pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07627 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · math.OC· physics.atom-ph· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

A Unified Local Light-shifts Encoding For Solving Optimization Problems on a Rydberg Annealer

Kapil Goswami, Peter Schmelcher

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math.OCphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords Rydberg atomsquantum annealingQUBOcombinatorial optimizationlocal detuninglight shiftsNP-hard problems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rydberg atoms can directly encode QUBO optimization problems using local light shifts and long-range interactions.

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

The paper establishes a unified way to solve several combinatorial optimization problems by representing them in QUBO form and mapping that directly onto Rydberg atoms. The mapping uses the atoms' natural distance-dependent interactions together with tunable local detunings to build the required Hamiltonian. Once encoded, an optimized annealing protocol drives the system to its ground state, which holds the solution. A new hardness parameter lets one compare how difficult different problems are based on their energy landscapes. This reduces the resources needed compared to other quantum approaches.

Core claim

A direct mapping from the QUBO representation of problems such as two-SAT, XOR-SAT, set packing, quadratic assignment, binary clustering, and protein folding onto a Rydberg quantum annealer is shown. The encoding relies on distance-dependent long-range interactions and configurable local detuning. Solutions are obtained by applying an optimized quantum annealing schedule that varies detuning and Rabi frequency over time to reach the ground state of the target Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

Local light-shifts encoding, which combines Rydberg blockade effects with site-specific detuning to realize the quadratic and linear terms of the QUBO cost function.

If this is right

  • Multiple NP-hard problems become solvable on the same Rydberg hardware setup.
  • The encoding lowers resource overhead by avoiding extra qubits or complex gates.
  • Scalability improves for larger instances due to the natural long-range interactions.
  • A generalized hardness parameter quantifies problem difficulty for comparison.
  • Optimized annealing profiles can be adapted to each problem's structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar encodings might apply to other atomic or spin-based quantum simulators with tunable interactions.
  • Practical tests on current Rydberg arrays could identify the size limit before decoherence dominates.
  • The hardness parameter could guide selection of problems most suitable for near-term quantum devices.
  • Extending the framework to include noise models would clarify robustness for real hardware.

Load-bearing premise

That the combination of distance-dependent interactions and local detunings can represent arbitrary QUBO problems accurately enough for the annealing process to find the true ground state.

What would settle it

Simulating or running the annealing on a small instance of set packing with a known optimal solution and verifying if the measured ground state matches the expected bit configuration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07627 by Kapil Goswami, Peter Schmelcher.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Solutions to the two-SAT [panels (a)-(b)] and XOR-SAT problems [panels (c)-(d)] as defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The figure shows the optimal protocol for finding the solution of the mixed-two-XOR-SAT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Optimal protocol for solving the set packing problem (Eq. 32) where the ground state of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The quadratic assignment problem as defined by the matrices given in Eq. 33 is solved. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure shows the optimal protocol for finding the solution of a binary clustering problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The optimal protocol for finding the solution of the toy model of the protein folding problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Combinatorial optimization problems play a central role in computer science with many real world applications. A number of relevant problems remain computationally difficult to solve as they lie in the NP-hard complexity class. We present a unified framework for solving such optimization problems represented in the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formalism, namely two-SAT, XOR-SAT, mixed-two-XOR-SAT, set packing, quadratic assignment, binary clustering, and protein folding, by expanding the domain of applications of \textit{PRR, 6(2), 023031}. A direct mapping from the QUBO form of these problems onto the Rydberg quantum platform is demonstrated as our first step. This mapping to the Rydberg system depends on distance-dependent long-range interactions and configurable local detuning, thus reducing resource overhead and improving scalability. Following-up on the encoding, the solution is reached by steering the system toward the ground state of the target Hamiltonian using an optimized quantum annealing protocol that controls the time-dependent detuning and Rabi frequency profiles. The framework can handle a variety of problems, each with different complexity. To quantify the complexity of any problem, a generalized hardness parameter is introduced that compares different problems based on the structure of their optimization landscapes. This is a proceedings contribution to the Athens Workshop in Theoretical Physics: 10th Anniversary, held at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens on December 17-19 2025.

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 manuscript presents a unified framework for encoding QUBO formulations of combinatorial optimization problems—including 2-SAT, XOR-SAT, set packing, quadratic assignment, binary clustering, and protein folding—onto Rydberg atom arrays. It claims a direct mapping that exploits distance-dependent van der Waals interactions (scaling as 1/r^6) together with configurable local detunings to realize the quadratic and linear terms, followed by an optimized quantum annealing schedule that drives the system to the ground state. A generalized hardness parameter is introduced to compare problem landscapes.

Significance. If the claimed exact mapping and annealing protocol can be rigorously verified, the work would extend the applicability of Rydberg annealers to a broader set of NP-hard problems while reducing qubit overhead relative to standard penalty-based encodings. This could have practical implications for near-term quantum optimization hardware.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the mapping section: the central claim that a 'direct mapping' from arbitrary QUBO instances onto the Rydberg Hamiltonian is demonstrated is not supported by explicit equations showing how atom positions are chosen to satisfy the system of distance constraints imposed by the 1/r^6 interaction matrix for general (dense or irregular) QUBO graphs.
  2. [Annealing protocol] The annealing protocol description: no explicit time-dependent detuning and Rabi-frequency schedules, no numerical simulations, and no error analysis or success-probability bounds are supplied to confirm that the protocol reaches the true ground state of the target QUBO Hamiltonian for the listed problems.
  3. [Hardness parameter] The generalized hardness parameter: its mathematical definition, how it is computed from the optimization landscape, and concrete comparisons across the seven problem classes are not provided, leaving the claim that it 'quantifies the complexity of any problem' unsubstantiated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The citation to PRR 6(2), 023031 should include the full reference details and a brief statement of how the new encoding differs from or extends that prior work.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly indicate which problem instance and which Rydberg parameters are plotted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the scope of our claims and outlining the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the mapping section: the central claim that a 'direct mapping' from arbitrary QUBO instances onto the Rydberg Hamiltonian is demonstrated is not supported by explicit equations showing how atom positions are chosen to satisfy the system of distance constraints imposed by the 1/r^6 interaction matrix for general (dense or irregular) QUBO graphs.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting this point. Our framework demonstrates a direct mapping specifically for the QUBO formulations of the seven listed problem classes (2-SAT, XOR-SAT, mixed-two-XOR-SAT, set packing, quadratic assignment, binary clustering, and protein folding), which possess structured interaction graphs that permit explicit atom placements. It does not claim an exact mapping for completely arbitrary dense or irregular QUBO instances without further techniques such as graph embedding. In the revised manuscript, we will add explicit equations in the mapping section detailing how atom positions are selected for each problem class to match the required 1/r^6 interaction strengths, together with the role of local detunings for linear terms. This will include the distance-constraint equations and example configurations in one or two dimensions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Annealing protocol] The annealing protocol description: no explicit time-dependent detuning and Rabi-frequency schedules, no numerical simulations, and no error analysis or success-probability bounds are supplied to confirm that the protocol reaches the true ground state of the target QUBO Hamiltonian for the listed problems.

    Authors: We agree that additional detail on the annealing protocol is warranted. The revised version will specify explicit functional forms for the time-dependent detuning Δ(t) and Rabi frequency Ω(t), derived from optimized adiabatic schedules adapted to the Rydberg Hamiltonian. We will also incorporate numerical simulations for small-scale instances of each problem class (using exact methods where feasible) to illustrate convergence to the ground state, along with estimates of success probabilities and a basic error analysis under ideal conditions. These additions will provide concrete support for the protocol's validity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Hardness parameter] The generalized hardness parameter: its mathematical definition, how it is computed from the optimization landscape, and concrete comparisons across the seven problem classes are not provided, leaving the claim that it 'quantifies the complexity of any problem' unsubstantiated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting the insufficient detail here. The generalized hardness parameter is introduced as a landscape-based metric (involving the minimum spectral gap relative to the dominant interaction scale). In the revision, we will provide its precise mathematical definition, the step-by-step procedure for computing it from the QUBO coefficients or the resulting Hamiltonian spectrum, and a table of comparative values for representative instances across the seven problem classes. This will substantiate its utility in quantifying relative complexity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper claims to demonstrate a direct mapping from QUBO instances to the Rydberg Hamiltonian via distance-dependent van der Waals interactions and local detunings as its first step, then applies an optimized annealing schedule and introduces a new generalized hardness parameter based on optimization landscape structure. The reference to PRR 6(2), 023031 is used only to frame domain expansion; the manuscript presents the mappings, protocol, and hardness metric as content developed here rather than as outputs forced by the citation. No equation or claim reduces the target results to the inputs or prior work by construction, and the derivation remains self-contained against the stated Rydberg platform assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit equations or derivations, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified with certainty; the generalized hardness parameter is mentioned but its definition and independence from data fitting are not shown.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1346 out tokens · 32210 ms · 2026-05-11T02:03:51.279350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J.-D. Cho, S. Raje and M. Sarrafzadeh,IEEE Transactions on Computers47(1998) 1253

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    D. S. Hochbaum and A. Pathria,Naval Research Logistics45(1998) 615

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Perelshtein, A

    M. Perelshtein, A. Sagingalieva, K. Pinto, V. Shete, A. Pakhomchik, A. Melnikov, F. Neukart, G. Gesek, A. Melnikov and V. Vinokur,arXiv:2205.04858(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Butenko, Maximum independent set and related problems, with applications, PhD thesis (2003)

    S. Butenko, Maximum independent set and related problems, with applications, PhD thesis (2003). A Unified Local Light-shifts Encoding For Solving Optimization Problems on a Rydberg Annealer23

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Scheideler, A

    C. Scheideler, A. Richa and P. Santi, An o (log n) dominating set protocol for wireless ad-hoc networks under the physical interference model, inProceedings of the 9th ACM International Symposium on Mobile ad hoc Networking and Computing, (2008), p. 91

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Goswami, P

    K. Goswami, P. Schmelcher and R. Mukherjee,Quantum Science and Technology9 (2024) 045016

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Goswami, G

    K. Goswami, G. Anekonda Veereshi, P. Schmelcher and R. Mukherjee,Quantum Sci- ence and Technology11(2026) 015007

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    R. M. Karp, On the computational complexity of combinatorial problems (Wiley Online Library, 1975), p. 45

    work page 1975

  9. [9]

    Papadimitriou and M

    C. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis, Optimization, approximation, and complex- ity classes, inProceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, (1988), p. 229

    work page 1988

  10. [10]

    P. K. Mandal,Results in Control and Optimization13(2023) 100315

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Abbas, A

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cor- tiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreenet al.,Nature Reviews Physics6 (2024) 718

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Pirnay, V

    N. Pirnay, V. Ulitzsch, F. Wilde, J. Eisert and J.-P. Seifert,Science Advances10 (2024) eadj5170

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Goswami, P

    K. Goswami, P. Schmelcher and R. Mukherjee,arXiv:2508.13906(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Goswami, R

    K. Goswami, R. Mukherjee, H. Ott and P. Schmelcher,Physical Review Research6 (Apr 2024) 023031

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    L. A. Wolsey and G. L. Nemhauser,Integer and Combinatorial Optimization(John Wiley & Sons, 1999)

    work page 1999

  16. [16]

    J. Gu, P. W. Purdom, J. Franco and B. W. Wah,DIMACS Series in Discrete Math- ematics and Theoretical Computer Science35(1997) 19

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    D. S. Hochba,ACM SIGACT News28(1997) 40

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    Cela,The Quadratic Assignment Problem: Theory and Algorithms(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    E. Cela,The Quadratic Assignment Problem: Theory and Algorithms(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Zhang, L

    Z. Zhang, L. Liu, F. Shen, H. T. Shen and L. Shao,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence41(2018) 1774

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Compiani and E

    M. Compiani and E. Capriotti,Biochemistry52(2013) 8601

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Barahona, M

    F. Barahona, M. Gr¨ otschel, M. J¨ unger and G. Reinelt,Operations Research36(1988) 493

    work page 1988

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11538

    F. Glover, G. Kochenberger and Y. Du,arXiv:1811.11538(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Lucas,Frontiers in Physics2(2014) 5

    A. Lucas,Frontiers in Physics2(2014) 5

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    T. J. Schaefer, The complexity of satisfiability problems, inProceedings of the tenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, (1978), p. 216

    work page 1978

  25. [25]

    A. S. Fraenkel,Bulletin of Mathematical Biology55(1993) 1199

    work page 1993

  26. [26]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial problems, inComplexity of Computer Computations: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Complexity of Computer Compu- tations, eds. R. E. Miller, J. W. Thatcher and J. D. Bohlinger (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1972), Boston, MA, p. 85

    work page 1972

  27. [27]

    Irb¨ ack, L

    A. Irb¨ ack, L. Knuthson, S. Mohanty and C. Peterson,Physical Review Research4 (2022) 043013

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Ayodele, Penalty weights in qubo formulations: Permutation problems, inEuro- pean Conference on Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization (Part of EvoStar), (2022), p

    M. Ayodele, Penalty weights in qubo formulations: Permutation problems, inEuro- pean Conference on Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization (Part of EvoStar), (2022), p. 159

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    N¨ ußlein, T

    J. N¨ ußlein, T. Gabor, C. Linnhoff-Popien and S. Feld, Algorithmic qubo formula- tions for k-sat and hamiltonian cycles, inProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, (2022), p. 2240. 24Kapil Goswami and Peter Schmelcher

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno and G. E. Santoro,SciPost Physics Lecture Notes(2024) 082

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    H. Lee, J. P. Kim and S. Kim,Advanced Electronic Materials(2026) e00682

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    M. H. Devoret, A. Wallraff and J. M. Martinis,arXiv:cond-mat/0411174v1(2004)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    H¨ arter, A

    A. H¨ arter, A. Kr¨ ukow, A. Brunner and J. Hecker Denschlag,Applied Physics B114 (2014) 275

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell and J. M. Sage,Applied Physics Reviews 6(2019) 021314

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye,Nature Physics16(2020) 132

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    T. F. Gallagher,Reports on Progress in Physics51(Feb 1988) 143

    work page 1988

  37. [37]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch,Science357(2017) 995

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskaraet al.,Nature622(2023) 268

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiteret al.,Nature626(2024) 58

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Ebadi, A

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

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    M. Kim, K. Kim, J. Hwang, E.-G. Moon and J. Ahn,Nature Physics18(2022) 755

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli and R. Biswas,Algo- rithms12(2019) 34

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru- Guzik and J. L. O’brien,Nature Communications5(2014) 4213

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Bittel and M

    L. Bittel and M. Kliesch,Physical Review Letters127(2021) 120502

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Bittel, S

    L. Bittel, S. Gharibian and M. Kliesch,arXiv:2211.12519(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. Yavuz, T. Walker and M. Saffman,Nature Physics5(2009) 110

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Nguyen, J.-G

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

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori,Physical Review E58(1998) 5355

    work page 1998

  50. [50]

    Polak,Optimization: Algorithms and Consistent Approximations(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    E. Polak,Optimization: Algorithms and Consistent Approximations(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    Hasdorff,Gradient Optimization and Nonlinear Control(Wiley, 1976)

    L. Hasdorff,Gradient Optimization and Nonlinear Control(Wiley, 1976)

    work page 1976

  52. [52]

    A. R. Conn, K. Scheinberg and L. N. Vicente,Introduction to Derivative-free Opti- mization(SIAM, 2009)

    work page 2009

  53. [53]

    W. Hare, J. Nutini and S. Tesfamariam,Advances in Engineering Software59(2013) 19

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni,Nature Physics17(2021) 1324

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. Van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch and C. Gross, Nature Physics12(2016) 1095

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    Maurer, A

    C. Maurer, A. Jesacher, S. Bernet and M. Ritsch-Marte,Laser & Photonics Rev.5 (2011) 81

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys and P. Grangier,Nature Physics5(2009) 115

    work page 2009

  58. [58]

    L¨ ow, H

    R. L¨ ow, H. Weimer, J. Nipper, J. B. Balewski, B. Butscher, H. P. B¨ uchler and T. Pfau, Journal of Physics B45(2012) 113001

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    M. K. Ganai and A. Gupta,SAT-based Scalable Formal Verification Solutions (Springer, 2007)

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar and R. Babbush,Nature646(2025) 831. A Unified Local Light-shifts Encoding For Solving Optimization Problems on a Rydberg Annealer25

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Dietzfelbinger, A

    M. Dietzfelbinger, A. Goerdt, M. Mitzenmacher, A. Montanari, R. Pagh and M. Rink, Tight thresholds for cuckoo hashing via xorsat, inInternational Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages, and Programming, (2010), p. 213

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    J. King, S. Yarkoni, J. Raymond, I. Ozfidan, A. D. King, M. M. Nevisi, J. P. Hilton and C. C. McGeoch,Journal of the Physical Society of Japan88(2019) 061007

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    H. Im, F. B¨ ohm, G. Pedretti, N. Kushida, M. Noori, E. Valiante, X. Zhang, C.-W. Yang, T. Bhattacharya, X. Shenget al.,arXiv:2504.06476(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Ans´ otegui and J

    C. Ans´ otegui and J. Levy,Quantum Information Processing24(2025) 1

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    R. R. Vemuganti, Applications of set covering, set packing and set partitioning models: A survey, inHandbook of Combinatorial Optimization: Volume 1–3, (Springer, 1998) p. 573

    work page 1998

  66. [66]

    Hazan, S

    E. Hazan, S. Safra and O. Schwartz,Computational Complexity15(2006) 20

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    C. W. Commander (2005)

    work page 2005

  68. [68]

    Codognet, D

    P. Codognet, D. Diaz and S. Abreu, Quantum and digital annealing for the quadratic assignment problem, in2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), (2022), p. 1

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Pothen, Graph partitioning algorithms with applications to scientific computing, inParallel Numerical Algorithms, (Springer, 1997) p

    A. Pothen, Graph partitioning algorithms with applications to scientific computing, inParallel Numerical Algorithms, (Springer, 1997) p. 323

    work page 1997

  70. [70]

    H. Wang, M. Yao, G. Jiang, Z. Mi and X. Fu,IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems35(2023) 10121

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    A. E. Rodriguez-Fernandez, B. Gonzalez-Torres, R. Menchaca-Mendez and P. F. Stadler,Computation8(2020) 75

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    F. H. Stillinger, T. Head-Gordon and C. L. Hirshfeld,Physical Review E48(1993) 1469

    work page 1993

  73. [73]

    K. A. Dill, S. B. Ozkan, M. S. Shell and T. R. Weikl,Annual Review of Biophysics 37(2008) 289

    work page 2008

  74. [74]

    Rabitz, R

    H. Rabitz, R. de Vivie-Riedle, M. Motzkus and K. Kompa,Science288(2000) 824

    work page 2000

  75. [75]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, I.-C. Hoi, E. Jeffreyet al.,Physical Review Letters112(2014) 240504

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    J. Li, X. Yang, X. Peng and C.-P. Sun,Physical Review Letters118(2017) 150503

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    Caneva, T

    T. Caneva, T. Calarco and S. Montangero,Physical Review A84(2011) 022326

    work page 2011

  78. [78]

    Ferrie and O

    C. Ferrie and O. Moussa,Physical Review A91(2015) 052306

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    Mukherjee, F

    R. Mukherjee, F. Sauvage, H. Xie, R. L¨ ow and F. Mintert,New Journal of Physics 22(2020) 075001

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Mukherjee, H

    R. Mukherjee, H. Xie and F. Mintert,Physical Review Letters125(2020) 203603

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.