Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

EMU circulation planning for Silesian Railways: case study and a quantum approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A classical integer-programming model solves daily EMU circulation for 404-trip, 11-type regional instances in under 40 minutes; quantum and quantum-inspired QUBO solvers stall on far smaller sub-instances.

desk verdict Credible, honest applied study showing classical ILP wins on real Silesian instances; a swapped-coefficient typo in Eqs. (3a)/(18) and missing optimality gaps need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19340 v3 pith:TOCRLWRJ submitted 2025-12-22 quant-ph

Ewa Kędziera , Wojciech Gamon , Mátyás Koniorczyk , Zakaria Mzaouali , Andrea Galadíková , Krzysztof Domino This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 90C1090B3590B06 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords rollingstockcirculationelectricmultipleunitsintegerlinearprogrammingQUBOquantumannealingbicyclecapacityhypergraphflowrailwayscheduling
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 aims to establish that a practical daily rolling-stock circulation plan for a regional railway operator can be produced by a classical integer linear program on real-world instances of hundreds of train trips, and that current quantum-annealing and quantum-inspired QUBO solvers are not yet competitive, being limited to tens of trips. The model adds a bicycle-capacity constraint requested by the operator and allows pairs of identical electric multiple units to couple on preselected trips. The authors show that the QUBO reformulation explodes in the number of quadratic terms (scaling as the fifth power of trip count), which is the main bottleneck, not the number of binary variables. If true, this quantifies the current frontier of QUBO-based methods for rolling stock and supports a hybrid architecture where quantum solvers address only local subproblems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hypergraph-flow model of trips as nodes and EMU transfers as arcs, with hyper-arcs encoding the coupling of two identical EMUs into a pair (and their decoupling). Each hyper-arc carries cost and capacity attributes, and the ILP enforces trip coverage, flow continuity, depot balance, seat/bicycle capacity, and driver availability. The QUBO version converts all constraints into penalty terms with slack variables, and the paper derives worst-case scaling bounds showing QUBO term counts scale as the fifth power of trip count times the square of EMU-type count, versus a lower-order polynomial for the ILP, which explains the practical gap.

What would settle it

Compare the ILP-generated circulation plan against measured passenger counts for the same day: if any trip in the executed plan has a seat shortage greater than the allowed threshold (or bicycle shortage greater than its threshold) despite the constraint being satisfied in the model, the demand-driven capacity claim is empirically falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the empirical and analytical frontier: the integer linear programming (ILP) formulation, built on a hypergraph-flow representation of single and coupled EMU movements, solves real regional-railway instances with up to 404 train trips and 11 EMU types in at most about 40 minutes with a state-of-the-art open-source solver, while the QUBO reformulation of the same problem — solved by quantum annealing and by a physics-inspired classical QUBO solver — remains tractable only for instances up to roughly 50 trips. The analytical reason is that the QUBO's number of terms grows as the fifth power of the number of trips (and cubically in the number of EMU types), in contrast t

Load-bearing premise

The passenger and bicycle demand figures (and the allowed shortage thresholds) are taken as given reliable inputs, but the paper never explains how they were set or provides the underlying data; if those numbers are wrong, a plan that satisfies the model can still put passengers on trains without enough seats or bike space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Route planners for regional operators can use the ILP model as a fast decision-support tool for daily circulation, including rescheduling during disruptions, with runtimes of minutes rather than hours.
  • The bicycle-capacity constraint shows that demand-driven capacity requirements can be incorporated without sacrificing tractability.
  • Because QUBO term explosion rather than variable count is the bottleneck, sparsifying the problem graph via tighter transfer-time windows is the key lever for making QUBO approaches work on larger instances.
  • Current quantum annealers and quantum-inspired solvers should be positioned as local subproblem optimizers within a hybrid classical-quantum planning architecture, not as end-to-end solvers for regional networks.
  • Multi-day circulation planning can be built on top of these daily plans via column-generation-style overnight transfer variables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If demand data were replaced by measured per-trip passenger counts, the same ILP would likely produce plans that are feasible by the model but could reveal that the acceptable shortage thresholds are the real policy lever; setting them too high silently degrades service quality.
  • The paper's scaling analysis suggests a concrete research direction: design QUBO formulations with one-hot or domain-wall encodings that reduce quadratic term growth, which could shift the frontier for quantum solvers.
  • The observation that a physics-inspired classical QUBO solver finds optima on all tractable sub-instances in fractions of a second hints that, for sufficiently sparse subproblems, such solvers may already be practical workhorses.
  • The two-mode workflow (fast restricted-time-window solve, then larger-window refinement) could be generalized into an online rescheduling tool: solve a local neighborhood after a disruption with a small QUBO, and re-optimize globally with the ILP when time permits.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies daily rolling-stock circulation planning for electric multiple units (EMUs) on the Silesian Railways network, with the distinctive features of predefined EMU coupling/decoupling, passenger seat capacity, bicycle capacity, and crew availability constraints. The authors formulate an acyclic ILP over a graph/hypergraph representation, solve it with SCIP on real timetable-based instances up to 404 trips and 11 EMU types, and compare against a QUBO reformulation solved by D-Wave quantum annealing and the quantum-inspired VeloxQ solver. The central claim is that the classical ILP approach produces high-quality daily plans in at most about 40 minutes on the largest instances, while direct QUBO approaches are limited to much smaller sub-instances because of quadratic term explosion and embedding constraints. The paper also outlines a hybrid classical-quantum architecture based on these observations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful, honest empirical characterization of the current frontier of QUBO-based methods for a realistic rolling-stock problem. The ILP model itself is clearly structured, the toy example is worked out in enough detail to be checked, and the scaling analysis of QUBO term growth is valuable for practitioners considering hybrid quantum-classical approaches. The inclusion of bicycle capacity as a demand-driven constraint is a novel operational detail. However, the paper's core claims currently overreach in a few specific places: a runtime claim contradicted by its own table, an internal inconsistency in the printed flow-conservation equation, and a lack of optimality gaps for the 'high-quality' assertion. These issues are fixable but require substantive revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1, Eq. (3a), Eq. (18), Eq. (35)] The printed flow-conservation constraint is internally inconsistent with the parameter definitions. §2.1 defines k(h) as the number of EMUs that h points to and k'(h) as the number from which h originates. Conservation at a node then requires Σ_in k(h)x_h = Σ_out k'(h)x_h, not the reverse as printed in Eq. (3a). The toy equations (35) actually use the corrected form: x10 (a coupling hyperarc with k(x10)=2) enters the v1 and v2 outflow equations with coefficient 1, i.e., with k'(x10), not k(x10). The same swapped form is repeated in the QUBO penalty P2, Eq. (18). As written, the model does not enforce EMU conservation at coupling/decoupling nodes; a reader implementing Eqs. (3a)/(18) could obtain plans that create or destroy EMUs. Please correct the notation and state explicitly how k and k' are counted on each side for all three hyperarc types.
  2. [Abstract and Table 3] The central claim that ILP yields plans 'within at most about 40 minutes' is contradicted by Table 3. For instance 8a with α=0.0, the reported computation time is 4852.04s ≈ 80.9 minutes. Even ignoring the α=0.0 case, the largest reported time is 698.92s, so the claim holds only for α>0. Please qualify the claim by objective weight or report all settings, and ensure the abstract matches the data.
  3. [Section 3.2, Table 3] The 'high-quality' characterization of the ILP solutions is not quantified. Table 3 reports objective values and computation times but no optimality gaps, dual bounds, or proof of optimality. For the largest instances (7/7a/8/8a) SCIP may stop with a heuristic solution; without a gap, the reader cannot assess the quality loss. Please report final MIP gaps or otherwise substantiate 'high-quality'.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (6)-(7)] Passenger and bicycle demand inputs are load-bearing for the practical capacity constraints, but Section 3.2 only says the timetable was supplied by Koleje Śląskie. It does not describe how per-trip passenger/bicycle demand or the acceptable shortage thresholds δp_h/δb_h were obtained, and no data file is provided. Without this, the case-study claims of feasible, high-quality plans are not auditable. Please provide the data (or a representative sample) and the estimation procedure, or clearly state the demand values as assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.2, near Eq. (24)] The text says 'As in practical instances |T| is order of 10', but the instances in Table 2 have |T| up to 404. This should be 'order of 10^2' or similar.
  2. [Table 3 caption] The statement that 'heuristic limitations of the Δ parameter reduce the computational time at a relatively small cost in the objective value' is not consistently supported: for α=0.01, instance 7 (Δ=300) is slower (378.37s) than instance 8 (Δ=960, 250.28s), while for α=0.0001 and α=0.0 the reverse holds. Please rephrase the caption to reflect the mixed behavior.
  3. [Eq. (23)] The term '#crew·{t1,t2,t3,t4,...}' should be '#crew × (number of time instants)'.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says 'we report the computation time (...) together with the required number of runs to reach the optimal solution', but the figure only plots computation time; the number of runs is not shown. Please clarify what is displayed.
  5. [Section 4] The paragraph on VeloxQ contains a stray '4095' before 'A key requirement from practice...' that appears to be an editing artifact. Please remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ILP model is stated independently, the QUBO is a standard reformulation checked against exact ILP solutions, and the performance claims rest on fresh empirical runs.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. The ILP (Eqs. 1–9) is defined from timetable/hypergraph primitives with independent constraints: coverage, flow continuity, depot limits, passenger/bicycle capacity, and crew availability. The QUBO (Eqs. 15–21) is obtained from that ILP by the standard penalty/slack transformation, not by fitting to the solutions; D-Wave and VeloxQ outputs are post-filtered and validated against exact ILP solutions (Section 3.1 toy example, Section 3.2). The central claim — that the ILP remains practical up to 404 trips while direct QUBO use is limited by term growth and embedding — follows from measured SCIP runtimes, QUBO term counts, memory limits, and annealer results on the supplied Silesian timetable. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external result is assumed in order to derive the model. The self-citations to VeloxQ-related works [23–27], some co-authored, are benchmarking context for an external classical QUBO solver; they are not load-bearing for the model derivation, and the paper's own solver runs are the evidence. The operator-supplied timetable and demand figures are inputs, not outputs; their reliability is a data-quality concern, not circularity. The apparent swapped k/k' coefficients in Eq. (3a) and in P2 (Eq. 18) are a potential correctness/implementation inconsistency, but they do not make the derivation circular: the claimed results do not reduce to the model inputs by construction. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on the operator's input data, the modeling simplifications listed above, and standard ILP/QUBO transformations.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (α) = 0.01 / 0.0001 / 0.0
    Objective weighting in Eq. (1); different settings yield different plans and runtimes in Table 3.
  • delta (δ) = 5 min for practical instances (toy: 10)
    Minimum transfer time bound; chosen by hand and controls which arcs are feasible.
  • Delta (Δ) = 60, 300, 960 min depending on instance
    Maximum transfer window used as a heuristic arc-generation cutoff; Table 3 shows Δ changes runtime and objective.
  • QUBO penalties λ1..λ5 = 100 for toy; not stated for real instances
    Weights of soft constraints in Eq. (15); feasibility and quality of QUBO solutions depend on these values.
  • Allowed shortage thresholds δp_h, δb_h = not reported per trip
    Capacity slack allowed in Eqs. (6)-(7); chosen by the operator and part of the demand model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Daily acyclic planning horizon with all EMUs returning to depots
    Section 1.1 and Section 2 define one-day operations; multi-day planning is only sketched in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Coupling allowed only for pairs of identical EMU types on a predefined subset T'' of trips
    Section 2 states this limitation; if actual operations require other coupling patterns, the solutions are not directly applicable.
  • domain assumption Trips are represented by first-station departure and last-station arrival only
    Section 2 says intermediate stops are ignored to limit model size; this could hide platform or station-capacity issues at intermediate stations.
  • domain assumption Passenger and bicycle demand is a fixed input, with allowed shortage levels rather than detailed load profiles
    Section 2.1 Eqs. (6)-(7); the demand data source is not described, so capacity feasibility outside the model is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Crew feasibility is reduced to counts of suitable drivers per depot and time
    Section 2.1 Eq. (8); the authors explicitly note this is not crew rostering or scheduling.
  • standard math The low-order penalty method with sufficiently large λ represents the original constraints in the QUBO
    Standard ILP-to-QUBO transformation (Glover et al. [2]); exactness requires large enough penalties, which is not proven for the real instances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EMU circulation planning for Silesian Railways: case study and a quantum approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOCRLWRJ

@misc{pith2026251219340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EMU circulation planning for Silesian Railways: case study and a quantum approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOCRLWRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19340}
}
read the original abstract

We study daily rolling stock circulation planning for electric multiple units (EMUs) on a regional passenger network, focusing on services where identical EMUs may be coupled in pairs on selected routes. Motivated by the operational needs of the regional operator Silesian Railways in Poland, we formulate an acyclic mixed-integer linear program on a one-day horizon that incorporates depot balance constraints, demand-driven seat and bicycle capacity limits, and simple crew availability constraints. Using a graph/hyper-graph representation of train movements, we first solve an ILP formulation. We then derive a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) reformulation and evaluate its solution by quantum annealing on D-Wave Advantage systems and by the classical quantum-inspired VeloxQ solver. In computational experiments on real-world instances from the Silesian network, with up to 404 train trips and 11 EMU types, the ILP approach yields high-quality daily circulation plans within at most about 40 minutes. The quantum and quantum-inspired solvers are restricted to substantially smaller sub-instances due to the large number of terms in the QUBO and embedding limitations in the case of quantum hardware. These results quantify the present frontier of QUBO-based methods for rolling stock circulation. They can be helpful in designing a hybrid classical-quantum approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of the paper 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the three hyper-arc types: (a) coupling of two EMUs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the network structure of the optimal solution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic topology of the network, for the more de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Train diagrams of ILP solutions of the following instances 2 (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Train diagrams of ILP solutions of the following and 4 (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the D-Wave experiments. We report the computation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two D-Wave Advantage2_system1.7 solutions of the toy case: left, the ground state with objective 4.8; right, an excited state with objective value 5.6 4 Discussion We examined daily rolling stock circulation planning for EMUs under op￾erational constraints relevant to …

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Thermodynamic significance of QUBO encoding on quantum annealers

    quant-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Penalty weights in a QUBO encoding act as thermodynamic control knobs, changing both solver success and irreversibility on a quantum annealer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Caprara, L

    A. Caprara, L. Kroon, M. Monaci, M. Peeters, P. Toth, Passen- ger Railway Optimization, Elsevier, 2007, Ch. 3, p. 129–187.doi: 10.1016/s0927-0507(06)14003-7. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0507(06)14003-7

    doi:10.1016/s0927-0507(06)14003-7 2007

  2. [2]

    Glover, G

    F. Glover, G. Kochenberger, R. Hennig, Y. Du, Quantum bridge analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models, An- nals of Operations Research 314 (1) (2022) 141–183.doi:10.1007/ s10479-022-04634-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04634-2

    doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04634-2 2022

  3. [3]

    Lamorgese, C

    L. Lamorgese, C. Mannino, D. Pacciarelli, J. T. Krasemann, Train dis- patching (2018) 265–283doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72153-8_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72153-8_12 2018

  4. [4]

    H. Pan, L. Yang, Z. Liang, H. Yang, New exact algorithm for the in- tegrated train timetabling and rolling stock circulation planning prob- lem with stochastic demand, European Journal of Operational Research 316 (3) (2024) 906–929.doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.02.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2024.02.017 2024

  5. [5]

    Fioole, L

    P.-J. Fioole, L. Kroon, G. Maróti, A. Schrijver, A rolling stock cir- culation model for combining and splitting of passenger trains, Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research 174 (2) (2006) 1281–1297. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.032

    doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.032 2006

  6. [6]

    H. Zhou, J. Qi, L. Yang, J. Shi, H. Pan, Y. Gao, Joint optimization of train timetabling and rolling stock circulation planning: A novel flexible train composition mode, Transportation Research Part B: Methodolog- ical 162 (2022) 352–385.doi:10.1016/j.trb.2022.06.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trb.2022.06.007 2022

  7. [7]

    J. L. Espinosa-Aranda, R. García-Ródenas, L. Cadarso, Ángel Marín, Train scheduling and rolling stock assignment in high speed trains, Pro- cedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 160 (2014) 45–54, xI Congreso de Ingenieria del Transporte (CIT 2014).doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014. 12.115

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014 2014

  8. [8]

    Peeters, L

    M. Peeters, L. Kroon, Circulation of railway rolling stock: a branch- and-price approach, Computers & Operations Research 35 (2) (2008) 538–556.doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.03.019. 32

    doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.03.019 2008

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Wang, A. D’Ariano, J. Yin, L. Meng, T. Tang, B. Ning, Passenger demand oriented train scheduling and rolling stock circulation planning for an urban rail transit line, Transportation Research Part B: Method- ological 118 (2018) 193–227.doi:10.1016/j.trb.2018.10.006

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    N. Chai, Z. Chen, W. Zhou, Periodic and aperiodic train timetabling and rolling stock circulation planning using an efficient lagrangian re- laxation decomposition, Computers & Operations Research 180 (2025) 107062.doi:10.1016/j.cor.2025.107062

    2025

  3. [11]

    J. Niu, K. Qiao, P. Zhao, Reliability improvement of rolling stock plan- ning with maintenance requirements for high-speed railway, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 259 (2025) 110972.doi:10.1016/j.ress. 2025.110972

    2025

  4. [12]

    Y. Shen, W. Xie, J. Li, Multiobjective optimization approach for inte- grated timetabling and vehicle scheduling with uncertainty, Journal of Advanced Transportation (2020).doi:10.1155/2021/3529984

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Nishi, A

    T. Nishi, A. Ohno, M. Inuiguchi, S. Takahashi, K. Ueda, A combined column generation and heuristics for railway short-term rolling stock planning with regular inspection constraints, Computers & Operations Research 81 (2017) 14–25.doi:10.1016/j.cor.2016.11.025

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    H. Pan, L. Yang, Z. Liang, Demand-oriented integration optimization of train timetabling and rolling stock circulation planning with flex- ible train compositions: A column-generation-based approach, Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 305 (1) (2023) 184–206.doi: 10.101...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    X. Bao, Q. Zhang, H. Yin, E. Wang, Y. Xiao, Integrated optimization of demand-oriented timetabling and rolling stock circulation planning with flexible train compositions and multiple service routes on urban rail lines, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 174...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Y. Gao, J. Xia, A. D’Ariano, L. Yang, Weekly rolling stock planning in chinese high-speed rail networks, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological158(2022)295–322.doi:10.1016/j.trb.2022.02.005

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Borndörfer, T

    R. Borndörfer, T. Eßer, P. Frankenberger, A. Huck, C. Jobmann, B. Krostitz, K. Kuchenbecker, K. Mohrhagen, P. Nagl, M. Peterson, et al., Deutsche bahn schedules train rotations using hypergraph opti- mization, INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 51 (1) (2021) 42–62. doi:10.12...

    2021

  10. [18]

    J. T. Haahr, J. C. Wagenaar, L. P. Veelenturf, L. G. Kroon, A comparison of two exact methods for passenger railway rolling stock (re)scheduling, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Trans- portation Review 91 (2016) 15–32.doi:10.1016/j.tre.2016.03.019

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    W. Zhou, Y. Huang, L. Deng, J. Qin, Collaborative optimization of energy-efficient train schedule and train circulation plan for urban rail, Energy 263 (2023) 125599.doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.125599

    2023

  12. [20]

    Grozea, R

    C. Grozea, R. Hans, M. Koch, C. Riehn, A. Wolf, Optimising rolling stock planning including maintenance with constraint programming and quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07212 (2021).doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2109.07212

    2021 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    D-Wave hybrid solver service: An overview (14-1039A-B), accessed 2025-12-22 (Apr. 2022). URLhttps://www.dwavesys.com/media/4bnpi53x/14-1039a-b_ d-wave_hybrid_solver_service_an_overview.pdf

    2025

  14. [22]

    Koniorczyk, K

    M. Koniorczyk, K. Krawiec, L. Botelho, N. Bešinović, K. Domino, Solv- ing rescheduling problems in heterogeneous urban railway networks us- ing hybrid quantum–classical approach, Journal of Rail Transport Plan- ning & Management 34 (2025) 100521.doi:10.1016/j.jrtpm.2025. 100521

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Pawlowski, J

    J. Pawlowski, J. Tuziemski, P. Tarasiuk, A. Przybysz, R. Adamski, K. Hendzel, Ł. Pawela, B. Gardas, Veloxq: A fast and efficient qubo solver (2025).arXiv:2501.19221. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19221

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tuziemski, J

    J. Tuziemski, J. Pawłowski, P. Tarasiuk, Ł.. Pawela, B. Gardas, Recent quantum runtime (dis)advantages (2025).arXiv:2510.06337. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06337

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hanussek, J

    P. Hanussek, J. Pawłowski, Z. Mzaouali, B. Gardas, Solving quantum- inspired dynamics on quantum and classical annealers (2025).arXiv: 2509.03952. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03952

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Robertson, E

    R. Robertson, E. Doucet, Z. Mzaouali, K. Domino, B. Gardas, S. Deffner, Simon’s period finding on a quantum annealer (2025) 190–196doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00030. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00030

    2025

  19. [27]

    Pawlowski, P

    J. Pawlowski, P. Tarasiuk, J. Tuziemski, L. Pawela, B. Gardas, Closing the quantum-classical scaling gap in approximate optimization (2025). arXiv:2505.22514. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22514 34

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bolusani, M

    S. Bolusani, M. Besançon, K. Bestuzheva, A. Chmiela, J. Dionísio, T. Donkiewicz, J. van Doornmalen, L. Eifler, M. Ghannam, A. Gleixner, C. Graczyk, K. Halbig, I. Hedtke, A. Hoen, C. Hojny, R. van der Hulst, D. Kamp, T. Koch, K. Kofler, J. Lentz, J. Manns, G. Mexi, E. Mühmer, M...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bolusani, M

    S. Bolusani, M. Besançon, K. Bestuzheva, A. Chmiela, J. Dionísio, T. Donkiewicz, J. van Doornmalen, L. Eifler, M. Ghannam, A. Gleixner, C. Graczyk, K. Halbig, I. Hedtke, A. Hoen, C. Hojny, R. van der Hulst, D. Kamp, T. Koch, K. Kofler, J. Lentz, J. Manns, G. Mexi, E. Müh- mer,...

    2024

  22. [30]

    A. P. Punnen (Ed.), The Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Problem: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, Springer International Publishing, 2022.doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04520-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04520-2

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Albash, D

    T. Albash, D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Reviews of Modern Physics 90 (1) (2018) 015002.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90. 015002

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Oshiyama, M

    H. Oshiyama, M. Ohzeki, Benchmark of quantum-inspired heuristic solvers for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization, Scientific re- ports 12 (1) (2022) 1–10.doi:10.1038/s41598-022-06070-5

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    URLhttps://www.dwavequantum.com/media/wakjcpsf/adv2_4400q_ whitepaper-1.pdf

    D-Wave Quantum Inc., Performance gains in the d-wave advantage2 system at the 4,400-qubit scale (14-1083A-A) (2025). URLhttps://www.dwavequantum.com/media/wakjcpsf/adv2_4400q_ whitepaper-1.pdf

    2025

  26. [34]

    D-Wave Quantum Inc., D-wave announces general availability of advan- tage2 quantum computer (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Janacek, M

    J. Janacek, M. Kohani, M. Koniorczyk, P. Marton, Optimization of periodic crew schedules with application of column generation method, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 83 (2017) 165– 178.doi:10.1016/j.trc.2017.07.008. 35

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.