pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.01516 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-04 · 🪐 quant-ph

Constraint-Aware Quantum Optimization via Hamming Weight Operators

Yajie Hao , Qiming Ding , Xiao Yuan , Xiaoting Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum optimizationQAOAconstrained optimizationHamming weight operatorsportfolio optimizationjet clusteringvariational quantum algorithmsfeasible subspace
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hamming Weight Operators confine QAOA to feasible subspaces for constrained problems.

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

The paper introduces Hamming Weight Operators that keep quantum states inside the set of valid solutions during optimization. These operators replace penalty terms, so the algorithm never leaves the feasible region and the circuit stays shallower. An adaptive version selects the strongest operators on the fly, which the authors test on portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering. The results show faster convergence and higher solution quality than standard penalty QAOA while cutting gate count roughly in half. This matters because many practical tasks in finance, logistics, and physics come with hard linear constraints that penalty methods distort and that deep circuits cannot run on near-term hardware.

Core claim

Hamming Weight Operators are a new class of constraint-aware operators that restrict quantum evolution strictly to the feasible subspace. When embedded in an adaptive variational framework, they produce problem-tailored shallow circuits that satisfy every linear constraint by construction. On portfolio optimization and energy-balanced two-jet clustering, the resulting algorithm converges faster, reaches higher approximation ratios, and uses approximately half as many gates as conventional penalty-based QAOA.

What carries the argument

Hamming Weight Operators, which confine quantum evolution to the feasible subspace, together with the adaptive operator-selection routine that assembles shallow, problem-specific circuits.

If this is right

  • All linear constraints are satisfied exactly without auxiliary penalty terms or post-selection.
  • Gate counts drop by a factor of roughly two on the tested finance and physics problems.
  • Convergence occurs in fewer layers than penalty-based QAOA on the same instances.
  • The method produces higher approximation ratios while remaining hardware-efficient.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same operator family could be defined for other linear constraints such as scheduling or graph-coloring problems.
  • If the operators admit low-depth decompositions, the approach may reduce the coherence time needed for practical optimization tasks.
  • The adaptive selection idea could be combined with other variational ansatzes beyond QAOA.

Load-bearing premise

Hamming Weight Operators can be implemented with low overhead on near-term hardware and the adaptive selection rule works beyond the two benchmark problems shown.

What would settle it

Implement the adaptive Hamming Weight QAOA on a larger portfolio instance with twenty assets and check whether the approximation ratio exceeds the penalty baseline while the two-qubit gate count remains below 1.5 times that of the penalty circuit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01516 by Qiming Ding, Xiaoting Wang, Xiao Yuan, Yajie Hao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison between penalty-based and Hamming Weight Operator approaches for enforcing constraints in QAOA. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Performance comparison between AHWO-QAOA and penalty-based QAOA with penalty factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence behavior of AHWO-QAOA compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of quantum resource requirements be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Performance comparison among Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA (AHWO-QAOA), penalty-based QAOA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Constrained combinatorial optimization with strict linear constraints underpins applications in drug discovery, power grids, logistics, and finance, yet remains computationally demanding for classical algorithms, especially at large scales. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) offers a promising quantum framework, but conventional penalty-based formulations distort optimization landscapes and demand deep circuits, undermining scalability on near-term hardware. In this work, we introduce Hamming Weight Operators, a new class of constraint-aware operators that confine quantum evolution strictly within the feasible subspace. Building on this idea, we develop Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA, which dynamically selects the most effective operators to construct shallow, problem-tailored circuits. We validate our approach on benchmark tasks from both finance and high-energy physics, specifically portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering with energy balance. Across these problems, our method inherently satisfies all constraints by construction, converges faster, and achieves higher Approximation Ratios than penalty-based QAOA, while requiring roughly half as many gates. By embedding constraint-aware operators into an adaptive variational framework, our approach establishes a scalable and hardware-efficient pathway for solving practical constrained optimization problems on near-term quantum devices.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Hamming Weight Operators as a new class of constraint-aware operators for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) that confine quantum evolution strictly to the feasible subspace for problems with strict linear constraints. It develops an Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA variant that dynamically selects operators to construct shallow, problem-tailored circuits. The approach is validated on two benchmarks—portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering with energy balance—claiming to inherently satisfy all constraints by construction, converge faster, achieve higher approximation ratios than penalty-based QAOA, and require roughly half as many gates.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would provide a hardware-efficient pathway for constrained combinatorial optimization on near-term quantum devices, with potential impact on applications in finance, high-energy physics, and logistics by eliminating penalty-induced landscape distortions and reducing circuit depth. The constraint-by-construction property and adaptive framework represent a substantive technical contribution, though its broader significance hinges on generalization beyond the two specific benchmarks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and benchmark results: performance claims of higher approximation ratios, faster convergence, and ~half the gates rest on benchmark results with no reported derivations, error bars, raw data, or statistical robustness analysis, making it impossible to assess whether the observed gains are reliable or reproducible.
  2. [Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA] Adaptive operator selection procedure: no general construction, algorithm, optimality proof, or scaling analysis is supplied for how operators are dynamically chosen; the method is demonstrated only on portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering, so the hardware-efficiency and generalization claims for arbitrary linear constraints lack support.
  3. [Hamming Weight Operators] Hamming Weight Operators implementation: while the operators confine evolution to the feasible subspace by construction, the manuscript supplies no explicit circuit decompositions, gate-count derivations, or overhead analysis to substantiate the assumption of low overhead on near-term hardware.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for Hamming Weight Operators should be defined more explicitly in the main text with an example operator matrix or action on basis states.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for benchmark results should include the number of runs, optimizer settings, and exact gate counts for direct comparison with penalty-based QAOA.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We address each of the major comments point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and benchmark results: performance claims of higher approximation ratios, faster convergence, and ~half the gates rest on benchmark results with no reported derivations, error bars, raw data, or statistical robustness analysis, making it impossible to assess whether the observed gains are reliable or reproducible.

    Authors: The abstract provides a high-level summary of the results. Detailed benchmark results, including convergence plots and approximation ratio comparisons, are presented in Section 4 of the manuscript, based on numerical simulations averaged over multiple random initializations. To address the concern regarding statistical robustness, we will revise the manuscript to include error bars representing standard deviations, a description of the number of trials performed, and a brief analysis of reproducibility. Raw data and code will be made available in a public repository upon publication. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA] Adaptive operator selection procedure: no general construction, algorithm, optimality proof, or scaling analysis is supplied for how operators are dynamically chosen; the method is demonstrated only on portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering, so the hardware-efficiency and generalization claims for arbitrary linear constraints lack support.

    Authors: Section 3.2 describes the adaptive procedure as a dynamic selection mechanism that prioritizes operators based on their ability to reduce the objective while preserving the Hamming weight constraints, implemented via a cost-benefit analysis at each layer. While a formal optimality proof is not provided (as the method is a practical heuristic), we will add pseudocode for the selection algorithm and a discussion of its generalization to arbitrary linear constraints in the revised manuscript. Scaling analysis with respect to problem size will also be included to support the hardware-efficiency claims. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Hamming Weight Operators] Hamming Weight Operators implementation: while the operators confine evolution to the feasible subspace by construction, the manuscript supplies no explicit circuit decompositions, gate-count derivations, or overhead analysis to substantiate the assumption of low overhead on near-term hardware.

    Authors: We agree that explicit implementation details would better support the claims. In the revised version, we will provide circuit decompositions for the Hamming Weight Operators in an appendix, along with derivations showing that the gate count scales linearly with the number of variables and constraints. This analysis will quantify the overhead and confirm the approximately 50% reduction compared to penalty-based approaches on the tested instances. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: operators introduced independently; adaptive selection demonstrated on benchmarks without reducing to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper introduces Hamming Weight Operators as a new class that confines evolution to the feasible subspace by construction, then builds Adaptive Hamming Weight Operator QAOA on top. No equations or claims in the provided text reduce a prediction or result to a parameter fitted from the same data, nor do they rely on self-citations for load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The validation on portfolio optimization and two-jet clustering is presented as empirical demonstration rather than a derivation that loops back to its own inputs. The adaptive selection procedure is described as dynamic but not shown to be equivalent to exhaustive enumeration or prior fitted results by construction. This yields a self-contained derivation chain with no detectable circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and efficient implementability of the newly introduced Hamming Weight Operators; no explicit free parameters, standard axioms, or additional invented entities are stated in the abstract.

invented entities (1)
  • Hamming Weight Operators no independent evidence
    purpose: Confine quantum evolution strictly within the feasible subspace for linear constraints
    Newly defined class of operators introduced to replace penalty terms

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5496 in / 1011 out tokens · 17692 ms · 2026-05-16T17:43:16.636174+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Review of Variational Quantum Algorithms: Insights into Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    A literature review of VQAs covering ansatz design, classical optimization, barren plateaus, error mitigation strategies, and theoretical adaptations for fault-tolerant quantum computing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Zheng, M

    Q. Zheng, M. Yu, P. Zhu, Y. Wang, W. Luo, and P. Xu, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 67, 280311 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Heydaribeni, X

    N. Heydaribeni, X. Zhan, R. Zhang, T. Eliassi-Rad, and F. Koushanfar, Nature Machine Intelligence6, 664 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    S. Jin, Y. Huang, S. Wu, G. Zhou, C.-L. Zou, L. Sun, and X. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy68, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Peres and M

    F. Peres and M. Castelli, Applied sciences11, 6449 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Banks, J

    A. Banks, J. Vincent, and C. Anyakoha, Natural Com- puting7, 109 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Huang, S

    X. Huang, S. Zhang, and L. Li, Theoretical Computer Science981, 114255 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    L. Liu, L. Qian, X.-Y. Wu, C.-R. Fan, L.-F. Zhang, D.-B. Cai, H.-J. Lu, T.-J. Wang, and C. Wang, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

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

    Y.-X. Lin, C.-Y. Xu, and C. Wang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07924 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Facility location: concepts, models, algorithms and case studies,

    R. Z. Farahani and M. Hekmatfar, “Facility location: concepts, models, algorithms and case studies,” (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Dugoˇ sija, A

    D. Dugoˇ sija, A. Savi´ c, and Z. Maksimovi´ c, Annals of Operations Research288, 247 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    G. A. Kochenberger, F. Glover, B. Alidaee, and C. Rego, Or Spectrum26, 237 (2004)

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Z. Cui, S. Jin, A. Sone, and X. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy67, 290362 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Y. Ma, W. Wang, X. Mu, W. Cai, Z. Hua, X. Pan, D.-L. Deng, R. Wu, C.-L. Zou, L. Wang, et al., Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy68, 270311 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Nguyen, J.-G

    M.-T. Nguyen, J.-G. Liu, J. Wurtz, M. D. Lukin, S.-T. Wang, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum4, 010316 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Dlaska, K

    C. Dlaska, K. Ender, G. B. Mbeng, A. Kruckenhauser, W. Lechner, and R. van Bijnen, Physical Review Let- ters128, 120503 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    H. Yang, R. Zhang, Z. Zhang, N. Gong, Y. Jiang, Y. Jia, and T. Wang, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy68, 100311 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    H. Situ, Z. He, Y. Wang, L. Li, and S. Zheng, Informa- tion Sciences538, 193 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Z. Zong, S. Huai, T. Cai, W. Jin, Z. Zhan, Z. Zhang, K. Bu, L. Sui, Y. Fei, Y. Zheng, et al., Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy67, 240311 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Zheng, J

    M. Zheng, J. Zeng, W. Yang, P.-J. Chang, Q. Lu, B. Yan, H. Zhang, M. Wang, S. Wei, and G.-L. Long, Communications Physics8, 208 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Liang, S.-J

    J.-M. Liang, S.-J. Wei, and S.-M. Fei, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy65, 250313 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    S.-J. Wei, C. Wei, P. Lv, C. Shao, P. Gao, Z. Zhou, K. Li, T. Xin, and G.-L. Long, Science Bulletin68, 494 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    G. Yan, K. Pan, R. Wang, M. Ran, H. Chen, X. Wang, and J. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04825 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Montanaro and L

    A. Montanaro and L. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04979 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    C. Song, J. Chen, Y. Wu, Z. Yang, S. Xu, X. Ye, K. Wang, C. Zhang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, et al., (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Augmenting qaoa ansatz with multiparameter problem-independent layer,

    M. Chalupnik, H. Melo, Y. Alexeev, and A. Galda, “Augmenting qaoa ansatz with multiparameter problem-independent layer,” (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Quantum6, 635 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Y. Yu, C. Cao, C. Dewey, X.-B. Wang, N. Shannon, and R. Joynt, Physical Review Research4, 023249 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    L. Zhu, H. L. Tang, G. S. Barron, F. A. Calderon- Vargas, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033029 (2022). 10

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. Kliesch, R. Koenig, and E. Tang, Physical review letters125, 260505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas, Algorithms12, 34 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state prepara- tion,

    A. B¨ artschi and S. Eidenbenz, “Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state prepara- tion,” (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Threshold-based quantum optimization,

    J. Golden, A. B¨ artschi, D. O’Malley, and S. Eidenbenz, “Threshold-based quantum optimization,” (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    F. G. Fuchs, K. O. Lye, H. Møll Nilsen, A. J. Stasik, and G. Sartor, Algorithms15, 202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    D. J. Egger, J. Mareˇ cek, and S. Woerner, Quantum5, 479 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Physical Review Letters129, 250502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Physical Review A106, 062414 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Yoshioka, K

    T. Yoshioka, K. Sasada, Y. Nakano, and K. Fujii, Phys- ical Review Research5, 023071 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, IEEE Transactions on Quan- tum Engineering2, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Villalba-Diez, A

    J. Villalba-Diez, A. Gonz´ alez-Marcos, and J. B. Ordieres-Mer´ e, Sensors22, 244 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    M. P. Harrigan, K. J. Sung, M. Neeley, K. J. Satzinger, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, et al., Nature Physics17, 332 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review X10, 021067 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    P. Gao, K. Li, S. Wei, and G.-L. Long, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy64, 100311 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Xu, W.-F

    H.-Z. Xu, W.-F. Zhuang, Z.-A. Wang, K.-X. Huang, Y.- H. Shi, W.-G. Ma, T.-M. Li, C.-T. Chen, K. Xu, Y.-L. Feng, et al., Chinese Physics B33, 050302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Ding, Y.-M

    Q.-M. Ding, Y.-M. Huang, and X. Yuan, Physical Re- view Applied21, 034036 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Cheng, Y.-Q

    L. Cheng, Y.-Q. Chen, S.-X. Zhang, and S. Zhang, Communications Physics7, 83 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    ˇCepait˙e, N

    I. ˇCepait˙ e, N. Vaishnav, L. Zhou, and A. Montanaro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16309 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Ni, Y.-S

    X.-H. Ni, Y.-S. Wu, B.-B. Cai, W.-M. Li, S.-J. Qin, and F. Gao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19621 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A111, 052628 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Quantum supremacy through the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm

    E. Farhi and A. W. Harrow, arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.07674 (2016)

    work page arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Spin-Boson Mapping of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    S. Boulebnane, A. Khan, M. Liu, J. Larson, D. Her- man, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07929 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Shaydulin, C

    R. Shaydulin, C. Li, S. Chakrabarti, M. DeCross, D. Herman, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, P. Minssen, Y. Sun, et al., Science Advances10, eadm6761 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Montanez-Barrera and K

    J. Montanez-Barrera and K. Michielsen, npj Quantum Information11, 131 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    D´ ıez-Valle, D

    P. D´ ıez-Valle, D. Porras, and J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, Phys- ical review letters130, 050601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, Physics Reports1068, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Tsvelikhovskiy, M

    B. Tsvelikhovskiy, M. Nuyten, and B. N. Bakalov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10424 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Q. Lu, S. Wei, K. Li, P. Gao, B. Yan, M. Zheng, H. Zhang, J. Zeng, and G.-L. Long, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08869 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    X. Wang, Y. Su, and T. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12896 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Perlin, Ruslan Shaydulin, and Marco Pistoia

    S. Omanakuttan, Z. He, Z. Zhang, T. Hao, A. Babakhani, S. Boulebnane, S. Chakrabarti, D. Her- man, J. Sullivan, M. A. Perlin, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01897 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    S. Kazi, M. Larocca, M. Farinati, P. J. Coles, M. Cerezo, and R. Zeier, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05187 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    T. Li, Y. Su, Z. Yang, and S. Zhang, Physical Review Research7, 033014 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Ramezani, S

    M. Ramezani, S. Salami, M. Shokhmkar, M. Moradi, and A. Bahrampour, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18530 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Y. Song, Y. Wu, S. Qin, Q. Wen, J. B. Wang, and F. Gao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06270 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Binkowski, G

    L. Binkowski, G. Koßmann, T. Ziegler, and R. Schwon- nek, New Journal of Physics26, 073001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Penalty weights in qubo formulations: Permutation problems,

    M. Ayodele, “Penalty weights in qubo formulations: Permutation problems,” (2022)

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Brandhofer, D

    S. Brandhofer, D. Braun, V. Dehn, G. Hellstern, M. H¨ uls, Y. Ji, I. Polian, A. S. Bhatia, and T. Wellens, Quantum Information Processing22, 25 (2022)

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Verma and M

    A. Verma and M. Lewis, Discrete Optimization44, 100594 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Mirkarimi, I

    P. Mirkarimi, I. Shukla, D. C. Hoyle, R. Williams, and N. Chancellor, Physical Review Research6, 043241 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Herman, R

    D. Herman, R. Shaydulin, Y. Sun, S. Chakrabarti, S. Hu, P. Minssen, A. Rattew, R. Yalovetzky, and M. Pistoia, Communications Physics6, 219 (2023)

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    C. A. C. Coello, Computers in Industry41, 113 (2000)

    work page 2000

  72. [72]

    Willsch, D

    M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Quantum Information Processing19, 197 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Xiang, Q

    D. Xiang, Q. Jiang, L. Lu, S. Tan, and J. Yin, 2025 IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), , 275 (2025)

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    S. Guo, J. Sun, H. Qian, M. Gong, Y. Zhang, F. Chen, Y. Ye, Y. Wu, S. Cao, K. Liu, et al., Nature Physics20, 1240 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, et al., Science376, 1209 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Huang, X.-Y

    H.-L. Huang, X.-Y. Xu, C. Guo, G. Tian, S.-J. Wei, X. Sun, W.-S. Bao, and G.-L. Long, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy66, 250302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    S. Chen, J. Cotler, H.-Y. Huang, and J. Li, Nature Communications14, 6001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature communications12, 6961 (2021)

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.