pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17628 · v1 · pith:MUD6LUJXnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🪐 quant-ph · math.OC· q-fin.PM

A Penalty-Free Pipeline for Direct Quantum-Annealer Portfolio Optimization

Luis Lozano This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 12:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math.OCq-fin.PM
keywords quantum annealingportfolio optimizationQUBOcardinality constraintchain breaksD-Wavepenalty encodingpost-processing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Removing the cardinality penalty allows direct quantum-annealer portfolio optimization by sampling an objective-only QUBO and enforcing feasibility classically afterward.

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

Standard penalty-encoded QUBOs for portfolio optimization add a dense all-ones term from the cardinality constraint that completes the logical interaction graph and produces chain-break fractions of 71 to 92 percent on Pegasus and Zephyr hardware, yielding no feasible samples. The paper identifies this penalty structure, rather than hardware sparsity, as the binding limit at current scales. Formulating and sampling an objective-only QUBO from expected returns and risk-scaled covariance, then applying classical projection to enforce cardinality, reduces mean chain-break fractions per sample to at most 0.04 percent while recovering feasible portfolios whose energy matches or beats a greedy heuristic on tested betting and equity instances up to N=49.

Core claim

The cardinality penalty contributes a dense rank-one term proportional to the all-ones matrix that makes the logical interaction graph complete regardless of the covariance structure. On Pegasus and Zephyr this produces chain-break fractions reaching 83 percent at N=24 and 92 percent at N=49 with no feasible samples. Dropping the penalty entirely, building an objective-only QUBO, sampling it on D-Wave Advantage and Advantage2, and enforcing the cardinality constraint classically as post-processing drops mean chain-break fractions to at most 0.04 percent, produces lower-energy feasible portfolios than the greedy heuristic on betting at N=39 and 48, and keeps equity post-processed regret at or

What carries the argument

Objective-only QUBO sampled directly on the annealer, followed by classical cardinality projection that replaces the dense penalty term.

If this is right

  • Chain-break fractions per sample fall from the 71-92 percent range to at most 0.04 percent on D-Wave Advantage and Advantage2 for equities up to N=49 and betting up to N=48.
  • The QPU returns lower-energy feasible portfolios than the greedy heuristic on betting instances at N=39 and N=48.
  • Equity post-processed regret stays at most 0.03 percent at all tested scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • For other cardinality-constrained combinatorial problems the same penalty-free sampling plus classical projection may outperform topology-aware sparsification.
  • Hybrid quantum-classical pipelines that treat post-processing as first-class rather than auxiliary could become the practical route on near-term annealers even as connectivity improves.
  • The result implies that penalty design choices can dominate embedding and topology considerations in current direct QPU optimization.

Load-bearing premise

Samples drawn from the unconstrained objective-only QUBO still contain high-quality feasible portfolios that a classical projector can recover efficiently.

What would settle it

If the low-energy samples from the objective-only QUBO on a given instance contain no portfolios whose projected feasible versions achieve objective values competitive with known classical solutions, the post-processing recovery step would fail to produce usable results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17628 by Luis Lozano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Penalty-dilution mechanism. Left: the original covariance graph may be sparse (few [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Settlement graph versus penalty-encoded QUBO for a 3-match betting slate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Three-stage direct-QPU pipeline for penalty-encoded portfolio QUBOs: sparsification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Raw QPU sample cardinality collapse under penalty encoding. Left: target cardinality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean chain length versus problem size for dense and best-sparse (top- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QPU vs. projector ablation. Random projection (mean) degrades with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Logical edge counts after sparsification for equity and betting instances. The dense [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Objective regret vs. qubit overhead ratio. Lower-left is better. Domain-prior methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Physical qubit count and mean chain length on Pegasus vs. Zephyr for the same logical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qubit overhead ratio and mean chain length as a function of logical graph density. All [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average pairwise support Jaccard overlap between sparsifiers across runs and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Out-of-sample validation summary. Left: equity realized Sharpe ratio by method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Standard penalty-encoded pipeline (top) versus penalty-free pipeline (bottom). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Head-to-head comparison of chain-break fractions: penalized pipeline (red) versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Direct quantum-annealer portfolio optimization is commonly formulated as a penalty-encoded QUBO and submitted to D-Wave hardware. We show that this standard formulation fails on current devices and identify the structural reason: the cardinality penalty contributes a dense rank-one term proportional to the all-ones matrix that makes the logical interaction graph complete regardless of the covariance structure. On Pegasus and Zephyr, chain-break fractions reach 83 percent at N equal to 24 and 92 percent at N equal to 49, producing no feasible samples. Attempting to fix this through topology-aware sparsification reveals a second problem: any sparsifier that removes off-diagonal entries also dilutes the cardinality constraint, so raw samples remain infeasible even when chains no longer break, and an ablation shows that for structurally favorable cases such as betting with settlement-graph priors the classical feasibility projector alone explains the result rather than the QPU. We propose dropping the penalty entirely: build an objective-only QUBO from the expected returns and the risk-scaled covariance, sample it on hardware, and enforce the cardinality constraint classically as a post-processing step. On D-Wave Advantage and Advantage2 for equities up to N equal to 49 and betting up to N equal to 48, mean chain-break fractions per sample averaged over reads drop from the range of 71 to 92 percent down to at most 0.04 percent. The QPU returns lower-energy feasible portfolios than the greedy heuristic on betting at N equal to 39 and 48, which is an energy comparison and not a proof of optimality, and the equity post-processed regret is at most 0.03 percent at all tested scales. These results establish that the penalty encoding, not the sparse hardware topology, is the binding constraint for direct QPU portfolio optimization at currently accessible scales.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that penalty-encoded QUBO formulations for cardinality-constrained portfolio optimization introduce a dense rank-one all-ones interaction that causes high chain-break fractions (71-92%) on D-Wave Pegasus/Zephyr hardware, yielding no feasible samples. It proposes a penalty-free pipeline that samples an objective-only QUBO (expected returns plus risk-scaled covariance) directly on the QPU and enforces the cardinality constraint K via classical post-processing projection. On equities (N≤49) and betting (N≤48), this reduces mean chain-break fractions to ≤0.04%, produces ≤0.03% equity regret, and yields lower-energy feasible solutions than a greedy heuristic on betting instances at N=39 and 48. The central conclusion is that the penalty term, rather than sparse hardware topology, is the binding constraint for direct QPU portfolio optimization at current scales.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the work provides concrete hardware evidence that removing the cardinality penalty enables feasible sampling on current annealers and that hybrid quantum-classical post-processing can recover competitive portfolios. The reported drop in chain breaks from 71-92% to 0.04% and the energy comparisons on real D-Wave Advantage/Advantage2 devices constitute useful empirical data for the field. The identification of the structural origin of the dense logical graph is a clear contribution, though the broader claim that this pipeline is generally effective rests on the unproven assumption that objective-only samples overlap sufficiently with high-quality feasible regions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: The central claim that the cardinality penalty produces a dense rank-one term proportional to the all-ones matrix (making the logical graph complete) is load-bearing. The manuscript should explicitly display the QUBO matrix decomposition or derive the rank-one update to confirm that this term dominates irrespective of the covariance structure.
  2. [§5 (ablation)] §5 (ablation): The ablation shows that for betting instances the classical projector alone explains performance. This directly undermines the claim that the QPU sampling step contributes meaningfully for equities; without a parallel ablation or isolation experiment (e.g., comparing projector output on random vs. QPU samples) the evidence that the penalty-free QUBO is responsible for the ≤0.03% regret is incomplete.
  3. [Results section] Results section: The weakest assumption—that unconstrained objective-only samples contain high-quality feasible portfolios recoverable by the projector—is tested only on the reported equity and betting instances. The manuscript should include at least one counter-example instance where covariance eigenvalues or return vectors strongly bias toward extreme sparsity/density, to test whether the projector still recovers competitive solutions when the feasible manifold lies far from the objective minima.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methods] The post-processing projector is referenced but never given pseudocode or a precise algorithmic description, hindering reproducibility.
  2. [Results] Chain-break fractions and regret values are reported without error bars or standard deviations across reads or random seeds.
  3. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for energy-comparison plots should explicitly distinguish QPU+projector from pure classical baselines.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment point-by-point below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: The central claim that the cardinality penalty produces a dense rank-one term proportional to the all-ones matrix (making the logical graph complete) is load-bearing. The manuscript should explicitly display the QUBO matrix decomposition or derive the rank-one update to confirm that this term dominates irrespective of the covariance structure.

    Authors: We agree this clarification will improve the manuscript. The penalty term is of the form λ (1^T x - K)^2. Expanding for binary x yields a constant, a linear term, and a quadratic term λ 1 1^T (plus diagonal adjustments from x_i^2 = x_i). This rank-one all-ones update is added to the objective QUBO independently of the covariance matrix and therefore renders the logical graph dense for any covariance structure. We will insert the explicit matrix decomposition and derivation in the revised §3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5 (ablation)] §5 (ablation): The ablation shows that for betting instances the classical projector alone explains performance. This directly undermines the claim that the QPU sampling step contributes meaningfully for equities; without a parallel ablation or isolation experiment (e.g., comparing projector output on random vs. QPU samples) the evidence that the penalty-free QUBO is responsible for the ≤0.03% regret is incomplete.

    Authors: The betting instances possess strong settlement-graph priors that make even random samples project to competitive feasible solutions. Equity instances lack such priors; the objective-only QUBO samples concentrate near low-risk, high-return regions that the projector then maps to feasible portfolios with ≤0.03 % regret. To isolate the QPU contribution we will add, in the revised manuscript, a direct comparison of post-processed regret obtained from QPU samples versus uniformly random binary vectors on the same equity instances, confirming that the QPU samples yield measurably better results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results section] Results section: The weakest assumption—that unconstrained objective-only samples contain high-quality feasible portfolios recoverable by the projector—is tested only on the reported equity and betting instances. The manuscript should include at least one counter-example instance where covariance eigenvalues or return vectors strongly bias toward extreme sparsity/density, to test whether the projector still recovers competitive solutions when the feasible manifold lies far from the objective minima.

    Authors: We acknowledge that robustness under deliberately biased covariance structures would be informative. However, the paper’s scope is to demonstrate the structural failure of penalty encodings and the practical viability of the penalty-free pipeline on standard, realistic financial instances up to N=49. Constructing artificial counter-examples with extreme eigenvalue biases would move outside the domain of practical portfolio optimization, where objectives are calibrated to produce solutions near the target cardinality. We will add a limitations paragraph discussing the scope of the overlap assumption while preserving the central empirical claim that the penalty term, not hardware sparsity, is the dominant obstacle on current devices. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical hardware results and heuristic comparisons stand independently.

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on direct measurements of chain-break fractions, energy values, and post-processed regret on D-Wave hardware for objective-only QUBOs, plus comparisons to a greedy heuristic. These are external benchmarks rather than reductions to fitted parameters or self-citations. The abstract and described pipeline contain no self-definitional equations, uniqueness theorems imported from prior work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation. The post-processing step is presented as a classical recovery method whose effectiveness is tested empirically on the reported instances, not assumed by construction. This is a standard self-contained experimental result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach assumes the standard mean-variance objective and relies on empirical hardware behavior rather than new parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mean-variance formulation captures the essential trade-off for the portfolio instances considered.
    Invoked when the objective-only QUBO is built from expected returns and risk-scaled covariance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5860 in / 1275 out tokens · 73552 ms · 2026-05-20T12:16:23.958297+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrist, Grant Salton, Martin J

    Atithi Acharya, Romina Yalovetzky, Pierre Minssen, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Ruslan Shaydulin, Rudy Raymond, Yue Sun, Dylan Herman, Ruben S. Andrist, Grant Salton, Martin J. A. Schuetz, Helmut G. Katzgraber, and Marco Pistoia. Decomposition pipeline for large-scale portfolio optimization with applications to near-term quantum computing. Physical Review Resea...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.023142 2025

  2. [2]

    Bailey and Marcos L\'opez de Prado

    David H. Bailey and Marcos L\'opez de Prado. The S harpe ratio efficient frontier. Journal of Risk, 15 0 (2): 0 3--44, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Bailey and Marcos L\'opez de Prado

    David H. Bailey and Marcos L\'opez de Prado. The deflated S harpe ratio: correcting for selection bias, backtest overfitting and non-normality. Journal of Portfolio Management, 40 0 (5): 0 94--107, 2014. doi:10.3905/jpm.2014.40.5.094

    work page doi:10.3905/jpm.2014.40.5.094 2014

  4. [4]

    Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices

    Giuseppe Buonaiuto, Francesco Gargiulo, Giuseppe De Pietro, Massimo Esposito, and Marco Pota. Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices. Scientific Reports, 13: 0 19434, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45392-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45392-w 2023

  5. [5]

    Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I

    Vicky Choi. Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I . T he parameter setting problem. Quantum Information Processing, 7 0 (5): 0 193--209, 2008. doi:10.1007/s11128-008-0082-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-008-0082-9 2008

  6. [6]

    Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II

    Vicky Choi. Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: II . M inor-universal graph design. Quantum Information Processing, 10 0 (3): 0 343--353, 2011. doi:10.1007/s11128-010-0200-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-010-0200-3 2011

  7. [7]

    Operation and timing, 2025 a

    D-Wave Systems . Operation and timing, 2025 a . URL https://docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/quantum_research/operation_timing.html. Accessed March 31, 2026

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    QPU topologies, 2025 b

    D-Wave Systems . QPU topologies, 2025 b . URL https://docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/quantum_research/topologies.html. Accessed March 31, 2026

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Historical football results and odds data, 2025

    Football-Data.co.uk . Historical football results and odds data, 2025. URL https://www.football-data.co.uk/. Accessed March 31, 2026

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Kenneth R. French. 49 industry portfolios, 2026. URL https://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/det_49_ind_port.html. Accessed March 31, 2026

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Quantum bridge analytics I : a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics I : a tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models. 4OR -- A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 17 0 (4): 0 335--371, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10288-019-00424-y

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

  12. [12]

    Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E. Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102 0 (477): 0 359--378, 2007. doi:10.1198/016214506000001437

    work page doi:10.1198/016214506000001437 2007

  13. [13]

    Elijah Grant and Travis S. Humble. Benchmarking embedded chain breaking in quantum annealing. Quantum Science and Technology, 7 0 (2): 0 025029, 2022. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac26d2

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ac26d2 2022

  14. [14]

    Humble, and Benjamin Stump

    Elijah Grant, Travis S. Humble, and Benjamin Stump. Benchmarking quantum annealing controls with portfolio optimization. Physical Review Applied, 15: 0 014012, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.014012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.014012 2021

  15. [15]

    Quantum computing for finance

    Dylan Herman, Cody Googin, Xiaoyuan Liu, Yue Sun, Alexey Galda, Ilya Safro, Marco Pistoia, and Yuri Alexeev. Quantum computing for finance. Nature Reviews Physics, 5 0 (8): 0 450--465, 2023. doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1 2023

  16. [16]

    Kelly, Jr

    John L. Kelly, Jr. A new interpretation of information rate. The Bell System Technical Journal, 35 0 (4): 0 917--926, 1956

    work page 1956

  17. [17]

    Strategic portfolio optimization using simulated, digital, and quantum annealing

    Jonas Lang, Sebastian Zielinski, and Sebastian Feld. Strategic portfolio optimization using simulated, digital, and quantum annealing. Applied Sciences, 12 0 (23): 0 12288, 2022. doi:10.3390/app122312288

    work page doi:10.3390/app122312288 2022

  18. [18]

    Andrew W. Lo. The statistics of S harpe ratios. Financial Analysts Journal, 58 0 (4): 0 36--52, 2002. doi:10.2469/faj.v58.n4.2453

    work page doi:10.2469/faj.v58.n4.2453 2002

  19. [19]

    Constraint-native vs penalty-encoded formulations for d-wave portfolio selection with turnover costs

    Luis Lozano. Constraint-native vs penalty-encoded formulations for d-wave portfolio selection with turnover costs. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 2026. Submitted

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Frontiers in Physics 2, 5 (2014)

    Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in Physics, 2: 0 5, 2014. doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 2014

  21. [21]

    Portfolio selection

    Harry Markowitz. Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7 0 (1): 0 77--91, 1952. doi:10.2307/2975974

    work page doi:10.2307/2975974 1952

  22. [22]

    Dynamic portfolio optimization with real datasets using quantum processors and quantum-inspired tensor networks

    Samuel Mugel, Carlos Kuchkovsky, Escol\'astico S\'anchez, Samuel Fern\'andez-Lorenzo, Jorge Luis-Hita, Enrique Lizaso, and Rom\'an Or\'us. Dynamic portfolio optimization with real datasets using quantum processors and quantum-inspired tensor networks. Physical Review Research, 4: 0 013006, 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.013006 2022

  23. [23]

    Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects

    Rom\'an Or\'us, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. Reviews in Physics, 4: 0 100028, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028 2019

  24. [24]

    Comparing three generations of D-Wave quantum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial optimization problems

    Elijah Pelofske. Comparing three generations of D-Wave quantum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial optimization problems. Quantum Science and Technology, 10 0 (2): 0 025025, 2025. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ada1e7

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ada1e7 2025

  25. [25]

    Solving the optimal trading trajectory problem using a quantum annealer

    Gili Rosenberg, Poya Haghnegahdar, Phil Goddard, Peter Carr, Kesheng Wu, and Marcos L\'opez de Prado. Solving the optimal trading trajectory problem using a quantum annealer. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 10 0 (6): 0 1053--1060, 2016. doi:10.1109/JSTSP.2016.2574703

    work page doi:10.1109/jstsp.2016.2574703 2016

  26. [26]

    Oberreuter, Riccardo Aiolfi, Luca Asproni, Branislav Roman, and J \"u rgen Schiefer

    Wolfgang Sakuler, Johannes M. Oberreuter, Riccardo Aiolfi, Luca Asproni, Branislav Roman, and J \"u rgen Schiefer. A real-world test of portfolio optimization with quantum annealing. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 7: 0 43, 2025. doi:10.1007/s42484-025-00268-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-025-00268-2 2025

  27. [27]

    William F. Sharpe. Mutual fund performance. The Journal of Business, 39 0 (1): 0 119--138, 1966

    work page 1966

  28. [28]

    Quantum portfolio optimization: An extensive benchmark, 2025

    Eric Stopfer and Friedrich Wagner. Quantum portfolio optimization: An extensive benchmark, 2025. arXiv preprint

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Optimal sports betting strategies in practice: an experimental review

    Matej Uhr\' n, Gustav S ourek, Ond r ej Hub\'a c ek, and Filip Z elezn\'y. Optimal sports betting strategies in practice: an experimental review. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 32 0 (4): 0 465--489, 2021. doi:10.1093/imaman/dpab008

    work page doi:10.1093/imaman/dpab008 2021

  30. [30]

    Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems

    Davide Venturelli and Alexei Kondratyev. Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 1: 0 17--30, 2019. doi:10.1007/s42484-019-00001-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-019-00001-w 2019

  31. [31]

    Penalty and partitioning techniques to improve performance of QUBO solvers

    Amit Verma and Mark Lewis. Penalty and partitioning techniques to improve performance of QUBO solvers. Discrete Optimization, 44: 0 100594, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.disopt.2020.100594

    work page doi:10.1016/j.disopt.2020.100594 2022

  32. [32]

    Are betting returns a useful measure of accuracy in (sports) forecasting? International Journal of Forecasting, 36 0 (2): 0 693--714, 2020

    Fabian Wunderlich and Daniel Memmert. Are betting returns a useful measure of accuracy in (sports) forecasting? International Journal of Forecasting, 36 0 (2): 0 693--714, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.08.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.08.009 2020

  33. [33]

    P. A. Ameen Yasir and Peter van Loock. Penalty-free approach to accelerating constrained quantum optimization. Physical Review A, 112: 0 062605, 2025. doi:10.1103/fb5m-cl9m

    work page doi:10.1103/fb5m-cl9m 2025