REGRID-QAOA: A Resource-Efficient Hybrid QAOA Framework for Physics-Constrained Power System Islanding

Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy; Qiang Guan; Yan Li; Yuqi Jiang; Yuqi Zhang; Zhiding Liang

arxiv: 2606.15083 · v2 · pith:V5INMR3Vnew · submitted 2026-06-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.SY· eess.SY

REGRID-QAOA: A Resource-Efficient Hybrid QAOA Framework for Physics-Constrained Power System Islanding

Yuqi Jiang , Yuqi Zhang , Zhiding Liang , Qiang Guan , Yan Li , Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 10:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.SYeess.SY

keywords QAOApower system islandingquantum optimizationhybrid quantum-classicalgraph reductionphysics constraintsintentional islanding

0 comments

The pith

A hybrid QAOA framework matches Gurobi-optimal quality for power system islanding while using fewer quantum resources than standard QAOA.

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

The paper presents a resource-efficient hybrid QAOA approach for intentional islanding in power grids. It integrates coherency-based graph reduction, physics-aware constraints, and structured post-processing to turn outputs from shallow QAOA circuits into feasible, high-quality partitioning decisions. Validation on IEEE 9- to 57-bus systems shows the method reaches the same solution quality as the classical Gurobi solver. The resulting island partitions satisfy all physical constraints after separation. This establishes a pathway for quantum optimization on infrastructure problems without requiring deep circuits or large shot counts.

Core claim

The hybrid REGRID-QAOA workflow achieves Gurobi-optimal solution quality on standard IEEE benchmark systems with a clear quantum resource advantage over vanilla QAOA by combining coherency-informed graph reduction, physics-aware constraint modeling, and structured post-processing that converts shallow-circuit samples into high-quality feasible islanding decisions while satisfying all physical feasibility requirements after network separation.

What carries the argument

Structured post-processing that converts QAOA samples into feasible high-quality islanding solutions without deep circuits or large shot budgets.

If this is right

The approach scales islanding to network sizes where pure classical solvers become prohibitive.
Shallow-circuit QAOA becomes practical for critical infrastructure optimization tasks.
All produced islanding solutions remain physically feasible after separation.
Quantum resource requirements stay low enough for near-term devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same reduction-plus-post-processing pattern could apply to other NP-hard power-system problems such as optimal power flow or contingency analysis.
If the post-processing generalizes across topologies, it reduces the circuit depth needed for quantum advantage in combinatorial grid problems.
Real-time operating-point data could be used to test whether solution quality holds under varying load and generation conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The structured post-processing step can always convert QAOA samples into high-quality feasible solutions without systematically excluding the true optimum or introducing bias that depends on network topology or operating point.

What would settle it

Run the framework on an IEEE test case or larger network where the post-processed QAOA solutions have strictly lower objective value than Gurobi or violate a physical constraint such as power balance or line limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15083 by Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy, Qiang Guan, Yan Li, Yuqi Jiang, Yuqi Zhang, Zhiding Liang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overall framework of the proposed QAOA-based controlled power system islanding approach. The pipeline consists of five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Optimal islanding results generated by the proposed QAOA framework on the IEEE test systems. Bus colors indicate the island [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of average cut quality and average quantum runtime across all the IEEE test systems for vanilla QAOA and all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Percent gap of the average cut value from the corresponding Gurobi benchmark across all the IEEE test systems for vanilla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Average feasible probability across all the IEEE test systems for vanilla QAOA and post-processing methods M. 1 through M. 5, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Island-level comparison of load and generation capability for the islanding solutions obtained by the proposed QAOA framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum computing has rapidly emerged as a powerful paradigm for tackling computationally demanding problems. In particular, quantum optimization shows strong promise for hard combinatorial problems in power systems, where increasing distributed energy penetration heightens the need for intentional islanding to maintain grid reliability and resilience. However, power system islanding is an NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem that becomes computationally prohibitive for classical solvers as network size grows, motivating the use of quantum computing as a promising alternative pipeline. This study develops a resource-efficient hybrid QAOA islanding framework that brings physics-constrained power-system partitioning into the quantum optimization workflow. The framework combines coherency-informed graph reduction, physics-aware constraint modeling, and structured post-processing to efficiently convert shallow-circuit QAOA samples into high-quality feasible islanding decisions without deep circuits or large shot budgets. The proposed framework is validated on the standard IEEE benchmark systems (9-, 14-, 24-, 30-, 39-, and 57-bus), demonstrating that the hybrid workflow achieves Gurobi-optimal solution quality with a clear quantum resource advantage over vanilla QAOA, while the resulting islanding solutions satisfy all physical feasibility requirements after network separation. This study establishes QAOA-based islanding as a viable quantum approach for critical infrastructure, with structured post-processing as the key enabler of quantum resource efficiency.

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

The paper gives a concrete engineering workflow for QAOA on power-system islanding but the optimality claims rest on post-processing whose bias and completeness are not shown.

read the letter

The main takeaway is a hybrid QAOA pipeline for intentional islanding that reduces the graph via coherency, encodes physics constraints, runs shallow QAOA, and applies structured post-processing to produce feasible partitions. It reports matching Gurobi solution quality on the 9- through 57-bus IEEE cases while using fewer quantum resources than plain QAOA.

The work is new in the specific synthesis for this domain: coherency-based reduction to cut problem size, physics-aware modeling inside the QAOA objective, and the post-processing step that maps samples back to valid islanding decisions. It does a reasonable job of targeting a real grid-resilience task where classical solvers slow down with scale and renewables, and the choice of standard public test systems makes the experiments reproducible in principle.

The soft spots are in the evidence for the central claim. The abstract states that the workflow reaches Gurobi-optimal quality and satisfies all physical constraints, yet supplies no numbers, no comparison tables, no ablation on the post-processing, and no argument that the reduction-plus-post-processing map is surjective onto the optimal set. The stress-test concern holds: without showing that shallow-circuit samples plus post-processing do not systematically exclude the true optimum or add topology-dependent bias, the resource-advantage claim is hard to evaluate. The full manuscript may contain those details, but they are not visible from the abstract.

This paper is for people working on applied quantum optimization in power systems or other constrained combinatorial problems. A reader who wants a worked example of fitting QAOA to an engineering task with feasibility requirements will get something concrete, even if they have to supply their own verification of the post-processing step.

It deserves a serious referee. The application is relevant, the workflow is explicit, and the gaps are fixable with more data and analysis rather than fundamental flaws.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces REGRID-QAOA, a hybrid QAOA framework for physics-constrained power system islanding. It integrates coherency-informed graph reduction, physics-aware constraint modeling, and structured post-processing to convert samples from shallow QAOA circuits into feasible islanding partitions. Validation is reported on the IEEE 9-, 14-, 24-, 30-, 39-, and 57-bus systems, with the central claim that the approach matches Gurobi solution quality, satisfies all physical feasibility constraints after separation, and provides a quantum resource advantage over vanilla QAOA.

Significance. If the performance claims are substantiated with quantitative evidence, the work would demonstrate a practical hybrid quantum-classical pipeline for a real-world NP-hard infrastructure problem. The emphasis on domain-informed reduction and post-processing to achieve resource efficiency on standard test cases could inform similar approaches in other constrained combinatorial optimization domains.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and validation description] Abstract and validation description: the assertion that the hybrid workflow 'achieves Gurobi-optimal solution quality' on the six IEEE cases is presented without any accompanying quantitative data (objective values, optimality gaps, shot counts, circuit depths, or statistical comparisons). This evidence is load-bearing for the central claim.
[Structured post-processing description] Structured post-processing description: no theorem, completeness argument, bias analysis, or ablation is supplied showing that the coherency-informed graph reduction plus physics-aware mapping is surjective onto the optimal solution set or free of topology/operating-point-dependent bias when applied to shallow-circuit QAOA samples. This assumption directly supports the optimality claim.

minor comments (1)

The abstract would be strengthened by briefly stating the circuit depths and shot budgets used in the reported experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The two major comments identify substantive gaps in evidence and analysis that we agree require attention. We address each point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and validation description] Abstract and validation description: the assertion that the hybrid workflow 'achieves Gurobi-optimal solution quality' on the six IEEE cases is presented without any accompanying quantitative data (objective values, optimality gaps, shot counts, circuit depths, or statistical comparisons). This evidence is load-bearing for the central claim.

Authors: We agree that the abstract and validation description state the optimality claim without supporting numerical data. The full manuscript contains per-instance results, but these are not summarized with the requested metrics in the abstract or highlighted in the validation overview. In the revised version we will (i) add a compact table or set of key statistics to the abstract, (ii) expand the validation section with objective values, optimality gaps relative to Gurobi, shot counts, circuit depths, and basic statistical comparisons (mean and variance over multiple runs) for all six IEEE systems, and (iii) include a short paragraph quantifying the resource savings versus vanilla QAOA. These additions will make the central claim directly verifiable from the abstract and validation description. revision: yes
Referee: [Structured post-processing description] Structured post-processing description: no theorem, completeness argument, bias analysis, or ablation is supplied showing that the coherency-informed graph reduction plus physics-aware mapping is surjective onto the optimal solution set or free of topology/operating-point-dependent bias when applied to shallow-circuit QAOA samples. This assumption directly supports the optimality claim.

Authors: The referee is correct that the manuscript provides no formal completeness argument, surjectivity proof, or systematic bias analysis for the reduction-plus-post-processing pipeline. The current support is empirical, resting on the six tested IEEE cases. We will add (i) an ablation study that compares solution quality obtained with and without the coherency-informed reduction on the same QAOA samples, (ii) a short discussion of possible topology- or operating-point-dependent biases together with the empirical evidence that no such bias appeared on the benchmark set, and (iii) a concise completeness argument showing that the physics-aware mapping preserves all feasible islanding partitions that respect the coherency clusters. A general proof of surjectivity onto the global optimum for arbitrary networks is beyond the scope of the present work and will be noted as a limitation; the revision will therefore be partial on this specific request. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; claims benchmarked against external solver on public test cases

full rationale

The paper presents a hybrid QAOA framework with graph reduction and post-processing, validated by direct comparison of solution quality and resource use against the external classical solver Gurobi on standard IEEE bus systems. No equations, parameters, or predictions are defined in terms of themselves or fitted to a subset and then re-labeled as output. No load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation. The derivation chain remains self-contained because the optimality reference and feasibility checks originate outside the paper's own fitted quantities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on the unstated assumption that the post-processing step is both complete and optimality-preserving.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5789 in / 1219 out tokens · 31470 ms · 2026-06-30T10:24:45.157963+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Maximilian Adler, Jonas Stein, and Michael Lachner. 2025. Scaling Quantum Simulation-Based Optimization: Demonstrating Efficient Power Grid Management with Deep QAOA Circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16444(2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[2]

Rhonda Au-Yeung, Nicholas Chancellor, and Pascal Halffmann. 2023. NP-hard but no longer hard to solve? Using quantum computing to tackle optimization problems.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology2 (2023), 1128576. doi:10.3389/frqst.2023.1128576

work page doi:10.3389/frqst.2023.1128576 2023
[3]

Tarique Aziz, Zhenzhi Lin, Muhammad Waseem, and Shengyuan Liu. 2021. Review on optimization methodologies in transmission network reconfiguration of power systems for grid resilience.International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems31, 3 (2021), e12704

2021
[4]

Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms.Reviews of Modern Physics94, 1 (2022), 015004

2022
[5]

Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer. 2024. A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants.Physics Reports1068 (2024), 1–66. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002 2024
[6]

Alan Bundy and Lincoln Wallen. 1984. Breadth-first search. InCatalogue of artificial intelligence tools. Springer, 13–13

1984
[7]

M Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021), 625–644

2021
[8]

Liang Che, Xuan Liu, and Zuyi Li. 2018. Preventive mitigation strategy for the hidden Nk line contingencies in power systems.IEEE Transactions on Reliability67, 3 (2018), 1060–1070

2018
[9]

Francisco Chicano, Gabriel Luque, Zakaria Abdelmoiz Dahi, and Rodrigo Gil-Merino. 2024. Combinatorial Optimization with Quantum Computers. Engineering Optimization(2024). doi:10.1080/0305215X.2024.2435538

work page doi:10.1080/0305215x.2024.2435538 2024
[10]

1982.Time-scale modeling of dynamic networks with applications to power systems

Joe H Chow. 1982.Time-scale modeling of dynamic networks with applications to power systems. Springer

1982
[11]

Ibrahim Dincer. 2000. Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review.Renewable and sustainable energy reviews4, 2 (2000), 157–175

2000
[12]

Tao Ding, Kai Sun, Can Huang, Zhaohong Bie, and Fangxing Li. 2018. Mixed-integer linear programming-based splitting strategies for power system islanding operation considering network connectivity.IEEE Systems Journal12, 1 (2018), 350–359

2018
[13]

Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[14]

Felix Gemeinhardt, Antonio Garmendia, Manuel Wimmer, Benjamin Weder, and Frank Leymann. 2024. Quantum Combinatorial Optimization in the NISQ Era: A Systematic Mapping Study.Comput. Surveys56, 3 (2024), 70:1–70:36. doi:10.1145/3620668

work page doi:10.1145/3620668 2024
[15]

Hengdao Guo, Ciyan Zheng, Herbert Ho-Ching Iu, and Tyrone Fernando. 2017. A critical review of cascading failure analysis and modeling of power system.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews80 (2017), 9–22

2017
[16]

Gonzalez Calaza, Thiemo Pesch, Kristel Michielsen, and Andrea Benigni

Carsten Hartmann, Junjie Zhang, Carlos D. Gonzalez Calaza, Thiemo Pesch, Kristel Michielsen, and Andrea Benigni. 2025. Quantum Annealing Based Power Grid Partitioning for Parallel Simulation.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems40, 6 (2025), 4958–4970. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2025.3578243

work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2025.3578243 2025
[17]

Lei Huang, Yuanzhang Sun, Jian Xu, Wenzhong Gao, Jun Zhang, and Ziping Wu. 2014. Optimal PMU placement considering controlled islanding of power system.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems29, 2 (2014), 742–755

2014
[18]

IBM Quantum. 2026. Compute resources. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers Accessed: 2026-04-12

2026
[19]

IBM Quantum. 2026. FakeMarrakesh. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit-ibm-runtime/fake-provider-fake-marrakesh Accessed: 2026-06-01

2026
[20]

IBM Quantum. 2026. Processor types. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides/processor-types Accessed: 2026-04-12

2026
[21]

Yuqi Jiang, Zhiding Liang, Yan Li, Qiang Guan, and Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy. 2025. Quantum Computing-Enabled Contingency Analysis for Power Systems. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01. 1938–1944. doi:10.1109/QCE65121. 2025.00211

work page doi:10.1109/qce65121 2025
[22]

Yuqi Jiang, Zhiding Liang, Yan Li, and Thomas Morstyn. 2025. Optimal PMU Placement via Quantum Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 16, 4 (2025), 3125–3141. doi:10.1109/TSG.2025.3564889

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2025.3564889 2025
[23]

Alexis Kyriacou, Panayiotis Demetriou, Christos Panayiotou, and Elias Kyriakides. 2017. Controlled islanding solution for large-scale power systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems33, 2 (2017), 1591–1602

2017
[24]

Juan Li, Chen-Ching Liu, and Kevin Schneider. 2010. Controlled Partitioning of a Power Network Considering Real and Reactive Power Balance. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid1, 3 (2010), 261–269. doi:10.1109/TSG.2010.2082577

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2010.2082577 2010
[25]

Ashley Montanaro. 2016. Quantum algorithms: an overview.npj Quantum Information2 (2016), 15023. doi:10.1038/npjqi.2015.23

work page doi:10.1038/npjqi.2015.23 2016
[26]

Thomas Morstyn and Xingyu Wang. 2024. Opportunities for quantum computing within net-zero power system optimization.Joule8, 6 (2024), 1619–1640. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.03.020

work page doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.03.020 2024
[27]

Hasan Mustafa, Sai Nandan Morapakula, Prateek Jain, and Srinjoy Ganguly. 2022. Variational quantum algorithms for chemical simulation and drug discovery. In2022 International Conference on Trends in Quantum Computing and Emerging Business Technologies (TQCEBT). IEEE, 1–8. Manuscript submitted to ACM 28 Yuqi Jiang, Yuqi Zhang, Zhiding Liang, Qiang Guan, Ya...

2022
[28]

Pradeep Niroula, Ruslan Shaydulin, Romina Yalovetzky, Pierre Minssen, Dylan Herman, Shaohan Hu, and Marco Pistoia. 2022. Constrained Quantum Optimization for Extractive Summarization on a Trapped-ion Quantum Computer.Scientific Reports12 (2022), 17171. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20853-w

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20853-w 2022
[29]

John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum2 (2018), 79

2018
[30]

Tatsuhiko Shirai and Nozomu Togawa. 2024. Postprocessing Variationally Scheduled Quantum Algorithm for Constrained Combinatorial Optimiza- tion Problems.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering5 (2024), 1–14. doi:10.1109/TQE.2024.3376721

work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2024.3376721 2024
[31]

Kai Sun, Da-Zhong Zheng, and Qiang Lu. 2003. Splitting strategies for islanding operation of large-scale power systems using OBDD-based methods. IEEE transactions on Power Systems18, 2 (2003), 912–923

2003
[32]

Robert Tarjan. 1972. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms.SIAM journal on computing1, 2 (1972), 146–160

1972
[33]

Jedwin Villanueva, Gary J Mooney, Bhaskar Roy Bardhan, Joydip Ghosh, Charles D Hill, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. 2025. Hybrid quantum optimization in the context of minimizing traffic congestion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08275(2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Haibo You, Vijay Vittal, and Xiaoming Wang. 2004. Slow coherency-based islanding.IEEE Transactions on power systems19, 1 (2004), 483–491

2004
[35]

independent constraints

Kamila Zaman, Alberto Marchisio, Muhammad Kashif, and Muhammad Shafique. 2024. Po-qa: A framework for portfolio optimization using quantum algorithms. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1. IEEE, 1397–1403. A Formal Analysis of Post-Processing Methods This appendix provides rigorous proofs of the descent, ...

2024

[1] [1]

Maximilian Adler, Jonas Stein, and Michael Lachner. 2025. Scaling Quantum Simulation-Based Optimization: Demonstrating Efficient Power Grid Management with Deep QAOA Circuits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16444(2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Rhonda Au-Yeung, Nicholas Chancellor, and Pascal Halffmann. 2023. NP-hard but no longer hard to solve? Using quantum computing to tackle optimization problems.Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology2 (2023), 1128576. doi:10.3389/frqst.2023.1128576

work page doi:10.3389/frqst.2023.1128576 2023

[3] [3]

Tarique Aziz, Zhenzhi Lin, Muhammad Waseem, and Shengyuan Liu. 2021. Review on optimization methodologies in transmission network reconfiguration of power systems for grid resilience.International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems31, 3 (2021), e12704

2021

[4] [4]

Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms.Reviews of Modern Physics94, 1 (2022), 015004

2022

[5] [5]

Kostas Blekos, Dean Brand, Andrea Ceschini, Chiao-Hui Chou, Rui-Hao Li, Komal Pandya, and Alessandro Summer. 2024. A review on Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm and its variants.Physics Reports1068 (2024), 1–66. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002 2024

[6] [6]

Alan Bundy and Lincoln Wallen. 1984. Breadth-first search. InCatalogue of artificial intelligence tools. Springer, 13–13

1984

[7] [7]

M Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021), 625–644

2021

[8] [8]

Liang Che, Xuan Liu, and Zuyi Li. 2018. Preventive mitigation strategy for the hidden Nk line contingencies in power systems.IEEE Transactions on Reliability67, 3 (2018), 1060–1070

2018

[9] [9]

Francisco Chicano, Gabriel Luque, Zakaria Abdelmoiz Dahi, and Rodrigo Gil-Merino. 2024. Combinatorial Optimization with Quantum Computers. Engineering Optimization(2024). doi:10.1080/0305215X.2024.2435538

work page doi:10.1080/0305215x.2024.2435538 2024

[10] [10]

1982.Time-scale modeling of dynamic networks with applications to power systems

Joe H Chow. 1982.Time-scale modeling of dynamic networks with applications to power systems. Springer

1982

[11] [11]

Ibrahim Dincer. 2000. Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review.Renewable and sustainable energy reviews4, 2 (2000), 157–175

2000

[12] [12]

Tao Ding, Kai Sun, Can Huang, Zhaohong Bie, and Fangxing Li. 2018. Mixed-integer linear programming-based splitting strategies for power system islanding operation considering network connectivity.IEEE Systems Journal12, 1 (2018), 350–359

2018

[13] [13]

Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm. arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[14] [14]

Felix Gemeinhardt, Antonio Garmendia, Manuel Wimmer, Benjamin Weder, and Frank Leymann. 2024. Quantum Combinatorial Optimization in the NISQ Era: A Systematic Mapping Study.Comput. Surveys56, 3 (2024), 70:1–70:36. doi:10.1145/3620668

work page doi:10.1145/3620668 2024

[15] [15]

Hengdao Guo, Ciyan Zheng, Herbert Ho-Ching Iu, and Tyrone Fernando. 2017. A critical review of cascading failure analysis and modeling of power system.Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews80 (2017), 9–22

2017

[16] [16]

Gonzalez Calaza, Thiemo Pesch, Kristel Michielsen, and Andrea Benigni

Carsten Hartmann, Junjie Zhang, Carlos D. Gonzalez Calaza, Thiemo Pesch, Kristel Michielsen, and Andrea Benigni. 2025. Quantum Annealing Based Power Grid Partitioning for Parallel Simulation.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems40, 6 (2025), 4958–4970. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2025.3578243

work page doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2025.3578243 2025

[17] [17]

Lei Huang, Yuanzhang Sun, Jian Xu, Wenzhong Gao, Jun Zhang, and Ziping Wu. 2014. Optimal PMU placement considering controlled islanding of power system.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems29, 2 (2014), 742–755

2014

[18] [18]

IBM Quantum. 2026. Compute resources. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/computers Accessed: 2026-04-12

2026

[19] [19]

IBM Quantum. 2026. FakeMarrakesh. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit-ibm-runtime/fake-provider-fake-marrakesh Accessed: 2026-06-01

2026

[20] [20]

IBM Quantum. 2026. Processor types. https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/guides/processor-types Accessed: 2026-04-12

2026

[21] [21]

Yuqi Jiang, Zhiding Liang, Yan Li, Qiang Guan, and Ganesh Kumar Venayagamoorthy. 2025. Quantum Computing-Enabled Contingency Analysis for Power Systems. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01. 1938–1944. doi:10.1109/QCE65121. 2025.00211

work page doi:10.1109/qce65121 2025

[22] [22]

Yuqi Jiang, Zhiding Liang, Yan Li, and Thomas Morstyn. 2025. Optimal PMU Placement via Quantum Optimization.IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 16, 4 (2025), 3125–3141. doi:10.1109/TSG.2025.3564889

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2025.3564889 2025

[23] [23]

Alexis Kyriacou, Panayiotis Demetriou, Christos Panayiotou, and Elias Kyriakides. 2017. Controlled islanding solution for large-scale power systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems33, 2 (2017), 1591–1602

2017

[24] [24]

Juan Li, Chen-Ching Liu, and Kevin Schneider. 2010. Controlled Partitioning of a Power Network Considering Real and Reactive Power Balance. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid1, 3 (2010), 261–269. doi:10.1109/TSG.2010.2082577

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2010.2082577 2010

[25] [25]

Ashley Montanaro. 2016. Quantum algorithms: an overview.npj Quantum Information2 (2016), 15023. doi:10.1038/npjqi.2015.23

work page doi:10.1038/npjqi.2015.23 2016

[26] [26]

Thomas Morstyn and Xingyu Wang. 2024. Opportunities for quantum computing within net-zero power system optimization.Joule8, 6 (2024), 1619–1640. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.03.020

work page doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.03.020 2024

[27] [27]

Hasan Mustafa, Sai Nandan Morapakula, Prateek Jain, and Srinjoy Ganguly. 2022. Variational quantum algorithms for chemical simulation and drug discovery. In2022 International Conference on Trends in Quantum Computing and Emerging Business Technologies (TQCEBT). IEEE, 1–8. Manuscript submitted to ACM 28 Yuqi Jiang, Yuqi Zhang, Zhiding Liang, Qiang Guan, Ya...

2022

[28] [28]

Pradeep Niroula, Ruslan Shaydulin, Romina Yalovetzky, Pierre Minssen, Dylan Herman, Shaohan Hu, and Marco Pistoia. 2022. Constrained Quantum Optimization for Extractive Summarization on a Trapped-ion Quantum Computer.Scientific Reports12 (2022), 17171. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20853-w

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20853-w 2022

[29] [29]

John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum2 (2018), 79

2018

[30] [30]

Tatsuhiko Shirai and Nozomu Togawa. 2024. Postprocessing Variationally Scheduled Quantum Algorithm for Constrained Combinatorial Optimiza- tion Problems.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering5 (2024), 1–14. doi:10.1109/TQE.2024.3376721

work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2024.3376721 2024

[31] [31]

Kai Sun, Da-Zhong Zheng, and Qiang Lu. 2003. Splitting strategies for islanding operation of large-scale power systems using OBDD-based methods. IEEE transactions on Power Systems18, 2 (2003), 912–923

2003

[32] [32]

Robert Tarjan. 1972. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms.SIAM journal on computing1, 2 (1972), 146–160

1972

[33] [33]

Jedwin Villanueva, Gary J Mooney, Bhaskar Roy Bardhan, Joydip Ghosh, Charles D Hill, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg. 2025. Hybrid quantum optimization in the context of minimizing traffic congestion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08275(2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[34] [34]

Haibo You, Vijay Vittal, and Xiaoming Wang. 2004. Slow coherency-based islanding.IEEE Transactions on power systems19, 1 (2004), 483–491

2004

[35] [35]

independent constraints

Kamila Zaman, Alberto Marchisio, Muhammad Kashif, and Muhammad Shafique. 2024. Po-qa: A framework for portfolio optimization using quantum algorithms. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1. IEEE, 1397–1403. A Formal Analysis of Post-Processing Methods This appendix provides rigorous proofs of the descent, ...

2024