pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09616 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.ET

Recognition: no theorem link

A Hybrid Classical-Quantum Annealing Algorithm for the TSP

Siwei Hu , Victor Lopata , Salvatore Sinno , Shruthi Thuravakkath , Paolo Zuliani
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.ET
keywords Traveling Salesperson Problemquantum annealinghybrid quantum-classical algorithmsgraph contractionD-WaveNP-hard optimizationPath Integral Monte Carlo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Graph contraction reduces large TSP instances to quantum-solvable sizes while recovering the full solution classically.

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

The paper develops a hybrid classical-quantum method for the Traveling Salesperson Problem. It applies graph contraction to remove most of the problem's dimensionality and produce a smaller sub-TSP that current quantum annealers can handle. The quantum device solves the reduced instance, after which a classical step reconstructs a solution for the original graph. The technique is tested first via Path Integral Monte Carlo simulation and then on D-Wave hardware. This approach addresses the limited qubit counts and connectivity of existing quantum devices by offloading the bulk of the work to classical preprocessing.

Core claim

The central claim is that a graph contraction technique removes most of the dimensionality of a TSP instance, yielding a sub-TSP small enough for efficient solution by a quantum annealer, with the original high-quality tour recoverable through classical post-processing.

What carries the argument

Graph contraction technique that reduces the original TSP instance to a smaller subproblem while preserving enough structure for classical recovery of the full solution.

If this is right

  • TSP instances larger than those solvable by quantum hardware alone become tractable through the hybrid pipeline.
  • The approach mitigates low qubit count and limited connectivity by solving only the contracted subproblem on the quantum device.
  • Performance can be validated both in classical simulation and on real quantum annealers such as D-Wave.
  • The same contraction-plus-recovery pattern offers a template for other NP-hard combinatorial problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The contraction ratio achieved on real TSP graphs determines how far the method can scale beyond current quantum hardware limits.
  • If the recovered solutions remain competitive with pure classical heuristics, the hybrid route could serve as a practical near-term application for quantum annealing.
  • Extending the contraction to preserve additional problem features might improve solution quality without increasing the quantum subproblem size.

Load-bearing premise

Contracting the graph removes dimensionality but still permits efficient classical recovery of a high-quality solution to the original TSP instance.

What would settle it

On standard TSP benchmark instances the method returns tours whose total length is substantially worse than those produced by established classical solvers such as Concorde.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09616 by Paolo Zuliani, Salvatore Sinno, Shruthi Thuravakkath, Siwei Hu, Victor Lopata.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simplified workflow of the graph contraction process, highlighting the threshold concept. Graphs (a)-(c) depict three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms can help mitigating the physical limitations of current quantum devices, particularly the low qubit count and the reduced topological connectivity. In this paper, we propose a hybrid technique to solve a well-known NP-hard optimization problem: the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP). Our approach is based on a graph contraction technique that removes most of the dimensionality of the original problem instance, producing a sub-TSP of a size suitable to be efficiently solved by a quantum device. The performance of our approach is first demonstrated on classical quantum simulation using Path Integral Monte Carlo, and then run on a D-Wave quantum annealer.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid classical-quantum annealing algorithm for the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP). It relies on a graph contraction technique to reduce the dimensionality of the original TSP instance to a smaller sub-TSP that can be solved on limited quantum hardware, followed by classical recovery of the full solution; performance is claimed to be demonstrated first via Path Integral Monte Carlo simulation and then on a D-Wave quantum annealer.

Significance. If the contraction step reliably preserves structure allowing high-quality classical recovery, the method could offer a practical route to applying current quantum annealers to larger TSP instances by mitigating qubit-count and connectivity limits. The hybrid framing is timely for NISQ-era optimization, but the absence of any quantitative evidence prevents assessing whether the approach delivers meaningful improvement over classical heuristics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of successful demonstration on PIMC simulation and D-Wave hardware is unsupported by any numerical results, baselines, solution-quality metrics (e.g., tour length, optimality gap), error bars, or instance sizes; without these data the empirical contribution cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Introduction / Method description] The graph contraction technique (described at high level in the abstract and introduction) supplies no explicit contraction rule, edge-weight update formula, or bound on approximation loss; this directly undermines the weakest assumption that dimensionality reduction still permits efficient classical recovery of near-optimal tours for the original instance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of successful demonstration on PIMC simulation and D-Wave hardware is unsupported by any numerical results, baselines, solution-quality metrics (e.g., tour length, optimality gap), error bars, or instance sizes; without these data the empirical contribution cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to report key metrics from the PIMC and D-Wave experiments, including instance sizes, achieved tour lengths, optimality gaps relative to known optima, error bars from repeated runs, and comparisons against classical baselines. The results section already contains the underlying data and figures; the revision will highlight them in the abstract for easier evaluation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Introduction / Method description] The graph contraction technique (described at high level in the abstract and introduction) supplies no explicit contraction rule, edge-weight update formula, or bound on approximation loss; this directly undermines the weakest assumption that dimensionality reduction still permits efficient classical recovery of near-optimal tours for the original instance.

    Authors: We agree that the introduction presents the contraction technique at a high level. In the revised version we will expand the introduction to state the explicit contraction rule, the precise edge-weight update formula applied after each contraction, and a discussion of approximation loss (including any analytical bounds or empirical evidence that the classical recovery step preserves near-optimal tours for the original instance). This will make the method reproducible and directly address the concern about structure preservation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: algorithmic procedure with independent empirical validation

full rationale

The paper describes a hybrid classical-quantum algorithm relying on graph contraction to produce a smaller sub-TSP solvable on limited quantum hardware, followed by classical post-processing to recover a solution for the original instance. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional steps, or load-bearing self-citations are present that would reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The method is presented as a concrete algorithmic procedure and validated through external tests on PIMC simulation and D-Wave hardware, rendering the derivation chain self-contained against independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields minimal ledger entries; the central claim rests on an unelaborated domain assumption about contraction preserving recoverability.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Graph contraction reduces problem dimensionality while permitting classical recovery of a near-optimal original solution
    Invoked as the enabling step of the hybrid method but not justified or detailed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5405 in / 1216 out tokens · 118044 ms · 2026-05-12T04:08:34.802848+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

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, et al . 2024. Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization.Nature Reviews Physics6, 12 (2024), 718–735. doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9 2024

  2. [2]

    Muhammad AbuGhanem. 2025. IBM quantum computers: evolution, perfor- mance, and future directions.The Journal of Supercomputing81, 5 (April 2025). doi:10.1007/s11227-025-07047-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-025-07047-7 2025

  3. [3]

    Murhaf Alawir, Mohammad Anas Alatasi, Hadi Salloum, and Manuel Mazzara

    work page

  4. [4]

    InMathematical Modeling in Physical Sciences, Dimitrios Vlachos and Dimitrios Thomakos (Eds.)

    Enhanced Quantum Annealing TSP Solver (EQATS): Advancements in Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem Using D-Wave’s Quantum Annealer. InMathematical Modeling in Physical Sciences, Dimitrios Vlachos and Dimitrios Thomakos (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 281–295

    work page

  5. [5]

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. 2018. Adiabatic quantum computation. Reviews of Modern Physics90, 1 (Jan. 2018). doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.015002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.015002 2018

  6. [6]

    Applegate, Robert E

    David L. Applegate, Robert E. Bixby, Vašek Chvátal, William Cook, Daniel G. Espinoza, Marcos Goycoolea, and Keld Helsgaun. 2009. Certification of an optimal TSP tour through 85,900 cities.Operations Research Letters37, 1 (2009), 11–15. doi:10.1016/j.orl.2008.09.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.orl.2008.09.006 2009

  7. [7]

    Yuta Atobe, Masashi Tawada, and Nozomu Togawa. 2022. Hybrid Annealing Method Based on subQUBO Model Extraction With Multiple Solution Instances. IEEE Trans. Comput.71, 10 (2022), 2606–2619. doi:10.1109/TC.2021.3138629

    work page doi:10.1109/tc.2021.3138629 2022

  8. [8]

    The authors. 2026. Source code. https://github.com/pzuliani/HybridTSP- GECCO2026

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Amine Bentellis, Benedikt Poggel, and Jeanette Miriam Lorenz. 2025. Application- Driven Benchmarking of the Traveling Salesperson Problem: a Quantum Hard- ware Deep-Dive. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01. 1894–1904. doi:10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00207

    work page doi:10.1109/qce65121.2025.00207 2025

  10. [10]

    Reinhardt, and Aidan Roy

    Michael Booth, Steven P. Reinhardt, and Aidan Roy. 2017. Partitioning Opti- mization Problems for Hybrid Classical/Quantum Execution TECHNICAL RE- PORT. https://www.dwavequantum.com/media/jhlpvult/partitioning_qubos_ for_quantum_acceleration-2.pdf

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Adelina Bärligea, Benedikt Poggel, and Jeanette Miriam Lorenz. 2025. Scalability challenges in variational quantum optimization under stochastic noise.Physical Review A112, 3 (Sept. 2025). doi:10.1103/rgyh-8xw8

    work page doi:10.1103/rgyh-8xw8 2025

  12. [12]

    Costantino Carugno, Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, and Paolo Cremonesi. 2022. Evaluating the job shop scheduling problem on a D-Wave quantum annealer. Scientific Reports12 (2022), 6539. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-10169-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-10169-0 2022

  13. [13]

    Francisco Chicano, Darrell Whitley, Gabriela Ochoa, and Renato Tinós. 2024. Generalizing and Unifying Gray-Box Combinatorial Optimization Operators. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN XVIII: 18th International Conference, PPSN 2024, Hagenberg, Austria, September 14–18, 2024, Proceedings, Part I(Ha- genberg, Austria). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, H...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2024

  14. [14]

    Vicky Choi. 2010. Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II. Minor- universal graph design.Quantum Information Processing10, 3 (Oct. 2010), 343–353. doi:10.1007/s11128-010-0200-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-010-0200-3 2010

  15. [15]

    Gambardella

    Marco Dorigo and Luca M. Gambardella. 1997. Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation1, 1 (1997), 53–66. doi:10.1109/4235.585892

    work page doi:10.1109/4235.585892 1997

  16. [16]

    Richard Durstenfeld. 1964. Algorithm 235: Random permutation.Commun. ACM 7, 7 (1964), 420

    work page 1964

  17. [17]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approxi- mate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1411.4028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    1938.Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research

    Ronald Aylmer Fisher and Frank Yates. 1938.Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. Oliver and Boyd, London

    work page 1938

  19. [19]

    Merrill M. Flood. 1956. The Traveling-Salesman Problem.Operations Research4, 1 (1956), 61–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/167517

    work page 1956

  20. [20]

    Bezalel Gavish and Stephen C. Graves. 1978. The travelling salesman problem and related problems. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5363

    work page 1978

  21. [21]

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, and Yu Du. 2019. Quantum Bridge Analytics I: a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models.4OR17, 4 (2019), 335–371. doi:10.1007/s10288-019-00424-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10288-019-00424-y 2019

  22. [22]

    Aitor Gómez-Tejedor, Eneko Osaba, and Esther Villar-Rodriguez. 2026. Ad- dressing the minor-embedding problem in quantum annealing and evaluating state-of-the-art algorithm performance.Future Generation Computer Systems182 (2026), 108481. doi:10.1016/j.future.2026.108481

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2026.108481 2026

  23. [23]

    Rieffel, Davide Ven- turelli, and Rupak Biswas

    Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor G. Rieffel, Davide Ven- turelli, and Rupak Biswas. 2019. From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz.Algorithms12, 2 (2019). doi:10.3390/a12020034

    work page doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  24. [24]

    Jonathan Heins, Darrell Whitley, and Pascal Kerschke. 2025. To Repair or Not to Repair? Investigating the Importance of AB-Cycles for the State-of-the-Art TSP Heuristic EAX. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer- ence(NH Malaga Hotel, Malaga, Spain)(GECCO ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 231–239. doi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3712256.3726436 2025

  25. [25]

    Keld Helsgaun. 2000. An effective implementation of the Lin–Kernighan traveling salesman heuristic.European Journal of Operational Research126, 1 (2000), 106–

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00284-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00284-2

  27. [27]

    Gerold Jäger, Changxing Dong, Boris Goldengorin, Paul Molitor, and Dirk Richter

    work page

  28. [28]

    doi:10.1007/s10732-013-9233-y

    A backbone based TSP heuristic for large instances.Journal of Heuristics 20, 1 (2014), 107–124. doi:10.1007/s10732-013-9233-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10732-013-9233-y 2014

  29. [29]

    Siddharth Jain. 2021. Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem on the D-Wave Quantum Computer.Frontiers in PhysicsVolume 9 - 2021 (2021). doi:10.3389/ fphy.2021.760783

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Johnson and Lyle A

    David S. Johnson and Lyle A. McGeoch. 1997. The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Case Study in Local Optimization. InLocal Search in Combinatorial Optimiza- tion, Emile H. L. Aarts and Jan Karel Lenstra (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, 215–

    work page 1997

  31. [31]

    https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hutter/previous-earg/EmpAlgReadingGroup/TSP- JohMcg97.pdf

    work page

  32. [32]

    Johnson, Mohammad H

    Mark W. Johnson, Mohammad H. S. Amin, Suzanne Gildert, Trevor Lanting, Firas Hamze, Neil Dickson, Richard Harris, Andrew J. Berkley, Jan Johansson, Paul Bunyk, Eric M. Chapple, Catherine Enderud, Jeremy P. Hilton, Kaveh Karimi, Elena Ladizinsky, Nicholas Ladizinsky, Teresa Oh, Igor Perminov, Cameron Rich, Mark C. Thom, Elena Tolkacheva, Christopher J. S. ...

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10012 2011

  33. [33]

    Tadashi Kadowaki and Hidetoshi Nishimori. 1998. Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model.Phys. Rev. E58 (Nov 1998), 5355–5363. Issue 5. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevE.58.5355

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Dowling, Eungkyu Lee, and Tengfei Luo

    Seongmin Kim, Sang-Woo Ahn, In-Saeng Suh, Alexander W. Dowling, Eungkyu Lee, and Tengfei Luo. 2025. Quantum annealing for combinatorial optimization: a benchmarking study.npj Quantum Information11, 1 (2025), 77. doi:10.1038/ s41534-025-01020-1

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Scott Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi. 1983. Optimization by Simulated Annealing.Science220, 4598 (1983), 671–680. doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671

    work page doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 1983

  36. [36]

    Andrew Lucas. 2014. Ising formulations of many NP problems.Frontiers in Physics2 (2014). doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 2014

  37. [37]

    Martin and Steve W

    Olivier C. Martin and Steve W. Otto. 1996. Combining Simulated Annealing with Local Search Heuristics.Annals of Operations Research63 (1996), 57–75. doi:10.1007/BF02601639

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02601639 1996

  38. [38]

    Santoro, and Erio Tosatti

    Roman Martoňák, Giuseppe E. Santoro, and Erio Tosatti. 2002. Quantum anneal- ing by the path-integral Monte Carlo method: The two-dimensional random Ising model.Phys. Rev. B66 (Sep 2002), 094203. Issue 9. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.66.094203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.094203 2002

  39. [39]

    Santoro, and Erio Tosatti

    Roman Martoňák, Giuseppe E. Santoro, and Erio Tosatti. 2004. Quantum an- nealing of the traveling-salesman problem.Physical Review E70, 5 (Nov. 2004). doi:10.1103/physreve.70.057701

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.70.057701 2004

  40. [40]

    Catherine C. McGeoch. 2014.Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Quantum Annealing: Theory and Practice. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02518-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02518-1 2014

  41. [41]

    Venkat Padmasola, Zhaotong Li, Rupak Chatterjee, and Wesley Dyk. 2025. Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem via Different Quantum Computing Architectures. arXiv:2502.17725 [quant-ph] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17725

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum 2 (Aug. 2018), 79. doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  43. [43]

    Ozeas Quevedo de Carvalho and Darrell Whitley. 2025. Dramatically Faster Partition Crossover for the Traveling Salesman Problem. InProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(NH Malaga Hotel, Malaga, Spain)(GECCO ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 818–826. doi:10.1145/3712256.3726465

    work page doi:10.1145/3712256.3726465 2025

  44. [44]

    Gerhard Reinelt. 1991. TSPLIB—A Traveling Salesman Problem Library.ORSA Journal on Computing3, 4 (1991), 376–384. doi:10.1287/ijoc.3.4.376

    work page doi:10.1287/ijoc.3.4.376 1991

  45. [45]

    Masuo Suzuki. 1976. Relationship between d-Dimensional Quantal Spin Systems and (d+1)-Dimensional Ising Systems —Equivalence, Critical Exponents and Systematic Approximants of the Partition Function and Spin Correlations—. Progress of Theoretical Physics56, 5 (Nov. 1976), 1454–1469. doi:10.1143/PTP.56. 1454

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.56 1976