Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Sequential Quantum Computing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that chaining a quantum annealer to a digital quantum processor yields the exact ground state of a 156-qubit optimization problem that neither device reaches alone, using far fewer measurements.

desk verdict Real experiment, interesting workflow, but the resource-advantage claim rests on one uncontrolled comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20655 v1 pith:XQU2CJZM submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Sebastián V. Romero , Alejandro Gomez Cadavid , Enrique Solano , Narendra N. Hegade This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords sequentialquantumcomputinghybridquantum-classicalworkflowsbias-fieldtransfercounterdiabaticoptimizationannealinghigher-orderbinarynon-stoquasticHamiltonianscombinatorial
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

Sequential quantum computing (SQC) is a proposed paradigm for running several quantum processors in sequence, passing information between them not as fragile quantum states but as classical measurement outcomes encoded into the bias fields of the next processor's initial state. The paper's central demonstration is a 156-qubit optimization problem with up to three-body interactions: a 678-qubit quantum annealer first produces a fast approximate solution, and a 156-qubit digital processor then refines it using bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (BF-DCQO), whose non-stoquastic counterdiabatic terms the annealer cannot implement. On the reported instance, the combined workflow found the exact ground state with 8,000 shots, while standalone annealing with 290,000 shots and standalone BF-DCQO with 50,000 shots did not. The claimed consequence is that heterogeneous quantum hardware can be composed, much as CPUs and GPUs are composed in classical computing, to overcome the individual limitations of current devices. If the result survives controlled comparison, it would give a practical recipe for extracting better optimization results from near-term quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bias-field warm start: measurement outcomes from the first processor are averaged over a fraction of the lowest-energy samples and turned into local longitudinal fields $h^b_j(\langle \sigma^z_j \rangle)$ that tilt the initial Hamiltonian $\tilde H_i = H_i + \sum_j h^b_j(\langle \sigma^z_j\rangle)\sigma^z_j$ of the next processor, so the digital circuit starts near the annealer's best answers. On the digital side, the argument is carried by BF-DCQO, which digitizes the counterdiabatic evolution $H_{cd}(\lambda)=H_{ad}(\lambda)+\dot\lambda A_\lambda$ with an approximate adiabatic gauge potential from the first-order nested commutator $A_\lambda^{(1)}=i\alpha_1[H_{ad},\partial_\lambda H_{ad}]$; the resulting non-stoquastic terms are what the stoquastic annealer cannot supply. A graph-colouring circuit decomposition then packs the 176 two-body and 244 three-body terms into few parallel layers on the heavy-hexagonal heavy-hexagonal native gate set, making the 156-qubit refinement feasible.

What would settle it

Run the same heavy-hexagonal HUBO instances with matched post-processing (equal local-search sweeps per sample), matched problem representation (the same HUBO or the same QUBO on both processors), and measured wall-clock times; if SQC's 8,000-shot exact solution is reproduced but a classical warm start or annealer-only with equal sweeps also reaches the exact ground state, the sequential-quantum claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that information transfer between different quantum processors via bias fields is enough to combine their complementary strengths: the annealer contributes fast, broad sampling over a large embedded QUBO, while the digital processor contributes universality, specifically the ability to implement approximate non-stoquastic counterdiabatic terms that suppress diabatic transitions and refine candidate solutions. The experimental evidence is a single heavy-hexagonal 156-qubit higher-order Ising model with random Sidon-set couplings, where SQC achieved an exact ground state (energy -186.86, approximation ratio 100%) using 8,000 shots after one BF-DCQO iteration warm-started by 3,000 annealer samples, whereas standalone annealing with 290,000 shots reached only a 98.89% best approximation ratio and standalone BF-DCQO with 50,000 shots reached 97.52%. The authors interpret this as a 36-fold reduction in measurements relative to large annealing and a 6-fold reduction relative to standalone BF-DCQO, with a 1.12% and 2.55% improvement in best approximation ratio, respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured improvement comes from the sequential workflow itself, but the benchmark used a single random instance, unequal post-processing budgets, different problem representations, and assumed rather than measured sampling rates; if those differences produce the result, the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SQC turns each quantum processor's output into the next one's input, so the approach does not require fragile quantum state transfer between platforms; only classical bit strings and bias fields are exchanged.
  • On the demonstrated instance, solving a higher-order problem exactly required 8,000 shots, so compositions of current hardware can outperform their best individual member in both solution quality and resources.
  • Because the digital stage can implement non-stoquastic counterdiabatic terms, SQC extends quantum annealing to problems whose Hamiltonians are not stoquastic, without waiting for new analog hardware.
  • The authors state that the scheme generalizes beyond optimization to quantum simulation and quantum chemistry, and to homogeneous or other heterogeneous processor combinations.
  • The authors report the resource reduction in shot counts, so the practical wall-clock advantage depends on the assumed sampling rates of 10 kHz for the digital processor and a few MHz for the annealer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the decisive test of SQC is a controlled sweep over many random instances with identical post-processing budgets, native problem representations, and measured wall-clock times; the published single-instance comparison does not isolate the sequencing effect from those variables.
  • I infer that the same warm-starting could be done by a cheap classical heuristic with equal or better effect, so a comparison between an annealer-generated seed and a classical seed would be needed to show that the quantum origin of the seed matters, not just the bias-field workflow.
  • The bias-field transfer mechanism should also work for two digital processors or two annealers; the paper only demonstrates annealer-to-digital, so homogeneous SQC remains an unverified but natural extension.
  • If the 8,000-shot exact solution is reproducible across instances, the practical implication is that a small quantum annealer plus a modest digital processor could serve as a high-quality optimizer for three-body problems, where native HUBO solvers are rare.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces sequential quantum computing (SQC), a workflow in which a D-Wave quantum annealer first produces candidate solutions to a higher-order binary optimization problem and an IBM Heron processor subsequently runs one iteration of bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (BF-DCQO), with the annealer outcomes encoded as bias fields. The authors report a single experiment on a 156-qubit heavy-hexagonal nearest-neighbor HUBO with three-body terms. SQC uses 3,000 D-Wave shots plus 5,000 IBM shots and finds the exact CPLEX ground state (energy -186.86, best approximation ratio 100%), while standalone QA_large (290,000 shots) and ten-iteration BF-DCQO (50,000 shots) do not. The paper claims a 36x/6x shot reduction and improved solution quality, and discusses the framework as a general route for combining heterogeneous quantum processors.

Significance. The idea of composing analog and digital quantum processors through bias-field transfer is conceptually appealing and timely, and the experimental demonstration on real hardware is valuable. The authors use CPLEX to establish the true ground state, so the success metric is not circular, and the supplemental material provides a concrete circuit compilation using graph coloring for the three-body terms. If the resource and quality advantage were established under controlled conditions, the result would be an interesting step toward hybrid quantum workflows. However, the current evidence is a single instance with unequal post-processing and estimated runtimes, so the quantitative central claim is not yet supported at the level the abstract states.

major comments (4)
  1. [Experiments, Table I] The central resource/quality claim is not isolated from the unequal local-search (LS) post-processing. QA_large receives 3 sweeps of LS over all 290,000 samples, while SQC receives 1 sweep on the best D-Wave sample and then 3 sweeps on the 2,200 lowest-energy IBM samples. The exact solution could therefore be produced by the final 3-sweep LS acting on 2,200 samples, a classical subroutine, rather than by the sequential quantum workflow. The paper does not report a control that applies the same post-processing budget (e.g., 3 sweeps on the 2,200 best samples) directly to the 3,000 QA_low samples without the IBM step, nor a control that applies it to 5,000 samples from a single BF-DCQO iteration without the D-Wave warm start.
  2. [Table I and runtime discussion] The quoted runtimes (e.g., SQC 1.1 s, QA_large 26.1 s) are not measured wall-clock times; they are computed from assumed sampling rates of 10 kHz for IBM and a few MHz for D-Wave, as stated in the Table I caption. The paper presents these numbers as demonstrating a 'substantial reduction in computational resources', but estimated sampling throughput does not account for queueing, transpilation, calibration, or classical post-processing. The runtime/resource reduction should be reported as an estimate, or better, backed by measured end-to-end execution time.
  3. [Experiments] The general claim that SQC provides a resource and quality advantage rests on a single random instance with Sidon-set couplings. With one instance, the 36x/6x shot reduction and the 100% best approximation ratio may be instance-specific. Multiple instances with statistical reporting (e.g., median and spread of best/mean approximation ratio and success probability) are needed. In addition, the comparison is not representation-matched: QA solves a 386-variable QUBO embedded on 678 qubits, whereas the IBM processor solves the original 156-variable HUBO natively. The observed reduction therefore conflates the sequential workflow with the overhead of the HUBO-to-QUBO embedding, and a matched comparison or explicit ablation is required.
  4. [Experiments, Table I] The quality-improvement claim is based on the best approximation ratio (100% versus 98.89% and 97.52%), but the average approximation ratio of SQC (94.95%) is worse than QA_large (96.63%), a point the text acknowledges as a 1.7% disadvantage. The abstract and conclusion state an 'improvement in the quality of the solution' without this qualification. The claim should be framed as best-of-samples improvement, and the expected-quality performance should be discussed explicitly, since the average ratio is the more standard performance measure for sample-based optimization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'post-processed distributions using 300000 and 3000 samples', but the main text and Table I report 290,000 shots for QA_large; the numbers should be made consistent.
  2. [Experiments bullets] The standalone QA_low configuration is reported in Table I and Figure 2 but is not clearly defined in the bullet list; the reader is left to infer its post-processing budget, which matters for the control-comparison argument.
  3. [Supplemental Material I.A] The nested-commutator expression for the gauge potential contains notation that is hard to read (A(l appears with a missing closing parenthesis in several places) and should be typeset with the expansion order explicitly superscripted throughout.
  4. [Methodology] The sentence 'In the limit l → ∞, the expansion converges to the exact gauge potential' should be stated as the known formal property of the nested-commutator expansion with a reference, since the convergence conditions are not trivial for generic Hamiltonians.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental advantage claim is benchmarked externally against the CPLEX exact ground state, not defined by the method itself.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain of the paper: SQC is proposed as a paradigm, and its central quantitative claim is the experimental result that a warm-started BF-DCQO run on IBM, seeded by D-Wave samples, finds the exact ground state with fewer shots than the standalone baselines. The success metric, approximation ratio AR = E(alpha=1)/E0, uses E0 obtained from CPLEX, an external exact solver, so the result is not defined into existence by the protocol. The SQC procedure is directly implemented on hardware, not predicted from a fitted parameter, and the comparison to standalone QA and BF-DCQO is an experimental measurement. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' own prior work for BF-DCQO and DCQO (refs 15-18, 34, 36), but these are building blocks that are executed in the present experiment rather than assumed as a substitute for the demonstration; the empirical comparison to CPLEX and to the standalone runs is independent of whether those prior citations are correct. Concerns about unmatched local-search post-processing budgets and runtimes computed from assumed sampling rates are experimental-design and correctness risks, not circularity: they affect whether the advantage is properly attributed, but they do not make the paper's outcome equivalent to its input by construction. I therefore find no circular step.

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

The central experimental claim depends on the BF-DCQO algorithm from the authors' prior work, the assumed sampling rates, and several unreported hyperparameters, so the reader pays for more than the paper derives. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Bias update fraction alpha = not reported
    Used in the BF-DCQO bias-field update to select the lowest-energy samples; chosen by hand and not stated in the paper.
  • Total evolution time T and Trotter step dt = not reported
    The DCQO circuit depends on T and the Trotter decomposition; these values are not reported.
  • Number of Trotter steps / circuit layers = not reported
    The number of Trotter steps in the digital counterdiabatic implementation is not stated.
  • Assumed sampling rates = IBM 10 kHz, D-Wave few MHz
    Runtime claims in Table I are computed from these assumed rates, not measured wall-clock times.
  • Local search sweeps = 1 or 3 sweeps depending on case
    The amount of classical post-processing differs across methods and is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that affects results.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The nested-commutator expansion of the adiabatic gauge potential converges to the exact gauge potential in the limit l to infinity.
    Invoked in the Methodology and Supplemental as the basis for approximating counterdiabatic driving.
  • domain assumption A first-order nested-commutator approximation is sufficient to capture the counterdiabatic benefit on the IBM hardware.
    The experiment uses only the first-order term; this is a modeling assumption that is not independently validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption The HUBO-to-QUBO conversion via dimod and the subsequent embedding into the Zephyr graph preserve the optimization problem.
    Used to run the higher-order problem on the D-Wave annealer; the conversion introduces 386 variables and 678 qubits.
  • domain assumption Graph coloring of the heavy-hexagonal lattice permits parallelization of all two- and three-body terms in six depth-one layers.
    Used in the Supplemental to reduce circuit depth on IBM Heron; relies on the graph coloring theorem and the previous demonstration of two-body parallelization.
  • domain assumption The sampling rates assumed (10 kHz for IBM, few MHz for D-Wave) are representative for the runtime comparison.
    These rates are cited from the literature and used to convert shot counts into runtimes in Table I.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Quantum Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQU2CJZM

@misc{pith2026250620655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Quantum Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQU2CJZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20655}
}
read the original abstract

We propose and experimentally demonstrate sequential quantum computing (SQC), a paradigm that utilizes multiple homogeneous or heterogeneous quantum processors in hybrid classical-quantum workflows. In this manner, we are able to overcome the limitations of each type of quantum computer by combining their complementary strengths. Current quantum devices, including analog quantum annealers and digital quantum processors, offer distinct advantages, yet face significant practical constraints when individually used. SQC addresses this by efficient inter-processor transfer of information through bias fields. Consequently, measurement outcomes from one quantum processor are encoded in the initial-state preparation of the subsequent quantum computer. We experimentally validate SQC by solving a combinatorial optimization problem with interactions up to three-body terms. A D-Wave quantum annealer utilizing 678 qubits approximately solves the problem, and an IBM's 156-qubit digital quantum processor subsequently refines the obtained solutions. This is possible via the digital introduction of non-stoquastic counterdiabatic terms unavailable to the analog quantum annealer. The experiment shows a substantial reduction in computational resources and improvement in the quality of the solution compared to the standalone operations of the individual quantum processors. These results highlight SQC as a powerful and versatile approach for addressing complex combinatorial optimization problems, with potential applications in quantum simulation of many-body systems, quantum chemistry, among others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20655 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sequential quantum computing schematic. Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Results for the heavy-hexagonal 156-qubit NN HUBO [Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. HybridQC: Hardware-Grounded Simulation of Tightly Integrated Hybrid Quantum-Classical Systems

    cs.PF 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HybridQC is a hardware-calibrated, topology-aware simulator that predicts hybrid quantum-classical system bottlenecks, finding that balanced 10x scaling yields only 2.19x-3.42x makespan improvement and that workload g...

  2. StreamingQEC: Streaming Quantum Error Correction in Tightly Integrated Quantum-Classical Systems via Certified Recurrence

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new simulator shows that quantum error correction's classical pipeline can be compressed exactly with a certified recurrence and approximated with a staged-fluid model, and that transfer and decoder bottlenecks shif...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nickolls, I

    J. Nickolls, I. Buck, M. Garland, and K. Skadron, in ACM SIG- GRAPH 2008 Classes , SIGGRAPH ’08 (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New Y ork, NY , USA, 2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    A. R. Brodtkorb, C. Dyken, T. R. Hagen, J. M. Hjelmervik, and O. O. Storaasli, Scientific Programming 18, 540159 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Tomov, J

    S. Tomov, J. Dongarra, and M. Baboulin, Parallel Computing 36, 232 (2010), parallel Matrix Algorithms and Applications

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    C. D. Schuman, S. R. Kulkarni, M. Parsa, J. P . Mitchell, P . Date, and B. Kay, Nature Computational Science 2, 10–19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    E. Z. Farsa, A. Ahmadi, and O. Keszocze, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Markovi ´c and J

    D. Markovi ´c and J. Grollier, Applied Physics Letters 117, 150501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Cheng, X.-H

    B. Cheng, X.-H. Deng, X. Gu, Y . He, G. Hu, P . Huang, J. Li, B.-C. Lin, D. Lu, Y . Lu, et al. , Frontiers of Physics 18, 21308 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. Alexander, B. Altieri, M. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Baragiola, J. Bourassa, R. Chadwick, et al., Nature 638, 912–919 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Cale ffi, M

    M. Cale ffi, M. Amoretti, D. Ferrari, J. Illiano, A. Manzalini, and A. S. Cacciapuoti, Computer Networks 254, 110672 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    D. Main, P . Drmota, D. P . Nadlinger, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, and D. M. Lucas, Nature 638, 383–388 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    P . Das, S. S. Tannu, P . J. Nair, and M. Qureshi, in Proceed- ings of the 52nd Annual IEEE /ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, MICRO ’52 (Association for Computing Machinery, New Y ork, NY , USA, 2019) p. 291–303

    2019

  4. [12]

    DeCross, E

    M. DeCross, E. Chertkov, M. Kohagen, and M. Foss-Feig, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041057 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Graß, Phys

    T. Graß, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 120501 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Grass, Phys

    T. Grass, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 044036 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    A. G. Cadavid, A. Dalal, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L022010 (2025)

    2025

  8. [17]

    Chandarana, A

    P . Chandarana, A. G. Cadavid, S. V . Romero, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Runtime Quantum Advantage with Digital Quantum Optimization (2025), arXiv:2505.08663

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    IBM Quantum, Iskay Quantum Optimizer - A Qiskit Func- tion by Kipu Quantum, https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/ guides/kipu-optimization (2025), [Online: 14 /04/25]

    2025

  10. [19]

    Aaronson, SIAM Journal on Computing 49, STOC18 (2020)

    S. Aaronson, SIAM Journal on Computing 49, STOC18 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    D-Wave Systems, https://www.dwavesys.com/ (2025)

    2025

  12. [21]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heins- dorf, R. Harris, et al., Science 388, 199 (2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Bravyi, Quantum Info

    S. Bravyi, Quantum Info. Comput. 15, 1122–1140 (2015)

    2015

  14. [23]

    Munoz-Bauza and D

    H. Munoz-Bauza and D. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 160601 (2025)

    2025

  15. [24]

    IBM Quantum, https://quantum.ibm.com/ (2024)

    2024

  16. [25]

    Chamberland, G

    C. Chamberland, G. Zhu, T. J. Y oder, J. B. Hertzberg, and A. W. Cross, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011022 (2020)

    2020

  17. [26]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, The Journal of Physical Chem- istry A 107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  18. [27]

    M. V . Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoreti- cal 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  19. [28]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P . Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov,Physics Reports 697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  20. [29]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  21. [30]

    P . W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Hatomura and K

    T. Hatomura and K. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A 103, 012220 (2021)

    2021

  23. [32]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011032 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Hormozi, E

    L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B 95, 184416 (2017)

    2017

  25. [34]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y . Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr ´an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  26. [35]

    Kotil, E

    A. Kotil, E. Pelofske, S. Riedm ¨uller, D. J. Egger, S. Eiden- benz, T. Koch, and S. Woerner, Quantum Approximate Multi- Objective Optimization (2025), arXiv:2503.22797

    2025

  27. [36]

    N. N. Hegade, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042030 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    P . K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner, Quantum 4, 256 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    S. V . Barron, D. J. Egger, E. Pelofske, A. B ¨artschi, S. Eiden- benz, M. Lehmkuehler, and S. Woerner, Nature Computational Science 4, 865–875 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Simen, S

    A. Simen, S. V . Romero, A. G. Cadavid, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Branch-and-bound digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (2025), arXiv:2504.15367

    2025 arXiv

  31. [40]

    S. V . Romero, A. G. Cadavid, P . Nika ˇcevi´c, E. Solano, N. N. Hegade, M. A. Lopez-Ruiz, C. Girotto, M. Y amada, P . K. Bark- outsos, A. Kaushik, et al. , Protein folding with an all-to-all trapped-ion quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2506.07866

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    I. I. Cplex, International Business Machines Corporation 46, 157 (2009)

    2009

  33. [42]

    Sidon, Mathematische Annalen 106, 536–539 (1932)

    S. Sidon, Mathematische Annalen 106, 536–539 (1932)

    1932

  34. [43]

    H. G. Katzgraber, F. Hamze, Z. Zhu, A. J. Ochoa, and H. Munoz-Bauza, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031026 (2015)

    2015

  35. [44]

    For details of the calculations, simulations, proofs and miscel- laneous information, see Supplemental Material

  36. [45]

    Boothby, A

    K. Boothby, A. D. King, and J. Raymond, Zephyr Topology of D-Wave Quantum Processors , Tech. Rep. 14-1056A-A (D- Wave Systems Inc., 2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    Sequential Quantum Computing

    Ocean Developer Tools, https://docs.ocean.dwavesys. com. Supplementary Material: “Sequential Quantum Computing” Sebasti´an V . Romero ,1, 2 Alejandro Gomez Cadavid ,1, 2 Enrique Solano ,1 and Narendra N. Hegade 1, ∗ 1Kipu Quantum GmbH, Greifswalderstrasse 212, 10405 Berlin, Ge...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.