arxiv: 2605.12066 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Benchmarking and Resource Analysis for Augmented-Lagrangian Quantum Hamiltonian Descent

Zeguan Wu , Mingze Li , Muqing Zheng , Meng Wang , Junyu Liu , Samuel Stein , Ang Li , Yousu Chen

show 1 more author

Chenxu Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum Hamiltonian descentaugmented Lagrangian methodconstrained optimizationnonconvex optimizationresource estimationACOPFquantum algorithms

0 comments

The pith

Augmented Lagrangian Quantum Hamiltonian Descent converts constrained problems into sequences of unconstrained subproblems for quantum optimization.

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

The paper develops AL-QHD by placing Quantum Hamiltonian Descent inside the Augmented Lagrangian Method so that constraints are handled through a series of penalty-augmented unconstrained runs. It demonstrates the approach on standard nonconvex test functions and shows that repeated refinement can raise solution accuracy while keeping the qubit count fixed per run. The authors then construct realistic subproblems from power-network data and estimate the quantum resources required. The resulting gate counts grow steeply with problem size, leading to the conclusion that AL-QHD is a practical tool for studying constrained quantum optimization but that power-system-scale instances will need large fault-tolerant hardware.

Core claim

AL-QHD embeds QHD inside the Augmented Lagrangian Method to solve a sequence of unconstrained subproblems while enforcing constraints through penalty terms. Benchmarks on nonconvex test functions confirm that the method works and that iterative refinement improves accuracy at fixed qubit cost. Resource estimates on Texas7k-derived ACOPF instances reach approximately 4.46×10^7 entangling gates in a NISQ model and 9.42×10^8 T gates in a fault-tolerant model when roughly 530 active variables are present.

What carries the argument

Augmented Lagrangian Method applied to QHD, which turns constrained optimization into a sequence of unconstrained subproblems by adding quadratic penalty terms for violations.

If this is right

Iterative refinement can improve solution quality in AL-QHD without raising the per-run qubit requirement.
AL-QHD provides a workable route for applying QHD to other constrained nonconvex problems.
Gate counts scale steeply enough that ACOPF-scale applications will need fault-tolerant hardware.
The framework can be used to study how quantum interference and tunneling behave under constraint penalties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Hybrid penalty methods other than the Augmented Lagrangian approach might be combined with QHD to reduce the number of subproblems required.
Preconditioning or variable reduction techniques could lower the effective number of active variables and thereby cut the estimated gate counts.
Early validation on toy constrained problems whose exact solutions are known would test whether the resource models hold before larger instances are attempted.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified gate-count models and the construction of ACOPF subproblems from power-network data accurately reflect the scaling behavior of full-scale constrained optimization instances.

What would settle it

Execute AL-QHD on a small ACOPF-derived instance on a real quantum processor and compare the observed number of entangling gates or solution error against the paper's extrapolated estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12066 by Ang Li, Chenxu Liu, Junyu Liu, Meng Wang, Mingze Li, Muqing Zheng, Samuel Stein, Yousu Chen, Zeguan Wu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. AL-QHD on the nonlinearly constrained scaled Ras [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Gate count scaling for one-hot encoded QHD Hamil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the average gate counts obtained by synthesizing Rz rotations with gridsynth, using 5000 uniformly sampled random rotation angles for each required synthesis tolerance ϵ. Each data point corresponds to one ACOPF case study considered in the main text. Consistent with Ref. [63], the synthesis factor r grows approximately linearly with log(1/ϵ). We use the case-specific values of r obtained from th… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum Hamiltonian Descent (QHD) is a continuous optimization algorithm based on simulating a time-dependent quantum Hamiltonian whose potential energy encodes the objective function and whose kinetic energy promotes exploration through quantum interference and tunneling. While QHD is formulated for unconstrained optimization, many real-world optimization problems are constrained and highly nonconvex. In this paper, we benchmark AL-QHD, a hybrid framework that embeds QHD within the Augmented Lagrangian Method (ALM), thereby solving a sequence of unconstrained subproblems while using ALM to enforce constraints. We evaluate AL-QHD on standard nonconvex test functions and use iterative refinement to improve solution accuracy at fixed per-run qubit cost. We also perform a gate-based resource analysis on ACOPF-derived power system subproblems constructed from power-network data to estimate the quantum-computer scale required for practical applications. Resource estimates on Texas7k-derived ACOPF instances show steep hard-gate scaling, reaching $\sim 4.46 \times 10^7$ entangling gates in a NISQ-oriented model and $\sim 9.42 \times 10^8$ T gates in a fault-tolerant model at $\sim 5.3 \times 10^2$ active variables. These results suggest that AL-QHD is a useful framework for studying constrained nonconvex optimization with QHD, but that practical ACOPF-scale applications would likely require large-scale fault-tolerant quantum hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This benchmarks AL-QHD on ACOPF instances and gives concrete gate counts showing fault-tolerant hardware is needed, but the ALM outer iterations look under-accounted for in the totals.

read the letter

The paper applies the existing AL-QHD framework to standard nonconvex test functions and then to ACOPF subproblems built from Texas7k power network data. It reports gate counts that reach about 4.46 million entangling gates in a NISQ model and 942 million T gates in a fault-tolerant model at roughly 530 active variables, plus some iterative refinement to tighten solutions at fixed qubit cost. Those numbers are the main concrete output and they line up with the abstract claims about scaling behavior for constrained nonconvex problems. The work does a straightforward job of constructing the subproblems from real grid data and running explicit gate-count models, which makes the resource estimates at least traceable. That kind of data point is useful for people mapping quantum optimization onto power-system applications. The central limitation is the treatment of the augmented Lagrangian outer loop. The quoted totals appear to cover single subproblems, yet ALM for nonconvex ACOPF normally requires multiple iterations with updated penalties and multipliers. If those are not multiplied in, the full-solve cost is understated and the conclusion that practical instances need large fault-tolerant machines rests on an incomplete picture. The abstract and available text do not show iteration counts or how they were folded into the final figures. Methods details on error bars, data exclusion, and exact subproblem construction are also thin in what is visible, which weakens in the precise scaling slopes. This is a paper for readers already working on quantum resource estimation for constrained optimization or power-grid applications. It supplies a new data point rather than a new algorithm or proof, so it is worth referee time to check the iteration accounting and request clearer methods. I would send it out for review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Augmented-Lagrangian Quantum Hamiltonian Descent (AL-QHD) as a hybrid framework that embeds Quantum Hamiltonian Descent within the Augmented Lagrangian Method to solve constrained nonconvex optimization problems by iteratively solving unconstrained subproblems. It benchmarks AL-QHD on standard nonconvex test functions, showing that iterative refinement improves solution accuracy at fixed per-run qubit cost. The paper also performs a gate-based resource analysis on ACOPF-derived subproblems constructed from Texas7k power-network data, reporting steep scaling that reaches approximately 4.46×10^7 entangling gates in a NISQ-oriented model and 9.42×10^8 T gates in a fault-tolerant model at around 530 active variables, and concludes that practical ACOPF-scale applications would likely require large-scale fault-tolerant quantum hardware.

Significance. If the resource estimates and scaling hold after correction, the work supplies concrete, data-driven benchmarks for quantum optimization on constrained nonconvex problems using realistic power-system instances. The explicit gate-count models applied to constructed ACOPF subproblems and the dual NISQ/fault-tolerant analysis constitute a strength, offering a grounded view of hardware requirements that goes beyond abstract complexity.

major comments (1)

[Resource analysis section] Resource analysis for Texas7k-derived ACOPF instances (near the presentation of the headline numbers ∼4.46×10^7 entangling gates and ∼9.42×10^8 T gates at ∼5.3×10^2 variables): the reported totals are given for individual AL-QHD subproblems. The Augmented Lagrangian Method requires a sequence of such subproblems with updated penalty parameters and multipliers until primal/dual feasibility; for nonconvex ACOPF the outer-iteration count is typically greater than one and can increase with network size or constraint tightness. The total resource cost for a complete solve is therefore the per-subproblem figure multiplied by the iteration count, which is not included. This omission renders the scaling claim and the conclusion that practical applications require large-scale fault-tolerant hardware rest on an incomplete accounting.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states specific numerical resource claims without accompanying error bars, ranges, or details on simulation variability or data-exclusion criteria; adding these would strengthen reproducibility.
[Benchmarking section] The description of iterative refinement for improving accuracy at fixed qubit cost would benefit from an explicit algorithmic outline or pseudocode to clarify how the refinement loop interacts with the QHD simulation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address the major comment on the resource analysis below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Resource analysis section] Resource analysis for Texas7k-derived ACOPF instances (near the presentation of the headline numbers ∼4.46×10^7 entangling gates and ∼9.42×10^8 T gates at ∼5.3×10^2 variables): the reported totals are given for individual AL-QHD subproblems. The Augmented Lagrangian Method requires a sequence of such subproblems with updated penalty parameters and multipliers until primal/dual feasibility; for nonconvex ACOPF the outer-iteration count is typically greater than one and can increase with network size or constraint tightness. The total resource cost for a complete solve is therefore the per-subproblem figure multiplied by the iteration count, which is not included. This omission renders the scaling claim and the conclusion that practical applications require large-scale fault-tolerant hardware rest on an incomplete accounting.

Authors: We agree that the reported gate counts apply to individual AL-QHD subproblems and that a complete ALM solve requires multiple outer iterations whose number depends on the instance. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state that the headline figures are per-subproblem costs and will add a short discussion, supported by the iteration counts observed in our ACOPF numerical experiments, of how the total resource requirement scales with the number of ALM iterations. This clarification will strengthen rather than weaken the conclusion that practical-scale ACOPF instances will require large-scale fault-tolerant hardware. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Resource estimates computed from explicit gate-count models on data-derived instances

full rationale

The paper constructs ACOPF subproblems directly from power-network data (Texas7k instances) and applies standard gate-count models to obtain the reported entangling-gate and T-gate totals at given variable counts. No parameter is fitted to the final resource numbers and then re-labeled as a prediction; no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the scaling; and the ALM outer-loop iteration count, while potentially omitted from the headline totals, is an independent modeling choice rather than a definitional reduction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not collapse to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum gate-count models and the assumption that ACOPF subproblems are representative; no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5571 in / 1038 out tokens · 52067 ms · 2026-05-13T04:43:37.421704+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

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

QHD Hamiltonian bH(t) = a(t) bK + b(t) bV with bK = −½∇², bV = f(x); Trotter product formula U(T,0) ≈ ∏ exp(−iΔt a(tj) bK) exp(−iΔt b(tj) bV)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

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

AL-QHD workflow: outer ALM loop updating λk+1 = λk + ρk h(xk+1) and inner QHD solve of Lρ(x,λ)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

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

One-hot encoding nj,k = (I − Zj,k)/2; resource model counting entangling gates / T-gates on Texas7k ACOPF subgraphs

What do these tags mean?

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Initialize multipliersλ 0 and penalty parameterρ 0

work page
[2]

easy” logical operations and treatTgates, especially those arising from decom- posingR z rotation gates, as “hard

Fork= 0,1,2, . . . , K alm, whereK alm is the total num- ber of ALM iterations: (a) Form the augmented LagrangianL ρk(x, λk). (b) Run QHD on the unconstrained objectivex7→ Lρk(x, λk) to generate candidate solutions. (c) Select an approximate minimizerx k+1 from the QHD output. (d) Update the multipliersλ k+1 and, optionally, the penalty parameterρ k. In t...

work page
[3]

In a typical ACOPF formulation, decision variables include bus voltage magnitudesV i, voltage an- glesθ i, and generator outputs (PG,i, QG,i)

AC optimal power flow ACOPF is a fundamental nonconvex optimization problem in power systems that seeks a minimum-cost feasible steady-state operating point while enforcing non- linear AC power-flow equations and practical operating limits, including generator, voltage, and line-flow con- straints [38]. In a typical ACOPF formulation, decision variables i...

work page
[4]

The ex- tracted instances in this study range from 2 to 198 buses, and the final one-hot Hamiltonians span from 6 to 538 active variables

Problem setup: Power-system instances For this case study, we focus on connected sub- graphs extracted from the Texas7k synthetic transmis- sion grid [36, 66] For each target problem size, the scripts expand a connected neighborhood from the transmis- sion grid, build the associated ACOPF-derived symbolic model, and retain the realized number of active va...

work page
[5]

3 shows the estimated gate-level resource scaling for the ACOPF instances

Resource estimation results Fig. 3 shows the estimated gate-level resource scaling for the ACOPF instances. As discussed in Sec. IV B, we consider both NISQ-oriented and FTQC-oriented re- source analyses. In the NISQ era, the dominant cost is from the entangling gates, which grows from approx- imately 8.42×10 4 to 4.46×10 7 gates across the ex- tracted in...

work page
[6]

Load a MATPOWER case file of Texas7k synthetic grid data

work page
[7]

Select a connected subgraph of sizetarget nbuses by BFS expansion from a seed bus (typically chosen by generation capacity)

work page
[8]

Build the complex bus admittance matrixY bus for the subgraph

work page
[9]

Construct a symbolic ACOPF objective and con- straints using standard AC power flow equations

work page
[10]

Form a penalized objective by adding quadratic penal- ties for equality constraints

work page
[11]

The same general workflow could in principle be adapted to related dispatch formulations, but the concrete power- system instances reported in this paper are ACOPF- derived

Encode the resulting objective via one-hot into an Ising Hamiltonian (diagonal Pauli-Zstrings). The same general workflow could in principle be adapted to related dispatch formulations, but the concrete power- system instances reported in this paper are ACOPF- derived

work page
[12]

Abbas, A

A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen,et al., Challenges and opportu- nities in quantum optimization, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 718 (2024)

work page 2024
[13]

P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factor- ization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM review41, 303 (1999)

work page 1999
[14]

Gisin, G

N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Quan- tum cryptography, Reviews of modern physics74, 145 16 (2002)

work page 2002
[15]

A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[16]

Han and J.-H

K.-H. Han and J.-H. Kim, Quantum-inspired evolution- ary algorithm for a class of combinatorial optimization, IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation6, 580 (2002)

work page 2002
[17]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

work page 2014
[18]

Kandala, A

A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature549, 242 (2017)

work page 2017
[19]

Rebentrost, B

P. Rebentrost, B. Gupt, and T. R. Bromley, Quantum computational finance: Monte carlo pricing of financial derivatives, Physical Review A98, 022321 (2018)

work page 2018
[20]

Woerner and D

S. Woerner and D. J. Egger, Quantum risk analysis, npj Quantum Information5, 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[21]

Deutsch and R

D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa, Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 439, 553 (1992)

work page 1992
[22]

L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, inProceedings of the twenty-eighth an- nual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1996) pp. 212–219

work page 1996
[23]

P. W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: dis- crete logarithms and factoring, inProceedings 35th An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, 1994) pp. 124–134

work page 1994
[24]

Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

work page 1996
[25]

Kerenidis and A

I. Kerenidis and A. Prakash, A quantum interior point method for LPs and SDPs, ACM Transactions on Quan- tum Computing1, 1 (2020)

work page 2020
[26]

Z. Wu, P. Sampourmahani, M. Mohammadisiahroudi, and T. Terlaky, A quantum dual logarithmic barrier method for linear optimization, INFORMS Journal on Optimization (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

Apers and S

S. Apers and S. Gribling, Quantum speedups for linear programming via interior point methods, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03215 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[28]

Das and B

A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1061 (2008)

work page 2008
[29]

Tasseff, T

B. Tasseff, T. Albash, Z. Morrell, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, S. Misra, and C. Coffrin, On the emerging po- tential of quantum annealing hardware for combinatorial optimization, Journal of Heuristics30, 325–358 (2024)

work page 2024
[30]

Kim, S.-W

S. Kim, S.-W. Ahn, I.-S. Suh, A. W. Dowling, E. Lee, and T. Luo, Quantum annealing for combinatorial optimiza- tion: a benchmarking study, npj Quantum Information 11, 10.1038/s41534-025-01020-1 (2025)

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01020-1 2025
[31]

Albash and D

T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

work page 2018
[32]

Bombieri, Z

L. Bombieri, Z. Zeng, R. Tricarico, R. Lin, S. Notar- nicola, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, Quantum adiabatic optimization with rydberg arrays: Localization phenomena and encoding strategies, PRX Quantum6, 020306 (2025)

work page 2025
[33]

Zhou, S.-T

L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Phys. Rev. X10, 021067 (2020)

work page 2020
[34]

Zaborniak and U

T. Zaborniak and U. Stege, Discrete quadratic model qubo solution landscapes (2024), arXiv:2305.00568 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[35]

D. J. J. Marchand, M. Noori, A. Roberts, G. Rosen- berg, B. Woods, U. Yildiz, M. Coons, D. Devore, and P. Margl, A variable neighbourhood descent heuristic for conformational search using a quantum annealer, Scien- tific Reports9, 13708 (2019)

work page 2019
[36]

Chancellor, Domain wall encoding of discrete variables for quantum annealing and qaoa, Quantum Science and Technology4, 045004 (2019)

N. Chancellor, Domain wall encoding of discrete variables for quantum annealing and qaoa, Quantum Science and Technology4, 045004 (2019)

work page 2019
[37]

J. Leng, E. Hickman, J. Li, and X. Wu, Quantum hamil- tonian descent, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01471 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[38]

Kushnir, J

S. Kushnir, J. Leng, Y. Peng, L. Fan, and X. Wu, Qh- dopt: A software for nonlinear optimization with quan- tum hamiltonian descent, INFORMS Journal on Com- puting37, 107 (2025)

work page 2025
[39]

Markowitz, Portfolio selection, The Journal of Finance 7, 77 (1952)

H. Markowitz, Portfolio selection, The Journal of Finance 7, 77 (1952)

work page 1952
[40]

Cornu´ ejols and R

G. Cornu´ ejols and R. T¨ ut¨ unc¨ u,Optimization Methods in Finance(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

work page 2007
[41]

S. M. LaValle,Planning Algorithms(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2006)

work page 2006
[42]

J. T. Betts,Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming, 2nd ed. (SIAM, 2010)

work page 2010
[43]

M. B. Zafar, I. Valera, M. G. Rodriguez, and K. P. Gum- madi, Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classifica- tion, inProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 54 (PMLR, 2017) pp. 962–970

work page 2017
[44]

Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)58, 267 (1996)

R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)58, 267 (1996)

work page 1996
[45]

H. Xu, C. Caramanis, and S. Mannor, Robustness and regularization of support vector machines, Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research10, 1485 (2009)

work page 2009
[46]

Aravena, D

I. Aravena, D. K. Molzahn, S. Zhang, C. G. Petra, F. E. Curtis, S. Tu, A. W¨ achter, E. Wei, E. Wong, A. Gho- lami, K. Sun, X. A. Sun, S. T. Elbert, J. T. Holzer, and A. Veeramany, Recent developments in security- constrained AC optimal power flow: Overview of chal- lenge 1 in the ARPA-E grid optimization competition, Operations Research71, 1997 (2023)

work page 1997
[47]

Holzer, C

J. Holzer, C. Coffrin, C. DeMarco, R. Duthu, S. Elbert, B. Eldridge, T. Elgindy, M. Garcia, S. Greene, N. Guo, E. Hale, B. Lesieutre, T. Mak, C. McMillan, H. Mit- telmann, H. Oh, R. O’Neill, T. Overbye, B. Palmintier, R. Parker, F. Safdarian, A. Tbaileh, P. Van Henten- ryck, A. Veeramany, S. Wangen, and J. Wert,Grid Op- timization Competition Challenge 3 ...

work page 2024
[48]

S. H. Low, Convex relaxation of optimal power flow— part I: Formulations and equivalence, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems1, 15 (2014)

work page 2014
[49]

D. K. Molzahn and I. A. Hiskens, A survey of relaxations and approximations of the power flow equations, Founda- tions and Trends in Electric Energy Systems4, 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[50]

Nocedal and S

J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright,Numerical Optimization (Springer New York, NY, 2006). 17

work page 2006
[51]

K. C. Young, R. Blume-Kohout, and D. A. Lidar, Adia- batic quantum optimization with the wrong hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A88, 062314 (2013)

work page 2013
[52]

Martin-Mayor and I

V. Martin-Mayor and I. Hen, Unraveling quantum an- nealers using classical hardness, Scientific Reports5, 15324 (2015)

work page 2015
[53]

Albash, V

T. Albash, V. Martin-Mayor, and I. Hen, Analog errors in ising machines, Quantum Science and Technology4, 02LT03 (2019)

work page 2019
[54]

Pearson, A

A. Pearson, A. Mishra, I. Hen, and D. A. Lidar, Ana- log errors in quantum annealing: doom and hope, npj Quantum Information5, 107 (2019)

work page 2019
[55]

A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg, and G. B. Shebl´ e,Power Generation, Operation and Control, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2013)

work page 2013
[56]

Y. Chen, Z. Huang, S. Jin, and A. Li, Computing for power system operation and planning: Then, now, and the future, iEnergy1, 315 (2022)

work page 2022
[57]

J. Leng, J. Li, Y. Peng, and X. Wu, Expanding hardware- efficiently manipulable hilbert space via hamiltonian em- bedding, Quantum9, 1857 (2025)

work page 2025
[58]

D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficientzgates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A96, 022330 (2017)

work page 2017
[59]

The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[60]

Aaronson and D

S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A70, 052328 (2004)

work page 2004
[61]

Eastin and E

B. Eastin and E. Knill, Restrictions on transversal en- coded quantum gate sets, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 110502 (2009)

work page 2009
[62]

Bombin and M

H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Quantum mea- surements and gates by code deformation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 095302 (2009)

work page 2009
[63]

Horsman, A

D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012)

work page 2012
[64]

B. J. Brown, K. Laubscher, M. S. Kesselring, and J. R. Wootton, Poking holes and cutting corners to achieve clif- ford gates with the surface code, Phys. Rev. X7, 021029 (2017)

work page 2017
[65]

Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quan- tum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

D. Litinski, A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quan- tum Computing with Lattice Surgery, Quantum3, 128 (2019)

work page 2019
[66]

Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

D. Litinski, Magic state distillation: Not as costly as you think, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

work page 2019
[67]

Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state culti- vation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[68]

Rosenfeld, C

E. Rosenfeld, C. Gidney, G. Roberts, A. Morvan, N. Lacroix, D. Kafri, J. Marshall, M. Li, V. Sivak, D. Abanin, A. Abbas, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, G. Aigeldinger, R. Alcaraz, S. Alcaraz, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, W. Askew, N. As- trakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, H. Bates, A. Bengtsson, M. B. Karimi, A. Bilm...

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Jochym-O’Connor and R

T. Jochym-O’Connor and R. Laflamme, Using concate- nated quantum codes for universal fault-tolerant quan- tum gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 010505 (2014)

work page 2014
[70]

J. T. Anderson, G. Duclos-Cianci, and D. Poulin, Fault- tolerant conversion between the steane and reed-muller quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 080501 (2014)

work page 2014
[71]

A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction, Russian Mathematical Surveys52, 1191 18 (1997)

work page 1997
[72]

C. M. Dawson and M. A. Nielsen, The solovay-kitaev algorithm, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0505030 (2005)

work page arXiv 2005
[73]

N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free clif- ford+ t approximation of z-rotations, arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.2975 (2014)

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[74]

N. J. Ross and P. Selinger, Optimal ancilla-free clifford+t approximation of z-rotations, Quantum Info. Comput. 16, 901–953 (2016)

work page 2016
[75]

J. Liu, H. Zheng, M. Hanada, K. Setia, and D. Wu, Quan- tum power flows: From theory to practice, Quantum Ma- chine Intelligence6, 55 (2024)

work page 2024
[76]

Zheng, C

M. Zheng, C. Liu, S. Stein, X. Li, J. M¨ ulmenst¨ adt, Y. Chen, and A. Li, An early investigation of the hhl quantum linear solver for scientific applications, Algo- rithms18, 10.3390/a18080491 (2025)

work page doi:10.3390/a18080491 2025
[77]

edu/texas7k/

Texas A&M University Electric Grid Test Case Repos- itory, Texas Synthetic Grid – 6716 Buses, On- line, available:https://electricgrids.engr.tamu. edu/texas7k/. Accessed: Apr. 30, 2026

work page 2026
[78]

Y. Tu, M. Dubynskyi, M. Mohammadisiahroudi, E. Ri- ashchentceva, J. Cheng, D. Ryashchentsev, T. Terlaky, and J. Liu, Towards identifying possible fault-tolerant ad- vantage of quantum linear system algorithms in terms of space, time and energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11239 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[79]

M. Wang, C. Liu, A. Li, and A. Aniceto, Nwqec: A toolkit for fault-tolerant quantum circuit transpilation and t-count optimization (2025)

work page 2025
[80]

M. Wang, C. Liu, S. Stein, Y. Ding, P. Das, P. J. Nair, and A. Li, Optimizing ftqc programs through qec transpiler and architecture codesign, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15434 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.