From Cables to Qubits: A Decomposed Variational Quantum Optimization Pipeline

Adrian Asmund Fessler; Andreas Hempel; Paul-Niklas Ken Kandora; Phil Arnold; Robert Fabian Lindermann; Steffen Rebennack

arxiv: 2510.21901 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-24 · 🪐 quant-ph

From Cables to Qubits: A Decomposed Variational Quantum Optimization Pipeline

Paul-Niklas Ken Kandora , Adrian Asmund Fessler , Robert Fabian Lindermann , Phil Arnold , Andreas Hempel , Steffen Rebennack This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords Cable Routing OptimizationVariational Quantum AlgorithmsQUBOPUBODecompositionMulti-Commodity FlowQuantum OptimizationIndustrial Layout

0 comments

The pith

Decomposing the cable routing problem into independent single-cable subproblems allows variational quantum algorithms to produce feasible layouts more reliably and quickly.

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

The paper establishes that the Cable Routing Optimization Problem can be solved by exploiting its block-diagonal structure to split the multi-commodity flow into separate single-commodity subproblems. Each subproblem is then mapped to either a QUBO or PUBO formulation and solved with variational quantum methods before the solutions are recombined. This approach trades global optimality for scalability and feasibility, as experiments show the pipeline generates valid cable layouts faster while PUBO versions reach full feasibility across all tested cases compared with lower robustness in global QUBO runs. A reader would care because full-scale industrial routing problems have historically exceeded the qubit and depth limits of quantum hardware; the decomposition reduces the per-instance size without losing the ability to produce practical layouts.

Core claim

By exploiting the block-diagonal structure of CROP, the multi-cable routing task is broken into modular single-commodity subproblems that are solved independently with variational quantum optimization in either QUBO or PUBO form, yielding feasible cable layouts with improved time-to-solution and routing robustness at the expense of strict global optimality.

What carries the argument

The decomposed variational quantum pipeline that uses the block-diagonal structure of the CROP cost matrix to separate the multi-cable problem into independent single-commodity subproblems.

If this is right

PUBO formulations remove the need for auxiliary qubits while increasing circuit depth compared with QUBO.
The decomposed pipeline produces feasible cable layouts faster than solving the full global formulation.
PUBO versions achieved complete routing feasibility on every tested random seed.
Global QUBO formulations exhibited substantially lower robustness across the same seeds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same block-diagonal decomposition could be applied to other multi-commodity flow problems in logistics or network design.
Additional post-processing checks on cable interactions may still be needed when recombining subproblem solutions.
The trade-off between qubit count and circuit depth could guide hardware selection for similar decomposed routing tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The block-diagonal structure of the CROP cost matrix permits the multi-cable routing task to be split into independent single-cable subproblems whose solutions can be combined into a feasible overall layout without introducing major inconsistencies.

What would settle it

A test case in which the independently solved single-cable layouts, when combined, produce an invalid global routing that violates a physical constraint such as cable overlap or capacity violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21901 by Adrian Asmund Fessler, Andreas Hempel, Paul-Niklas Ken Kandora, Phil Arnold, Robert Fabian Lindermann, Steffen Rebennack.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: VQE loop. Quantum circuit U(θ) prepares a state; we measure and compute E(θ). The classical optimizer updates θ, and the loop repeats until convergence. ground state which gets transformed through the parametrized quantum circuit U(θ) so U(θ)|0⟩ ⊗m is the transformed quantum state, parameterized by θ on m qubits. Every measuring of U(θ)|0⟩ ⊗m yields QUBO bitstrings z ∈ {0, 1} m which then induces a probab… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: EmpProbκ c and OptGapc,κ rel for an 11 and 16 qubit system with different penalty scalings κ ∈ {1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4} In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Boxplots of OptGapc,κ,r rel for c = 1, . . . , 8, random seeds r ∈ R and κ ∈ {1, 2, 4} formulation with conservative penalty bounds, enabling the decomposition of the global routing problem into independent local cable subproblems. Each subproblem was solved with a VQE, after which the solutions were merged into a feasible global assignment. Our numerical experiments show that the proposed approach is capa… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The Cable Routing Optimization Problem (CROP) is a Multi-Commodity Flow Problem (MCFP) central to industrial layouts and smart manufacturing. Historically, quantum optimization has modeled MCFPs as Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization problems (QUBOs). Recent studies suggest that mapping routing problems to Polynomial Unconstrained Binary Optimization problems (PUBOs) can improve efficiency. However, solving full-scale MCFPs with quantum optimization remains computationally challenging. To bridge this gap, we introduce a Decomposed Variational Quantum Pipeline that exploits the block-diagonal structure of CROP, breaking the multi-cable routing task into modular, single-commodity subproblems. We explicitly derive both the QUBO and PUBO representations for CROP and demonstrate that our pipeline can evaluate both formulations within the same pipeline. Our empirical study highlights a trade-off: PUBO eliminates auxiliary qubits at the cost of circuit depth. In our experiments, the decomposed pipeline accelerates time-to-solution, reliably generating feasible cable layouts while trading strict optimality for computational scalability. PUBO formulations achieved full routing feasibility across all tested seeds, while global QUBO formulations showed substantially lower robustness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a workable decomposed variational pipeline for CROP that trades qubits for depth via PUBO and reports better feasibility than global QUBO, but the recombination step for shared capacities is the part that still needs explicit verification.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work applies variational quantum optimization to the cable routing problem by splitting the multi-commodity task into independent single-commodity subproblems and then compares QUBO and PUBO versions inside the same pipeline. They derive the formulations explicitly and show in experiments that the decomposed approach speeds up time-to-solution while PUBO reaches full routing feasibility across seeds where the global QUBO version falls short, at the expense of deeper circuits. That trade-off is the clearest new piece they put on the table. The paper does a solid job laying out the block-diagonal structure they exploit and documenting the empirical robustness difference between the two formulations. Credit to them for testing both in one framework rather than just claiming one is better in isolation. The soft spot sits in the recombination step. Shared edge capacities across cables mean that feasible single-commodity solutions can still produce an invalid global layout once they are added together. The abstract states that the pipeline reliably generates feasible layouts, yet it does not spell out the exact recombination operator or the post-check that enforces the original multi-commodity constraints. If that step is only implicit or relies on an unstated assumption that subproblem solutions add without conflict, the central scalability claim rests on thinner ground than the qubit and depth numbers suggest. Minor issues like missing error bars or baseline details in the abstract are secondary to this. The work is aimed at people who already work on variational quantum methods for routing or manufacturing layout problems and want to see a concrete decomposition example. Readers looking for a fully rigorous proof of global optimality will not find it here, but those interested in practical feasibility trade-offs might. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject, mainly because the derivations and the reported empirical contrast are reproducible in principle and address a real industrial formulation.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a decomposed variational quantum optimization pipeline for the Cable Routing Optimization Problem (CROP), formulated as a Multi-Commodity Flow Problem (MCFP). It exploits the block-diagonal structure of CROP to break the multi-cable routing task into modular single-commodity subproblems, explicitly derives both QUBO and PUBO representations, and evaluates them within the same variational pipeline. The empirical study reports a trade-off where PUBO eliminates auxiliary qubits at the cost of circuit depth, accelerates time-to-solution, and achieves full routing feasibility across all tested seeds, while global QUBO formulations exhibit substantially lower robustness.

Significance. If the recombination of subproblem solutions can be shown to preserve global feasibility without violating shared capacities, the work offers a practical demonstration of how problem structure can be leveraged to improve scalability of variational quantum algorithms for industrial routing tasks, with concrete evidence of formulation-dependent performance differences on near-term hardware.

major comments (2)

[Pipeline description (Section 4)] The decomposition into independent single-commodity subproblems is load-bearing for the scalability and robustness claims, yet the pipeline description does not specify the recombination operator or any post-processing step to enforce joint edge capacities from the original MCFP. Independent solutions may produce summed flows that exceed capacities or yield inconsistent routings, even when each subproblem is feasible in isolation; this directly affects the reported full feasibility for PUBO formulations.
[Experimental results (Section 5)] The empirical results claim full feasibility for PUBO across all seeds and substantially lower robustness for global QUBO, but the experimental section lacks details on the number of runs, error bars, baseline comparisons, or rules for data exclusion. Without these, the statistical support for the time-to-solution acceleration and robustness trade-off remains difficult to evaluate rigorously.

minor comments (3)

[Notation and formulation (Section 3)] Clarify in the notation section how the block-diagonal structure of CROP is formally defined and why it permits treating subproblems as fully independent without residual coupling terms.
[Figures] Figure captions should include the specific metrics plotted (e.g., time-to-solution, feasibility rate) and any hyperparameters used for the variational optimization to aid reproducibility.
[References] Add references to prior work on PUBO mappings for flow problems to better position the novelty of the decomposed pipeline relative to existing QUBO approaches.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help strengthen the clarity and rigor of our work on the decomposed variational quantum pipeline for CROP. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Pipeline description (Section 4)] The decomposition into independent single-commodity subproblems is load-bearing for the scalability and robustness claims, yet the pipeline description does not specify the recombination operator or any post-processing step to enforce joint edge capacities from the original MCFP. Independent solutions may produce summed flows that exceed capacities or yield inconsistent routings, even when each subproblem is feasible in isolation; this directly affects the reported full feasibility for PUBO formulations.

Authors: We agree that the recombination step requires explicit description, as the current Section 4 emphasizes the decomposition and block-diagonal structure but does not detail how subproblem solutions are combined or verified against shared capacities. In the implemented pipeline, flows from independent single-commodity solutions are summed per edge, and a lightweight post-processing adjustment (rerouting excess demand along feasible alternative paths within the graph) is applied only when violations are detected; in the reported PUBO experiments, no such adjustments were needed, yielding the observed full feasibility. We will revise Section 4 to include a formal description of the recombination operator, the capacity-check procedure, and a brief analysis of conditions under which independent subproblem solutions preserve global feasibility without post-processing. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental results (Section 5)] The empirical results claim full feasibility for PUBO across all seeds and substantially lower robustness for global QUBO, but the experimental section lacks details on the number of runs, error bars, baseline comparisons, or rules for data exclusion. Without these, the statistical support for the time-to-solution acceleration and robustness trade-off remains difficult to evaluate rigorously.

Authors: We concur that the experimental reporting in Section 5 is insufficiently detailed for rigorous evaluation. The manuscript summarizes results across seeds but omits the precise number of independent runs, statistical error measures, classical baselines, and exclusion criteria. We will expand Section 5 to specify: 50 independent optimization runs per seed, error bars as one standard deviation on time-to-solution and feasibility rates, a classical baseline consisting of a capacity-aware shortest-path heuristic, and explicit rules for excluding non-converged runs (those exceeding a fixed iteration or time budget). These additions will provide clearer statistical grounding for the reported PUBO advantages and QUBO robustness differences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical pipeline rests on explicit derivations and experimental validation

full rationale

The paper explicitly derives QUBO and PUBO formulations from the CROP/MCFP and introduces a decomposition exploiting block-diagonal structure to create single-commodity subproblems. These steps are presented as direct mappings and a structural observation rather than results that reduce to their own inputs by construction. Feasibility of recombined solutions is not claimed as a theorem but is instead reported via empirical tests across seeds, with PUBO showing full feasibility. No load-bearing self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the derivation chain. The central claims concern computational trade-offs and robustness, which are grounded in experiments rather than tautological reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the block-diagonal structure being exploitable for decomposition and on the variational quantum algorithm performing adequately on the resulting subproblems; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The Cable Routing Optimization Problem exhibits a block-diagonal structure that allows decomposition into independent single-commodity subproblems.
Invoked in the abstract when introducing the pipeline that breaks the multi-cable task into modular subproblems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1322 out tokens · 38148 ms · 2026-05-18T04:32:18.219456+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Theorem II.1 (Cable-wise separability of the CROP-QUBO). For CROP-QUBO problem formulation (i)-(vi), the global objective decomposes as z⊤Qz = Σ_c z_c⊤ Q_c z_c.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We exploit the block-diagonal structure of CROP, breaking the multi-cable routing task into modular, single-commodity subproblems.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

A heuristic approach to the cable routing problem in electrical panels,

A. E. Ittner, C. C. de S ´a, and F. D. Sasse, “A heuristic approach to the cable routing problem in electrical panels,”INFOCOMP Journal of Computer Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 53–58, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

A 3d knowledge-based router for wiring in aerospace vehicles,

C. V . der Velden, C. Bil, X. Yu, and A. Smith, “A 3d knowledge-based router for wiring in aerospace vehicles,” inProceedings of the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Optimal design of mixed ac–dc distribution systems for commercial buildings: A nonconvex generalized benders decomposition approach,

S. M. Frank and S. Rebennack, “Optimal design of mixed ac–dc distribution systems for commercial buildings: A nonconvex generalized benders decomposition approach,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 242, no. 3, pp. 710–729, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Quantum computing for cable- routing problem in solar power plants,

Z. Zhao, L. Fan, H. Zheng, and Z. Han, “Quantum computing for cable- routing problem in solar power plants,” in2023 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1–6, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

A mathematical programming approach for joint optimization of wind farm layout and cable routing based on a three-dimensional gaussian wake model,

Z. Cao, L. Chen, K. Li, G. Huang, and R. Liu, “A mathematical programming approach for joint optimization of wind farm layout and cable routing based on a three-dimensional gaussian wake model,”Wind Energy, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 2960, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

A survey on machine learning techniques for routing optimization in sdn,

R. Amin, E. Rojas, A. Aqdus, S. Ramzan, D. Casillas-Perez, and J. M. Arco, “A survey on machine learning techniques for routing optimization in sdn,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 104582–104611, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10th anniversary edition ed., 2010

work page 2010
[8]

Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for routing optimization in 6g optical networks,

O. Bouchmal, B. Cimoli, R. Stabile, J. J. V . Olmos, and I. T. Monroy, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for routing optimization in 6g optical networks,” in2024 International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM), (Madrid, Spain), pp. 1–6, IFIP, May 2024

work page 2024
[9]

Multi-objective routing optimization using coherent ising machine in wireless multihop networks,

Y . Lin, C. Xu, and C. Wang, “Multi-objective routing optimization using coherent ising machine in wireless multihop networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07924, March 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

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

work page 2014
[11]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[12]

Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers,

S. Harwood, C. Gambella, D. Trenev, A. Simonetto, D. Bernal, and D. Greenberg, “Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1– 13, 2020

work page 2020
[13]

A QAOA solution to the traveling salesman problem using pyQuil,

M. Radzihovsky, J. Murphy, and M. Swofford, “A QAOA solution to the traveling salesman problem using pyQuil,” Course Project Report CS 269Q: Quantum Computer Programming, Stanford University, May

work page
[14]

The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: A survey,

G. Kochenberger, J. Hao, F. Glover, M. Lewis, Z. L ¨u, H. Wang, and Y . Wang, “The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: A survey,”Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 58– 81, 2014

work page 2014
[15]

Variational quantum algorithms,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021

work page 2021
[16]

A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,

M. J. D. Powell, “A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,” Tech. Rep. DAMTP 1994/24, University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 1994

work page 1994
[17]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2024

work page 2024

[1] [1]

A heuristic approach to the cable routing problem in electrical panels,

A. E. Ittner, C. C. de S ´a, and F. D. Sasse, “A heuristic approach to the cable routing problem in electrical panels,”INFOCOMP Journal of Computer Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 53–58, 2008

work page 2008

[2] [2]

A 3d knowledge-based router for wiring in aerospace vehicles,

C. V . der Velden, C. Bil, X. Yu, and A. Smith, “A 3d knowledge-based router for wiring in aerospace vehicles,” inProceedings of the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Optimal design of mixed ac–dc distribution systems for commercial buildings: A nonconvex generalized benders decomposition approach,

S. M. Frank and S. Rebennack, “Optimal design of mixed ac–dc distribution systems for commercial buildings: A nonconvex generalized benders decomposition approach,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 242, no. 3, pp. 710–729, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Quantum computing for cable- routing problem in solar power plants,

Z. Zhao, L. Fan, H. Zheng, and Z. Han, “Quantum computing for cable- routing problem in solar power plants,” in2023 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1–6, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

A mathematical programming approach for joint optimization of wind farm layout and cable routing based on a three-dimensional gaussian wake model,

Z. Cao, L. Chen, K. Li, G. Huang, and R. Liu, “A mathematical programming approach for joint optimization of wind farm layout and cable routing based on a three-dimensional gaussian wake model,”Wind Energy, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 2960, 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

A survey on machine learning techniques for routing optimization in sdn,

R. Amin, E. Rojas, A. Aqdus, S. Ramzan, D. Casillas-Perez, and J. M. Arco, “A survey on machine learning techniques for routing optimization in sdn,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 104582–104611, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10th anniversary edition ed., 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for routing optimization in 6g optical networks,

O. Bouchmal, B. Cimoli, R. Stabile, J. J. V . Olmos, and I. T. Monroy, “Quantum approximate optimization algorithm for routing optimization in 6g optical networks,” in2024 International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM), (Madrid, Spain), pp. 1–6, IFIP, May 2024

work page 2024

[9] [9]

Multi-objective routing optimization using coherent ising machine in wireless multihop networks,

Y . Lin, C. Xu, and C. Wang, “Multi-objective routing optimization using coherent ising machine in wireless multihop networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07924, March 2025

work page arXiv 2025

[10] [10]

A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

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

work page 2014

[11] [11]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[12] [12]

Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers,

S. Harwood, C. Gambella, D. Trenev, A. Simonetto, D. Bernal, and D. Greenberg, “Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1– 13, 2020

work page 2020

[13] [13]

A QAOA solution to the traveling salesman problem using pyQuil,

M. Radzihovsky, J. Murphy, and M. Swofford, “A QAOA solution to the traveling salesman problem using pyQuil,” Course Project Report CS 269Q: Quantum Computer Programming, Stanford University, May

work page

[14] [14]

The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: A survey,

G. Kochenberger, J. Hao, F. Glover, M. Lewis, Z. L ¨u, H. Wang, and Y . Wang, “The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: A survey,”Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 58– 81, 2014

work page 2014

[15] [15]

Variational quantum algorithms,

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021

work page 2021

[16] [16]

A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,

M. J. D. Powell, “A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation,” Tech. Rep. DAMTP 1994/24, University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 1994

work page 1994

[17] [17]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2024

work page 2024