Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

This paper argues that constrained quantum optimization can be decomposed into geometry (shell transport) and interference (phase alignment), and that under a strong phase-alignment condition a logarithmic-depth circuit certifies target sam

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 04:36 UTC pith:FORI3RIE

load-bearing objection The shell-transfer algebra is a genuine contribution, but the headline dimension-free success certificate rests on a phase-alignment condition that is never instantiated and looks impossible at the paper's own constructive angle. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13630 v1 pith:FORI3RIE submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph cs.CCcs.CGmath-phmath.MP

Separating Geometry From Interference in Constrained Quantum Optimization

Chinonso Onah , Stuart Hadfield , Kristel Michielsen This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.CCcs.CGmath-phmath.MP
keywords constrained quantum optimizationquantum alternating operator ansatzXY mixerHamming shellsphase alignmentsuccess probabilityshell-transfer recursionquantum sampling advantage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that quantum optimization on constrained product spaces can be understood by separating two things: how the mixer transports amplitude across Hamming shells (geometry), and how diagonal cost phases make those transported amplitudes interfere (interference). For a complete-graph XY mixer on X=[n]^m, the one-block transition amplitude depends only on whether two symbols agree, so the entire transport collapses to an exact recursion on m+1 distance shells around any target. After normalization this shell process is a finite Markov chain whose fixed point is the uniform bulk, so mixer transport alone has no target-seeking bias. The paper then shows that if all depth-p path summands reaching a target lie in a common arc of width < π, the shell mass converts into a lower bound on the target amplitude; with a specific mixer angle and depth p ≥ ½ log₂ n, that bound becomes independent of n^m. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a concrete mechanism—phase-aligned path mass—by which a sampling advantage could escape the 1/n^m uniform-sampling scale.

Core claim

Under the phase-alignment hypothesis that all path summands in the exact path sum (Eq. 31) lie in a common angular arc of width Θ_p < π, the target amplitude is lower-bounded by cos(Θ_p/2) times the total absolute path mass v_0^(p) normalized by n^{m/2}. For the complete-graph block-XY mixer, v_0^(p) is computed exactly by shell recursion, and at the constructive angle β* = π(n−1)/n one has v_0^(p) = (3 − 4/n)^{mp}. Choosing depth p ≥ ½ log₂ n makes v_0^(p) ≥ n^{m/2}, so the certified success probability |⟨y|ψ_p⟩|² ≥ cos²(Θ_p/2) is independent of the ambient Hilbert-space dimension, the search-space size, or the feasible-set cardinality.

What carries the argument

The shell-transfer coefficients T_{r,t}(β) are the orbit sums of the factorized one-layer mixer kernel over Hamming shells S_r(y) around a target y. Because the complete-graph XY mixer has only two local amplitudes—a_0 when a coordinate agrees and a_1 when it differs—the full product kernel collapses to a generating function and an exact radial recursion in m+1 shells. The same coefficients, normalized by the total one-layer mass q_n(β)^m, form a stochastic kernel that is a lumped product Markov chain. Theorem 8 then supplies the phase-sensitive half: a cone lower bound that converts the absolute shell mass v_0^(p) into a complex-amplitude lower bound whenever all path phases lie in a common

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every one of the exponentially many path summands reaching the target has a phase inside a single arc of width less than π; at the paper's constructive mixer angle, the one-step amplitudes come in opposite phases, so paths of different parity cannot all satisfy this unless an explicit cost is engineered to compensate, and the paper does not produce such a cost.

What would settle it

Compute the exact depth-1 path summands of Eq. (31) for n=4, m=1, β*=3π/4 and a lattice-normalized cost with E(y)=0, E(x)=T_n: the a_0 and a_1 amplitudes are real with opposite signs, so the two classes of summands are separated by angle π, and no arc of width < π contains all of them. More generally, a small exhaustive search over n, m, and integer costs that finds all path phases lying in a common arc of width < π would either confirm or refute that the theorem's hypothesis is satisfiable in the constructive regime.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mixer geometry alone cannot concentrate probability on a target: the normalized shell process drifts to the Hamming-shell law of a uniformly random configuration, so any sampling advantage must come from phase coherence.
  • Under phase alignment, depth p growing as (1/2) log₂ n suffices to certify target sampling probability at least cos²(Θ_p/2), a finite scale independent of n^m.
  • Finite Trotterizations of the mixer can preserve qubit number and process fidelity while substantially distorting the shell-transfer law, so shell-kernel and lumpability defects are better transpilation diagnostics than generic fidelity.
  • Problem-dependent classical maps expose violation patterns beyond total penalty, enabling selective feasibility repair and clean attribution of solution quality between the quantum distribution and classical post-processing.
  • The formalism connects constrained quantum optimization to lumped Markov chains, Krawtchouk polynomials, and association-scheme methods from coding theory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • At the constructive angle β* the two one-step amplitudes a_0 and a_1 differ in phase by π, so paths whose total number of off-diagonal coordinate moves has different parity cannot all fit in an open semicircle; the phase-alignment hypothesis is therefore not automatic for n ≥ 3 and must be verified instance by instance.
  • If a nontrivial cost Hamiltonian is ever shown to satisfy the common-arc condition, the same shell machinery would likely extend to other mixer geometries by replacing Hamming shells with path distance, cyclic distance, or other refined quotient variables.
  • The transport diagnostics suggest a practical, testable benchmark: on small hardware, compare shell-kernel defects before and after compilation; a large defect with small process fidelity would predict degraded sampling guarantees that standard metrics miss.
  • A natural extension is to characterize the distribution of path-phase spreads for random lattice-normalized costs; if typical spreads exceed π, then the certified regime describes a measure-zero set, and the practical route to advantage would require explicit phase engineering.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a shell-resolved analysis of amplitude transport for constrained quantum optimization on product spaces X=[n]^m, motivated by CE-QAOA with complete-graph block-XY mixers. It separates the phase-blind absolute path mass, governed by an exact shell-transfer recursion (Prop. 4, Thm. 5), from phase-coherent interference. A normalized radial Markov process is derived in Appendix B and used to argue that the mixer alone has no target-seeking bias. The central constructive claim is Corollary 10: under a common-arc phase-alignment hypothesis (Thm. 8), and with the mixer angle beta* = pi(n-1)/n of Proposition 9, depth p >= (1/2) log_2 n gives a target success probability lower bounded by cos^2(Theta_p/2), independent of n, m, and feasible-set cardinality. The paper also presents transport-based diagnostics for mixer geometries, Trotterization, and classical repair.

Significance. The shell recursion and its Markovian normalization are clean, internally consistent, and potentially useful: Proposition 4 and Theorem 5 give an exact reduction of absolute mixer transport on the n-ary Hamming scheme, and the finite-size diagnostics in Section 5.2/5.3 are concrete and supported by reproducible numerical data. These parts of the paper are genuine contributions. However, the advertised sampling-advantage result is not established. The phase-alignment hypothesis of Theorem 8 is never instantiated, and at the paper's own constructive angle it is actually false: the one-step mixer amplitudes a0 and a1 have phases differing by pi, so paths with identical cost-phase products but opposite Hamming parity are exactly antipodal for p>=2. Corollary 10 therefore has no valid instance in the claimed regime. Since the abstract and conclusion present this dimension-free success-probability bound as the main result, the central claim fails.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Cor. 10; §2.3, Eqs. (12)–(13); App. A.2] The phase-alignment hypothesis of Theorem 8 is inconsistent with the constructive angle beta* = pi(n-1)/n. From Eqs. (12)–(13), a0(beta*) = ((n-2)/n)e^{i pi/n} and a1(beta*) = (2/n)e^{i pi(n+1)/n}, so the two one-step mixer amplitudes have phases differing by pi. For a depth-p path, the mixer phase factor is therefore e^{i pi p m/n} (-1)^S, where S = sum_l d(x_{l-1},x_l). Fix a with d(a,y)=1 and compare the two source sequences (y,...,y,a) and (a,y,...,y) for p>=2. These have the same multiset of source configurations, hence the same cost-phase product, and the same absolute weight, but S has opposite parity. Their path summands in Eq. (31) are exactly antipodal and cancel. Thus no arc of width Theta_p < pi can contain all summands. Corollary 10 is therefore vacuous in the regime p>=2, n>=5, and for p>=2 generally.
  2. [§4.1 and §1.2] The common-arc hypothesis is treated as an engineering criterion, but the paper never constructs a cost phase pattern that satisfies it. The lattice normalization of Section 4.1 controls only the diagonal cost phases; the mixer phases are left to the unformalized remark that they 'remain controlled within the same transition-signature class.' At the only angle for which the paper proves the required radial-mass growth (beta*), this mixer-phase control fails by a full pi. Hence the claimed mechanism — that logarithmic depth converts absolute path mass into a dimension-free target amplitude — is not demonstrated for any nontrivial instance; it rests entirely on an assumption that is both uninstantiated and contradicted at the proposed constructive angle.
  3. [§3.1, Prop. 9] Equation (35), v_0^{(p)} = (3 - 4/n)^{mp}, is stated without proof. The proof of Proposition 9 computes only the value q_n(beta*) = 3 - 4/n and then asserts the v_0 identity. The identity is not immediate from the shell recursion (20); it requires an additional argument propagating the uniform initial shell counts through the normalized radial kernel. This is likely repairable, but as written it is a gap in the numerical condition used by Corollary 10.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a duplicated sentence: 'The complete-graph curve has zero Hamming-shell lumpability defect and gives the exact shell-transfer law used in the analysis.' One occurrence should be removed.
  2. [§5.2, text before Fig. 2] There is a stray fragment 'consequences developed in this work. 2' immediately preceding Figure 2; it appears to be a leftover from figure placement.
  3. [§6] Typo: 'strucuture' should be 'structure' in the Discussion of constrained quantum annealing.
  4. [References] Several references are arXiv:26xx preprints with dates in the same year as this submission. Please verify that all citations are publicly available and that the claimed results are correctly attributed, especially Refs. [7], [12], [33].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The dimension-free success-probability guarantee is the phase-alignment hypothesis restated; at the paper's own β* the hypothesis is contradicted for p≥2.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Theorem 8 (Eqs. 32–33) and Corollary 10; cf. Lemma 2 Eqs. (12)–(13) and Proposition 9]
    "Assume that all depth-p path summands in (31) lie in a common arc of angular width Θ_p<π. Then ... |⟨y|ψ_p(γ,β)⟩| ≥ 1/n^{m/2} cos(Θ_p/2) v_0^{(p)}. ... Suppose the mixer angles are chosen as β_1=···=β_p=π(n−1)/n. For n≥4, the sufficient condition p≥ 1/2 log_2 n gives |⟨y|ψ_p⟩|^2 ≥ cos^2(Θ_p/2) under the same phase-alignment hypothesis."

    The bound is Lemma 7's cone inequality applied to the path summands: if all summands already lie in an arc of width Θ_p, their sum has magnitude at least cos(Θ_p/2) times the sum of moduli. Corollary 10 then cancels v_0^(p) against n^{m/2} via Prop. 9, leaving exactly cos^2(Θ_p/2). Thus the 'certified success probability' is the assumed phase alignment restated; no construction or example realizes the alignment. Worse, the paper's own Lemma 2 gives arg a1(β*) − arg a0(β*) = π at β*=π(n−1)/n. Hence the two depth-p paths (y,...,y,a) and (a,y,...,y) have the same cost-phase product but differ in total Hamming-distance parity, so their summand phases differ by π and cannot lie in a common open semicircle for p≥2. The hypothesis is therefore uninstantiated and inconsistent with the constructive

full rationale

The shell-transfer recursion (Prop. 4, Thm. 5, App. B) and the radial Markov reduction are self-contained algebraic derivations; they are not circular. No data are fitted, and the self-citations ([7], [12], [33]) are not load-bearing: Definition 1 merely names a kernel, and the references to prior CE–QAOA analyses are side remarks. The central advertised guarantee, however, is Corollary 10, and it is obtained by assuming Theorem 8's phase-alignment hypothesis. Lemma 7 shows that this hypothesis already contains the constructive-interference conclusion; the only additional input is the absolute-mass growth v_0^(p) from Prop. 9, which is not a phase-alignment mechanism. At β* the one-step mixer phases differ by π (Eqs. 12–13), so for every diagonal E and every p≥2 there exist pairs of paths with identical cost phases but opposite mixer phases; no arc of width <π can contain them. Thus the paper's own constructive parameters make the hypothesis false, and Corollary 10 has no valid instance except possibly the p=1, n=4 edge case. The separation-of-concerns framework is still substantive, but the dimension-free sampling claim reduces by construction to an assumed and unsatisfied condition, warranting a score of 6 rather than 0–2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data; the shell recursion is a genuine derivation. The main caveat is the phase-alignment axiom, which is assumed rather than derived or instantiated, and appears incompatible with the paper's constructive mixer angle. The OFM kernel is imported from prior work by the same authors, not introduced here.

free parameters (1)
  • phase-cone width Theta_p (and per-layer theta_l) = Theta_p < pi
    Chosen by hand as the hypothesis of Theorem 8; no construction is given that realizes Theta_p < pi together with the constructive angle beta* of Proposition 9. This is the load-bearing hand-set quantity behind the advertised success guarantee.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Common-arc phase alignment: all depth-p path summands in Eq. (31) lie in an angular arc of width Theta_p < pi (Theorem 8).
    Never instantiated. At beta* = pi(n-1)/n, the one-step mixer amplitudes a0,b* and a1,b* have phases differing by pi (Eqs. (12)-(13) and Prop. 9 proof), so paths with different one-step Hamming parity cannot all lie in an open semicircle.
  • domain assumption Lattice normalization of the cost spectrum: after affine rescale, E(x) in {0,...,T_n} with T_n = poly(n) (Eqs. (23)-(24)).
    Used to place diagonal phases in a cone; can hold for integer penalty terms, but the paper acknowledges the objective term need not satisfy it in general.
  • domain assumption One-hot product encoding and block-local XY mixer preserve the encoded sector; initial state is the uniform product state (Def. 1, Eqs. (5)-(6)).
    Defines the OFM kernel and the scope of the shell reduction; without this structure the product factorization and shell argument do not apply.
  • standard math Complete-graph adjacency on the one-excitation sector has eigenvalues n-1 and -1 (spectral decomposition used in Lemma 2).
    Standard linear algebra, proved in Appendix A.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixer-kernel phases remain controlled within the same transition-signature class.
    Section 4.1 states this as the 'only additional requirement' without defining the class or proving compatibility; it is exactly the part that fails at beta*.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30352 in / 19720 out tokens · 195267 ms · 2026-08-02T04:36:55.367644+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the separation of geometric effects from quantum interference in quantum optimization algorithms. Constrained optimization problems such as routing, assignment, and scheduling are often encoded as product spaces of local variables, together with global feasibility penalties. The central algorithmic question we address is how a constraint-preserving mixing operator transports quantum amplitude across an exponential search space in the presence of local and global constraints. We develop a framework that separates three effects that are usually intermixed: amplitude transport, coherent interference among transported amplitudes, and problem-dependent classical postprocessing. We show that the mixing operator alone does not have a target-seeking ability. Concretely, the normalized distribution induced by its amplitude transport moves toward the distance profile of a uniformly random configuration. Thus, quantum sampling advantage may only arise when the phases of the many computational paths reaching a target configuration are sufficiently aligned for their amplitudes to reinforce. We show that, when the cost phases are engineered so that these paths add coherently, a number of circuit alternations growing only logarithmically with problem size suffices to convert the sum of their absolute contributions into a lower bound on the target amplitude, yielding a certified success probability independent of the ambient Hilbert-space dimension, the search-space size, or the feasible-set cardinality. We develop applications to problem-specific transpilation diagnostics, scalable hardware probes, constraint-induced classical maps of quantum-generated samples, the attribution of solution quality between the quantum distribution and classical post-processing in hybrid quantum-classical workflows and connections to distance-partitioned product spaces from classical coding theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13630 by Chinonso Onah, Kristel Michielsen, Stuart Hadfield.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Layered structure of the framework. Problem constraints determine the encoded product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Finite-size transport diagnostics for XY mixer geometries on the OFM product manifold. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bernhard Korte and Jens Vygen.Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algo- rithms. 6th ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2018.doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-56039-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-56039-6 2018

  2. [2]

    Alexander Schrijver.Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency. Vol. 24. Algorithms and Combinatorics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2003

    2003

  3. [3]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization

    Amira Abbas et al. “Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization”. In: Nature Reviews Physics6.12 (2024), pp. 718–735

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ising Formulations of Many NP Problems

    Andrew Lucas. “Ising Formulations of Many NP Problems”. In:Frontiers in Physics 2 (2014), p. 5.doi: 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028(2014).url:https: //arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz

    Stuart Hadfield et al. “From the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm to a Quantum Alternating Operator Ansatz”. In:Algorithms12.2 (2019), p. 34.doi: 10.3390/a12020034

    doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  7. [7]

    Chinonso Onah, Roman Firt, and Kristel Michielsen.Empirical Quantum Advantage in Constrained Optimization from Encoded Unitary Designs. 2026. arXiv:2511 . 14296 [cs.ET].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.14296

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    XYmixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Zhihui Wang et al. “XYmixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm”. In:Physical Review A101.1 (2020), p. 012320. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.012320

    doi:10.1103/physreva.101.012320 2020

  9. [9]

    Analytical framework for quan- tum alternating operator ans¨ atze

    Stuart Hadfield, Tad Hogg, and Eleanor G Rieffel. “Analytical framework for quan- tum alternating operator ans¨ atze”. In:Quantum Science and Technology8.1 (Dec. 2022), p. 015017.issn: 2058-9565.doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/aca3ce.url:http:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aca3ce

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aca3ce.url:http:// 2022

  10. [10]

    Constraint Preserving Mixers for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Franz G. Fuchs and Ruben Pariente Bassa. “Constraint Preserving Mixers for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. In:Algorithms15.6 (2022), p. 202. doi: 10.3390/a15060202

    doi:10.3390/a15060202 2022

  11. [11]

    Encoding trade-offs and design toolkits in quantum algorithms for discrete optimization: coloring, routing, scheduling, and other problems

    Nicolas PD Sawaya, Albert T Schmitz, and Stuart Hadfield. “Encoding trade-offs and design toolkits in quantum algorithms for discrete optimization: coloring, routing, scheduling, and other problems”. In:Quantum7 (2023), p. 1111

    2023

  12. [12]

    Chinonso Onah and Kristel Michielsen.Fundamental Limitations of QAOA on Con- strained Problems and a Route to Exponential Enhancement. 2025. arXiv:2511 . 17259 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.17259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Integer Programming Formulation of Traveling Salesman Problems

    C. E. Miller, A. W. Tucker, and R. A. Zemlin. “Integer Programming Formulation of Traveling Salesman Problems”. In:Journal of the ACM7.4 (1960), pp. 326–329. doi: 10.1145/321043.321046

    arXiv 1960

  14. [14]

    Algebraic Algorithms for Sampling from Con- ditional Distributions

    Persi Diaconis and Bernd Sturmfels. “Algebraic Algorithms for Sampling from Con- ditional Distributions”. In:The Annals of Statistics26.1 (1998), pp. 363–397.doi: 10.1214/aos/1030563990

    arXiv 1998

  15. [15]

    The Complexity of Three-Way Statistical Tables

    Jes´ us A. De Loera and Shmuel Onn. “The Complexity of Three-Way Statistical Tables”. In:SIAM Journal on Computing33.4 (2004), pp. 819–836.doi: 10.1137/S0097539702403803. 38

    work page doi:10.1137/s0097539702403803 2004

  16. [16]

    All Linear and Integer Programs Are Slim 3-Way Transportation Programs

    Jes´ us A. De Loera and Shmuel Onn. “All Linear and Integer Programs Are Slim 3-Way Transportation Programs”. In:SIAM Journal on Optimization17.3 (2006), pp. 806–821.doi: 10.1137/040610623

    work page doi:10.1137/040610623 2006

  17. [17]

    Fibers of Multi-Way Contingency Tables Given Conditionals: Relation to Marginals, Cell Bounds and Markov Bases

    Aleksandra B. Slavkovi´ c, Xiaotian Zhu, and Sonja Petrovi´ c. “Fibers of Multi-Way Contingency Tables Given Conditionals: Relation to Marginals, Cell Bounds and Markov Bases”. In:Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics67.4 (2015), pp. 621–648.doi: 10.1007/s10463-014-0471-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10463-014-0471-z 2015

  18. [18]

    Quantum Annealing for Constrained Opti- mization

    Itay Hen and Federico M. Spedalieri. “Quantum Annealing for Constrained Opti- mization”. In:Physical Review Applied5.3 (2016), p. 034007.doi: 10.1103/PhysRe- vApplied.5.034007. arXiv:1508.04212 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Driver Hamiltonians for Constrained Optimiza- tion in Quantum Annealing

    Itay Hen and Marcelo S. Sarandy. “Driver Hamiltonians for Constrained Optimiza- tion in Quantum Annealing”. In:Physical Review A93.6 (2016), p. 062312.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062312. arXiv:1602.07942 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane.The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes. North-Holland, 1977

    1977

  21. [21]

    Association Schemes and Coding Theory

    Philippe Delsarte and Vladimir I. Levenshtein. “Association Schemes and Coding Theory”. In:IEEE Transactions on Information Theory44.6 (Oct. 1998), pp. 2477– 2504.doi: 10.1109/18.720545

    doi:10.1109/18.720545 1998

  22. [22]

    Quantum Walks on the Hypercube

    Cristopher Moore and Alexander Russell. “Quantum Walks on the Hypercube”. In: Randomization and Approximation Techniques in Computer Science: 6th Interna- tional Workshop, RANDOM 2002, Cambridge, MA, USA, September 13–15, 2002, Proceedings. Ed. by Jos´ e D. P. Rolim and Salil Vadhan. Vol. 2483. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring...

    doi:10.1007/3- 2002

  23. [23]

    Spatial Search by Quantum Walk

    Andrew M. Childs and Jeffrey Goldstone. “Spatial Search by Quantum Walk”. In: Physical Review A70.2 (2004), p. 022314.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022314

    doi:10.1103/physreva.70.022314 2004

  24. [24]

    On the Relationship Between Continuous- and Discrete-Time Quantum Walk

    Andrew M. Childs. “On the Relationship Between Continuous- and Discrete-Time Quantum Walk”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics294.2 (2010), pp. 581–603.doi: 10.1007/s00220-009-0930-1

    doi:10.1007/s00220-009-0930-1 2010

  25. [25]

    Quantum Walks on Quotient Graphs

    Hari Krovi and Todd A. Brun. “Quantum Walks on Quotient Graphs”. In:Physical Review A75.6 (2007), p. 062332.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.062332

    doi:10.1103/physreva.75.062332 2007

  26. [26]

    The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case

    Edward Farhi, David Gamarnik, and Sam Gutmann. “The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: A Typical Case”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09002(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: Worst Case Examples

    Edward Farhi, David Gamarnik, and Sam Gutmann. “The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Needs to See the Whole Graph: Worst Case Examples”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08747(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [28]

    The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm at High Depth for MaxCut on Large-Girth Regular Graphs and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model

    Joao Basso et al. “The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm at High Depth for MaxCut on Large-Girth Regular Graphs and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model”. In:17th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communica- tion and Cryptography (TQC 2022). Vol. 232. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics. 2022, 7:1–7:21.doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs...

    doi:10.4230/lipics.tqc.2022.7 2022

  29. [29]

    Concentration Bounds for Quantum States and Limitations on the QAOA from Polynomial Approximations

    Anurag Anshu and Tony Metger. “Concentration Bounds for Quantum States and Limitations on the QAOA from Polynomial Approximations”. In:Quantum7 (2023), p. 999. 39

    2023

  30. [30]

    Parameter Concentrations in Quantum Approximate Optimization

    V. Akshay et al. “Parameter Concentrations in Quantum Approximate Optimization”. In:Physical Review A104 (2021), p. L010401.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.L010401

    doi:10.1103/physreva.104.l010401 2021

  31. [31]

    MaxCut Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Performance Guarantees forp >1

    Jonathan Wurtz and Peter J. Love. “MaxCut Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Performance Guarantees forp >1”. In:Physical Review A103 (2021), p. 042612.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042612

    doi:10.1103/physreva.103.042612 2021

  32. [32]

    Analyzing variational quantum landscapes with information content

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, H. Wang, and X. Bonet-Monroig. “Analyzing variational quantum landscapes with information content”. In:npj Quantum Information10 (Feb. 2024), p. 27.doi: 10.1038/s41534-024-00819-8.url:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534- 024-00819-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00819-8.url:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534- 2024

  33. [33]

    Chinonso Onah and Kristel Michielsen.Finite-Depth, Finite-Shot Guarantees for Constrained Quantum Optimization via Fej´ er Filtering. 2026. arXiv:2603.01809 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01809

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    On the Co-Design of Quantum Software and Hardware

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. “On the Co-Design of Quantum Software and Hardware”. In:ICCAD ’21: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer- Aided Design. 2021.doi: 10.1145/3477206.3477464

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Symmetries and Dimension Reduction in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    B. Tsvelikhovskiy, I. Safro, and Y. Alexeev. “Symmetries and Dimension Reduction in Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. Version 2. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13787(2023). arXiv:2309.13787 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv. org/abs/2309.13787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Optimal, Qubit-Efficient Quantum Vehicle Routing via Colored-Permutations

    Chinonso Onah and Kristel Michielsen. “Optimal, Qubit-Efficient Quantum Vehicle Routing via Colored-Permutations”. In: (2026). arXiv:2604 . 04570 [quant-ph]. url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Paolo Toth and Daniele Vigo, eds.Vehicle Routing: Problems, Methods, and Appli- cations. 2nd ed. SIAM, 2014.doi: 10.1137/1.9781611973587

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611973587 2014

  38. [38]

    The Quantum Alternat- ing Operator Ansatz on Maximumk-Vertex Cover

    Jeremy Cook, Stephan Eidenbenz, and Andreas B¨ artschi. “The Quantum Alternat- ing Operator Ansatz on Maximumk-Vertex Cover”. In:2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). IEEE, 2020, pp. 83– 92.doi: 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00021. arXiv:1910.13483 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Deterministic Preparation of Dicke States

    Andreas B¨ artschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. “Deterministic Preparation of Dicke States”. In:Fundamentals of Computation Theory. Springer International Publish- ing, 2019, pp. 126–139.isbn: 9783030250270.doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25027-0˙9. url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25027-0_9

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25027-0 2019

  40. [40]

    The Lie Algebra ofXY-mixer Topolo- gies and Warm Starting QAOA for Constrained Optimization

    Steven Kordonowy and Hannes Leipold. “The Lie Algebra ofXY-mixer Topolo- gies and Warm Starting QAOA for Constrained Optimization”. In:npj Quantum Information12 (2026), p. 61.doi: 10.1038/s41534-026-01192-4. arXiv:2505.18396 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Imposing constraints on driver Hamiltonians and mixing oper- ators: From theory to practical implementation

    Hannes Leipold et al. “Imposing constraints on driver Hamiltonians and mixing oper- ators: From theory to practical implementation”. In:ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing(2026)

    2026

  42. [42]

    Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA per- formance for constrained optimization

    Zichang He et al. “Alignment between initial state and mixer improves QAOA per- formance for constrained optimization”. In:npj Quantum Information9.1 (Nov. 2023).issn: 2056-6387.doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00787-5.url:https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41534-023-00787-5. 40

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00787-5.url:https://doi.org/ 2023

  43. [43]

    Abhishek Awasthi et al.Constraint Preserving XY-Mixers under Trotterized Adia- batic Evolution. 2026. arXiv:2605.02465 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2605.02465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    XY-mixer ansatz assisted by counterdiabatic driving for combi- national optimization

    Yue Ruan et al. “XY-mixer ansatz assisted by counterdiabatic driving for combi- national optimization”. In:Physical Review Research7.1 (2025), p. 013243.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013243

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.013243 2025

  45. [45]

    Efficient preparation of Dicke states

    Jeffery Yu et al. “Efficient preparation of Dicke states”. In:Physical Review Letters 136.3 (2026), p. 030601

    2026

  46. [46]

    Garey and David S

    Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson.Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979

    1979

  47. [47]

    A Survey for the Quadratic Assignment Problem

    E. M. Loiola et al. “A Survey for the Quadratic Assignment Problem”. In: European Journal of Operational Research176.2 (2007), pp. 657–690.doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.09.032

    doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.09.032 2007

  48. [48]

    QUEST: QUantum-Enhanced Shared Transportation

    Chinonso Onah et al. “QUEST: QUantum-Enhanced Shared Transportation”. In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). Vol. 01. 2025, pp. 2149–2160.doi: 10.1109/QCE65121.2025.00235

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    P-Complete Approximation Problems

    Sartaj Sahni and Teofilo Gonzalez. “P-Complete Approximation Problems”. In: Journal of the ACM23.3 (1976), pp. 555–565.doi: 10.1145/321958.321975

    arXiv 1976

  50. [50]

    Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems

    Richard M. Karp. “Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems”. In:Complexity of Computer Computations. Plenum, 1972, pp. 85–103

    1972

  51. [51]

    Separating Ge- ometry From Interference in Constrained Quantum Optimization

    Kristel Michielsen, Stuart Hadfield, and Chinonso Onah.Data for “Separating Ge- ometry From Interference in Constrained Quantum Optimization”. Dataset. Zenodo, 2026.doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21302533.url:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 21302533

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21302533.url:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo 2026

  52. [52]

    Perfect Sampling for Quantum Gibbs States

    Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca. “Perfect Sampling for Quantum Gibbs States”. In:Quan- tum Information and Computation18.5&6 (2018), pp. 361–388. arXiv:1703.05800 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Towards Application-Aware Quantum Circuit Compilation

    Nils Quetschlich et al. “Towards Application-Aware Quantum Circuit Compilation”. In:2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software. 2024, pp. 135–142. doi: 10.1109/QSW62656.2024.00028

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Algorithm-Oriented Qubit Mapping for Variational Quantum Al- gorithms

    Yanjun Ji et al. “Algorithm-Oriented Qubit Mapping for Variational Quantum Al- gorithms”. In:Physical Review Applied23.3 (2025), p. 034022.doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevApplied.23.034022

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2025

  55. [55]

    Coqa: Blazing Fast Compiler Optimizations for QAOA

    Yuchen Zhu et al. “Coqa: Blazing Fast Compiler Optimizations for QAOA”. In: (2024). arXiv:2408.08365 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Improving Quantum Approximate Optimization by Noise-Directed Adaptive Remapping

    Filip B. Maciejewski et al. “Improving Quantum Approximate Optimization by Noise-Directed Adaptive Remapping”. In:Quantum9 (Nov. 2025), p. 1906.issn: 2521-327X.doi: 10.22331/q-2025-11-06-1906.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/ q-2025-11-06-1906

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-11-06-1906.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/ 2025

  57. [57]

    Maciejewski, and Davide Venturelli.Noise-Directed Adap- tive Remapping for Integer Optimization: from qubits to (encoded) qudits

    Stuart Hadfield, Filip B. Maciejewski, and Davide Venturelli.Noise-Directed Adap- tive Remapping for Integer Optimization: from qubits to (encoded) qudits. 2026. arXiv:2606.28234 [quant-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Quantum Approximate Optimization via Noise-Directed Adaptive Warm-Starting

    Filip Maciejewski et al. “Quantum Approximate Optimization via Noise-Directed Adaptive Warm-Starting”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.09368(2026). 41

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    A programmable qudit-based quantum processor

    Yulin Chi et al. “A programmable qudit-based quantum processor”. In:Nature com- munications13.1 (2022), p. 1166

    2022

  60. [60]

    Universal Qudit Quantum Computation with Trapped Ions

    Martin Ringbauer et al. “Universal Qudit Quantum Computation with Trapped Ions”. In:Nature Physics18 (2022), pp. 1053–1057.doi: 10.1038/s41567-022-01640- 6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01640- 2022

  61. [61]

    Empowering a qudit-based quantum processor by traversing the dual bosonic ladder

    Long B Nguyen et al. “Empowering a qudit-based quantum processor by traversing the dual bosonic ladder”. In:Nature Communications15.1 (2024), p. 7117

    2024

  62. [62]

    Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit plat- form with error-resilient control

    Taeyoon Kim et al. “Ultracoherent superconducting cavity-based multiqudit plat- form with error-resilient control”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03286(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Near-term Application Engineering Challenges in Emerging Superconducting Qudit Processors

    Davide Venturelli et al. “Near-term Application Engineering Challenges in Emerging Superconducting Qudit Processors”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05608(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Algorithmic Barriers from Phase Transitions

    Dimitris A. and Amin C. “Algorithmic Barriers from Phase Transitions”. In:Pro- ceedings of the 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 2008, pp. 793–802.doi: 10.1109/FOCS.2008.11

    doi:10.1109/focs.2008.11 2008

  65. [65]

    The Traveling Salesman Problem with Many Visits to Few Cities

    Stavros S. Cosmadakis and Christos H. Papadimitriou. “The Traveling Salesman Problem with Many Visits to Few Cities”. In:SIAM Journal on Computing13.1 (1984), pp. 99–108.doi: 10.1137/0213007

    work page doi:10.1137/0213007 1984

  66. [66]

    Scheduling and Fixed-Parameter Tractability

    M. Mnich and A. Wiese. “Scheduling and Fixed-Parameter Tractability”. In:Mathe- matical Programming154.1–2 (2015), pp. 533–562.doi: 10.1007/s10107-014-0830-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-014-0830-9 2015

  67. [67]

    Scheduling MeetsN-Fold Integer Programming

    D. Knop and M. Kouteck´ y. “Scheduling MeetsN-Fold Integer Programming”. In: Journal of Scheduling21.5 (2018), pp. 493–503.doi: 10.1007/s10951-017-0550-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10951-017-0550-0 2018

  68. [68]

    On Linear Associative Algebras Corresponding to Association Schemes of Partially Balanced Designs

    R. C. Bose and Dale M. Mesner. “On Linear Associative Algebras Corresponding to Association Schemes of Partially Balanced Designs”. In:The Annals of Mathematical Statistics30.1 (1959), pp. 21–38.doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177706356. 42

    arXiv 1959