameters by a grid search on the exact case-study instance, using the known global optimum as the success criterion, and then Section IV B reports solution counts obtained with those same parameters. The simulated-annealing count of 64 optimal solutions is literally the metric maximized in the parameter search, so it carries no independent evidentiary weight. The QBSolv result is less directly forced, but it is still an in-sample measurement because the parameters were tuned on the same instance, and the paper's two stated assumptions about transferability from simulated annealing to quantum annealing and about hardware noise are unverified. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled by citation is present. Overall, the central claim that the case study demonstrates quantum-computing potential is partially circular because the evaluation is oracle-tuned, although the QUBO formulation itself remains valid independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four fitted Lagrange parameters, each tuned to maximize optimal solutions on the exact test instance using simulated annealing. This is a substantial fitting burden. The axioms include the standard QUBO equivalence and two explicitly stated but unverified assumptions about the transferability of simulated annealing results to quantum annealing. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Lagrange parameter lambda_1 = 335.982
Penalty weight for task assignment constraint (Eq. 2), fitted by grid search in Section III D on the target instance.
Lagrange parameter lambda_2 = 18.330
Penalty weight for equipment cycle time constraint (Eq. 3), fitted by grid search on the target instance.
Lagrange parameter lambda_3 = 29.764
Penalty weight for workstation cycle time constraint (Eq. 4), fitted by grid search on the target instance.
Lagrange parameter lambda_4 = 335.982
Penalty weight for precedence constraint (Eq. 5), fitted by grid search on the target instance.

assumptions (4)

standard math The QUBO transformation with Lagrange penalties correctly enforces the original hard constraints when the penalties are sufficiently large.
Section III B: the paper relies on the standard equivalence between constrained IP and penalized QUBO, which holds only for appropriately chosen penalty weights.
ad hoc to paper An energy landscape favorable for simulated annealing is also favorable for quantum annealing.
Section III D explicitly states assumption 1, which is load-bearing because the Lagrange parameters are tuned with simulated annealing and then used on the QPU without re-validation.
ad hoc to paper Real quantum hardware errors are minor compared to Lagrange parameter modifications.
Section III D states assumption 2, justifying the transfer of simulated-annealing-tuned parameters to the D-Wave QPU.
domain assumption The fixed number of workstations m=2 is sufficient to yield a feasible solution for the case study.
Section III B notes that the QUBO size requires fixing m; the choice m=2 is a modeling assumption, and a wrong choice would produce an infeasible or suboptimal problem.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Application of quantum annealing for scalable robotic assembly line optimization: a case study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JH5MLAS4

@misc{pith2026241209239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Application of quantum annealing for scalable robotic assembly line optimization: a case study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JH5MLAS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09239}
}

read the original abstract

The even distribution and optimization of tasks across resources and workstations is a critical process in manufacturing aimed at maximizing efficiency, productivity, and profitability, known as Robotic Assembly Line Balancing (RALB). With the increasing complexity of manufacturing required by mass customization, traditional computational approaches struggle to solve RALB problems efficiently. To address these scalability challenges, we investigate applying quantum computing, particularly quantum annealing, to the real-world based problem. We transform the integer programming formulation into a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem, which is then solved using a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm on the D-Wave Advantage 4.1 quantum computer. In a case study, the quantum solution is compared to an exact solution, demonstrating the potential for quantum computing to enhance manufacturing productivity and reduce costs. Nevertheless, limitations of quantum annealing, including hardware constraints and problem-specific challenges, suggest that continued advancements in quantum technology will be necessary to improve its applicability to RALB manufacturing optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09239 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Number of optimal solutions for each fixed combina [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Top 50 samples out of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Becker and A

C. Becker and A. Scholl, A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly line balancing, Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 168, 694 (2006)

work page 2006
[2]

Rubinovitz, J

J. Rubinovitz, J. Bukchin, and E. Lenz, Ralb - a heuristic algorithm for design and balancing of robotic assembly lines, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 42, 497 (1993)

work page 1993
[3]

F. A. Touzout and L. Benyoucef, Multi-objective sustain- able process plan generation in a reconfigurable manufac- turing environment: Exact and adapted evolutionary ap- proaches, International Journal of Production Research 57, 2531 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Riandari, A

F. Riandari, A. Alesha, and H. T. Sihotang, Quantum computing for production planning, International Jour- nal of Enterprise Modelling 15, 163 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Boysen, P

N. Boysen, P. Schulze, and A. Scholl, Assembly line bal- ancing: What happened in the last fifteen years?, Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 301, 797 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Luckow, J

A. Luckow, J. Klepsch, and J. Pichlmeier, Quantum Computing: Towards Industry Reference Problems, Dig- itale Welt 5, 38 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Pirnay, V

N. Pirnay, V. Ulitzsch, F. Wilde, J. Eisert, and J.-P. Seifert, An in-principle super-polynomial quantum ad- vantage for approximating combinatorial optimization problems via computational learning theory, Science Ad- vances 10, eadj5170 (2024)

2024
[8]

Farhi, J

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2014

Show all 31 references

[9]

Finnila, M

A. Finnila, M. Gomez, C. Sebenik, C. Stenson, and J. Doll, Quantum annealing: A new method for minimiz- ing multidimensional functions, Chemical Physics Letters 219, 343 (1994)

1994
[10]

Abbas, A

A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, N. Franco, F. Fratini, B. Fuller, J. Gacon, C. Gonciulea, S. Gribling, S. Gupta, S. Had- field, R. Heese, G. Kircher, T. Kleinert, T. Koch, G. Ko- ...

2023 arXiv
[11]

A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann...

2023
[12]

Willmann, ALB QUBO (version 1.0.0) (2024)

M. Willmann, ALB QUBO (version 1.0.0) (2024)

2024
[13]

Z. Li, I. Kucukkoc, and Q. Tang, A comparative study of exact methods for the simple assembly line balancing problem, Soft Computing 24, 11459 (2020)

2020
[14]

Zhang, X

Y. Zhang, X. Hu, and C. Wu, Heuristic algorithm for type ii two-sided assembly line rebalancing problem with multi-objective, in MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 175 (2018) p. 03063

2018
[15]

Borba, M

L. Borba, M. Ritt, and C. Miralles, Exact and heuristic methods for solving the robotic assembly line balancing 7 problem, European Journal of Operational Research270, 146 (2018)

2018
[16]

Albus, T

M. Albus, T. Hornek, W. Kraus, and M. F. Huber, To- wards scalability for resource reconfiguration in robotic assembly line balancing problems using a modified ge- netic algorithm, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 10.1007/s10845-023-02292-0 (2024)

2024 doi
[17]

Manavizadeh, M

N. Manavizadeh, M. Rabbani, D. Moshtaghi, and F. Jo- lai, Mixed-model assembly line balancing in the make-to- order and stochastic environment using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Expert Systems with Applica- tions 39, 12026 (2012)

2012
[18]

Chutima, A comprehensive review of robotic assembly line balancing problem, Journal of Intelligent Manufac- turing 33, 1 (2022)

P. Chutima, A comprehensive review of robotic assembly line balancing problem, Journal of Intelligent Manufac- turing 33, 1 (2022)

2022
[19]

M. Klar, P. Schworm, X. Wu, M. Glatt, and J. C. Au- rich, Quantum Annealing based factory layout planning, Manufacturing Letters 32, 59 (2022)

2022
[20]

Dolgui and I

A. Dolgui and I. Ihnatsenka, Branch and bound algo- rithm for a transfer line design problem: Stations with se- quentially activated multi-spindle heads, European Jour- nal of Operational Research 197, 1119 (2009)

2009
[21]

Yarkoni, E

S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quan- tum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 104001 (2022)

2022
[22]

Cohen and B

E. Cohen and B. Tamir, D-Wave and predecessors: From simulated to quantum annealing, International Journal of Quantum Information 12, 1430002 (2014)

2014
[23]

Liu and S

Z. Liu and S. Li, A Quantum Computing Based Numer- ical Method for Solving Mixed-Integer Optimal Control Problems, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity 34, 2428 (2021)

2021
[24]

Kurowski, J

K. Kurowski, J. W¸ eglarz, M. Subocz, R. R´ o˙ zycki, and G. Walig´ ora, Hybrid Quantum Annealing Heuris- tic Method for Solving Job Shop Scheduling Problem, in Computational Science – ICCS 2020 , Vol. 12142 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 502–515

2020
[25]

Schworm, X

P. Schworm, X. Wu, M. Klar, J. Gayer, M. Glatt, and J. C. Aurich, Resilience optimization in manufacturing systems using Quantum Annealing, Manufacturing Let- ters 36, 13 (2023)

2023
[26]

A. Glos, A. Kundu, and ¨O. Salehi, Optimizing the Pro- duction of Test Vehicles Using Hybrid Constrained Quan- tum Annealing, SN Computer Science 4, 609 (2023)

2023
[27]

Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 (2014)

A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in Physics 2, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 (2014)

2014
[28]

McGeoch and P

C. McGeoch and P. Farr´ e, Advantage Processor Overview , Tech. Rep. 14-1058A-A (D-Wave Systems Inc., 2022)

2022
[29]

Booth, S

M. Booth, S. P. Reinhardt, and A. Roy, Partitioning Op- timization Problems for Hybrid Classical/Quantum Ex- ecution, Tech. Rep. 14-1006A-A (D-Wave Systems Inc., 2017)

2017
[30]

D-Wave Systens Inc., dwave-neal (version 0.6.0) (2022)

2022
[31]

Kirkpatrick, C

S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimiza- tion by simulated annealing, Science 220, 671 (1983)

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Becker and A

C. Becker and A. Scholl, A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly line balancing, Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 168, 694 (2006)

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Rubinovitz, J

J. Rubinovitz, J. Bukchin, and E. Lenz, Ralb - a heuristic algorithm for design and balancing of robotic assembly lines, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 42, 497 (1993)

work page 1993

[3] [3]

F. A. Touzout and L. Benyoucef, Multi-objective sustain- able process plan generation in a reconfigurable manufac- turing environment: Exact and adapted evolutionary ap- proaches, International Journal of Production Research 57, 2531 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Riandari, A

F. Riandari, A. Alesha, and H. T. Sihotang, Quantum computing for production planning, International Jour- nal of Enterprise Modelling 15, 163 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Boysen, P

N. Boysen, P. Schulze, and A. Scholl, Assembly line bal- ancing: What happened in the last fifteen years?, Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 301, 797 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Luckow, J

A. Luckow, J. Klepsch, and J. Pichlmeier, Quantum Computing: Towards Industry Reference Problems, Dig- itale Welt 5, 38 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Pirnay, V

N. Pirnay, V. Ulitzsch, F. Wilde, J. Eisert, and J.-P. Seifert, An in-principle super-polynomial quantum ad- vantage for approximating combinatorial optimization problems via computational learning theory, Science Ad- vances 10, eadj5170 (2024)

2024

[8] [8]

Farhi, J

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2014