pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13082 · v1 · pith:AH37TN4Unew · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

Feedback-based quantum optimization and its classical counterpart: quantum advantage and the power of classical algorithms

Tomohiro Hattori , Takuya Hatomura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 19:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords feedback-based quantum optimizationFALQONclassical counterpartquantum advantagecombinatorial optimizationspin systemsunconstrained binary optimizationscalability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum optimization produces higher-quality solutions than classical counterparts but converges more slowly

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

This paper maps feedback-based quantum optimization to classical algorithms via the quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems. It benchmarks the quantum FALQON approach and its variants against these classical versions on small instances and tests the classical algorithms further on large instances. The results indicate quantum algorithms can deliver better solution quality while classical algorithms converge faster, with one classical method showing strong scalability on higher-order unconstrained binary optimization problems. This comparison clarifies where quantum effects may provide an edge in combinatorial optimization and demonstrates the practical value of classical feedback methods.

Core claim

Using the quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems, the feedback-based algorithm for quantum optimization (FALQON) and its variants are compared directly to newly developed classical counterparts. Benchmark tests on small-scale instances show quantum algorithms can be advantageous in solution quality, while classical algorithms tend to converge faster. One classical algorithm also exhibits significant scalability when applied to large-scale higher-order unconstrained binary optimization problems.

What carries the argument

The quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems, which maps quantum feedback optimization to equivalent classical algorithms for direct performance comparison and enables extension to higher-order classical theory.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems preserves the relative performance ranking between the quantum and classical feedback algorithms on the tested instances.

What would settle it

A new benchmark set where a classical algorithm consistently matches or exceeds the quantum algorithm in final solution quality would undermine the claimed quantum advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13082 by Takuya Hatomura, Tomohiro Hattori.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Energy density comparison between feedback-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Energy density comparison as a function of the oper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy density dynamics of classical algorithms ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Control strengths of classical algorithms for a 3- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy density of CC-FALQON as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Standard deviation of the energy density of all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Energy density dynamics and control strength of classical algorithms as a function of the operation time. A 3-SAT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Feedback-based quantum optimization is a quantum approach to combinatorial optimization. In this paper, we introduce the classical counterpart of feedback-based quantum optimization by using the quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems to discuss the possibility of quantum advantage. It also enables us to develop higher-order theory of a previously proposed classical approach to feedback-based quantum optimization. First, we compare the feedback-based algorithm for quantum optimization (FALQON) and its variant with their classical counterparts. Then, we perform benchmark tests of various quantum and classical algorithms with small-scale instances, and of classical algorithms with large-scale instances. Main findings are that (i) quantum algorithms can be advantageous to classical algorithms in terms of the quality of solutions, while classical algorithms tend to show faster convergence than quantum ones, and (ii) one of the classical algorithms discussed in this paper shows significant scalability for higher-order unconstrained binary optimization problems. These findings highlight the importance of quantumness and the usefulness of classical approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces classical counterparts to feedback-based quantum optimization algorithms such as FALQON and its variants by invoking the quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems. This enables both a direct performance comparison and the development of higher-order theory for classical feedback methods. On small-scale instances the authors report that the quantum algorithms achieve superior solution quality while the classical counterparts converge faster; on large-scale instances one classical algorithm demonstrates strong scalability for higher-order unconstrained binary optimization problems.

Significance. If the reported quality advantage of the quantum algorithms survives at larger scales, the work would usefully clarify the contribution of quantum coherence versus classical feedback dynamics in combinatorial optimization and would strengthen the case for using spin-system correspondences to derive scalable classical algorithms. The explicit large-scale classical benchmarks already constitute a concrete contribution to the classical side of the literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Benchmark tests] Benchmark section: quantum advantage in solution quality is demonstrated exclusively on small-scale instances, while all large-scale tests are performed only with the classical algorithms. No scaling extrapolation, intermediate-size verification, or discussion of how the observed ranking behaves when the classical scalable method becomes applicable is provided, leaving the central quantum-advantage claim unsupported beyond the tested regime.
  2. [Quantum-classical correspondence] Quantum-classical correspondence section: the paper derives the classical algorithms from the quantum ones via the established spin-system mapping and uses the same mapping to motivate higher-order extensions, yet supplies no numerical check that the relative performance ordering between quantum and classical feedback is preserved at sizes where the correspondence could be used to simulate the quantum dynamics classically.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and legends should explicitly state the instance sizes and the number of independent runs used to generate each curve so that readers can assess statistical reliability without consulting the main text.
  2. The definition of the higher-order classical update rule (derived from the correspondence) would benefit from an explicit equation number and a short derivation sketch in the main text rather than relegation to an appendix.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify key limitations in the scope of our benchmarks and the validation of the quantum-classical mapping. We will revise the manuscript to add discussion and intermediate-size checks, while acknowledging the inherent constraints on large-scale quantum simulations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Benchmark section: quantum advantage in solution quality is demonstrated exclusively on small-scale instances, while all large-scale tests are performed only with the classical algorithms. No scaling extrapolation, intermediate-size verification, or discussion of how the observed ranking behaves when the classical scalable method becomes applicable is provided, leaving the central quantum-advantage claim unsupported beyond the tested regime.

    Authors: We agree that quantum simulations are restricted to small instances due to exponential resource requirements, which is why large-scale tests use only the classical algorithms. The quality advantage is reported specifically for the tested small-scale regime. We will add a dedicated discussion subsection on scaling implications, incorporating qualitative extrapolation from the observed trends and the spin-system correspondence, along with caveats that direct quantum verification at large scales is currently infeasible. This will clarify that the classical scalability result stands as an independent contribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Quantum-classical correspondence section: the paper derives the classical algorithms from the quantum ones via the established spin-system mapping and uses the same mapping to motivate higher-order extensions, yet supplies no numerical check that the relative performance ordering between quantum and classical feedback is preserved at sizes where the correspondence could be used to simulate the quantum dynamics classically.

    Authors: We will add numerical comparisons at intermediate sizes (e.g., 10-20 spins) where classical simulation of the quantum feedback dynamics remains tractable. These checks will confirm whether the performance ordering observed at small scales is preserved in the regime accessible to both approaches, thereby supporting the validity of the mapping for deriving and extending the classical algorithms. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct quantum benchmarks on large-scale instances to test whether the solution-quality advantage persists where classical methods demonstrate scalability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in external correspondence and explicit benchmarks

full rationale

The paper derives classical counterparts from the quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems, an established physical mapping independent of the present work. Performance claims rest on explicit numerical benchmarks for small instances (both quantum and classical) and large instances (classical only), with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no load-bearing self-citation chains. The central findings on solution quality and convergence are directly supported by the reported test results rather than reducing to definitions or prior self-references by construction. No steps meet the criteria for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on the quantum-classical spin correspondence (standard in the field) and on the assumption that small-instance benchmarks extrapolate to the claimed advantage and scalability.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quantum-classical correspondence of spin systems preserves relative algorithmic performance
    Invoked to justify direct comparison of FALQON and its classical twin.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5465 in / 1110 out tokens · 30304 ms · 2026-05-14T19:03:14.521273+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The single parameterβ X(t) is given by βX(t) = i⟨Ψ(t)| " ˆHP, NX i=1 ˆXi # |Ψ(t)⟩,(6) which guarantees the reduction of the cost function (4)

    FALQON In the original proposal of FALQON [48, 49], the fol- lowing Hamiltonian ˆH(t) = ˆHP +β X(t) NX i=1 ˆXi,(5) was considered. The single parameterβ X(t) is given by βX(t) = i⟨Ψ(t)| " ˆHP, NX i=1 ˆXi # |Ψ(t)⟩,(6) which guarantees the reduction of the cost function (4)

    work page

  2. [2]

    [49], we can introduce multiple parameters

    iFALQON As summarized above and mentioned in Refs. [49], we can introduce multiple parameters. For example, we can consider the following Hamiltonian ˆH(t) = ˆHP + NX i=1 βX i (t) ˆXi,(7) with the parameters βX i (t) =i⟨Ψ(t)|[ ˆHP, ˆXi]|Ψ(t)⟩. (8) This algorithm is inspired by inhomogeneous driving for quantum annealing [75, 76], and thus we call it inhom...

    work page

  3. [3]

    CC-FALQON We introduce the classical counterpart of FALQON (CC-FALQON). In CC-FALQON, we consider the fol- lowing Hamiltonian Ht =H P +β X(t) NX i=1 mX i , (12) 4 with the parameter βX(t) =−2 NX i=1 mY i ∂HP ∂mZ i .(13) This is the exact classical counterpart of FALQON

    work page

  4. [4]

    CC-iFALQON We also introduce the classical counterpart of iFALQON (CC-iFALQON). In CC-iFALQON, we con- sider the following Hamiltonian Ht =H P + NX i=1 βX i (t)mX i , (14) with the parameters βX i (t) =−2m Y i ∂HP ∂mZ i .(15) This is the exact classical counterpart of iFALQON

    work page

  5. [5]

    CACAO In CACAO [63], which was derived from the theory of FALQON, we consider the following Hamiltonian Ht = NX i=1 βY i (t)mY i , (16) with the parameters βY i (t) = 2mX i ∂HP ∂mZ i .(17) In the previous study [63], faster convergence than that of FALQON was confirmed, whereas the quality of solutions was worse than that of FALQON

    work page

  6. [6]

    III A enables to develop the higher-order theory of CACAO (HOT- CACAO)

    HOT-CACAO The general idea introduced in Sec. III A enables to develop the higher-order theory of CACAO (HOT- CACAO). For example, HOT-CACAO with the second- order counterdiabatic term uses the following Hamilto- nian Ht = NX i=1 βY i (t)mY i + NX i,j=1 (i̸=j) βij(t)(mY i mZ j +m Z i mY j ),(18) with the parameters βY i (t) = 2mX i ∂HP ∂mZ i , βij(t) = 2m...

    work page

  7. [7]

    HOT-CACAO+ Finally, we introduce HOT-CACAO+, which includes all the terms discussed in this paper. The Hamiltonian is given by Ht =HP + X W={X,Y} NX i=1 βW i (t)mW i + NX i,j=1 (i̸=j) βij(t)(mY i mZ j +m Z i mY j ), (20) with the parameters βX i (t) =−2m Y i ∂HP ∂mZ i , βY i (t) = 2mX i ∂HP ∂mZ i , βij(t) = 2mX i mZ j ∂HP ∂mZ i . (21) This algorithm has t...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Pillac, M

    V. Pillac, M. Gendreau, C. Gu´ eret, and A. L. Medaglia, A review of dynamic vehicle routing problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res.225, 1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    B. L. Golden, S. Raghavan, and E. A. Wasil,The vehi- cle routing problem: latest advances and new challenges, Vol. 43 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2008)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    Neukart, G

    F. Neukart, G. Compostella, C. Seidel, D. Von Dollen, S. Yarkoni, and B. Parney, Traffic flow optimization using a quantum annealer, Front. ICT4, 29 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    J. M. Sanchez, F. Ducastelle, and D. Gratias, Generalized cluster description of multicomponent systems, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl.128, 334 (1984)

    work page 1984

  12. [12]

    Perdomo-Ortiz, N

    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Dickson, M. Drew-Brook, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models by quantum annealing, Sci. Rep. 2, 571 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Fu and P

    Y. Fu and P. W. Anderson, Application of statistical me- chanics to NP-complete problems in combinatorial opti- misation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.19, 1605 (1986)

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    Yarkoni, E

    S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quan- tum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 104001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Garey and D

    M. Garey and D. Johnson, Computers and intractability. freeman San Francisco (1979)

    work page 1979

  16. [16]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys.2, 74887 (2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    M. W. Johnson, M. H. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Jo- hansson, P. Bunyk,et al., Quantum annealing with man- ufactured spins, Nature473, 194 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Yamaoka, C

    M. Yamaoka, C. Yoshimura, M. Hayashi, T. Okuyama, H. Aoki, and H. Mizuno, A 20k-spin Ising chip to solve combinatorial optimization problems with CMOS an- nealing, IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits51, 303 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Inagaki, Y

    T. Inagaki, Y. Haribara, K. Igarashi, T. Sonobe, S. Ta- mate, T. Honjo, A. Marandi, P. L. McMahon, T. Umeki, K. Enbutsu,et al., A coherent Ising machine for 2000- node optimization problems, Science354, 603 (2016)

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    Fixstars Corporation, Fixstars Amplify,https:// amplify.fixstars.com/en/

    work page

  21. [21]

    H. Goto, K. Tatsumura, and A. R. Dixon, Combinatorial optimization by simulating adiabatic bifurcations in non- linear Hamiltonian systems, Sci. Adv.5, eaav2372 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Kitai, J

    K. Kitai, J. Guo, S. Ju, S. Tanaka, K. Tsuda, J. Shiomi, and R. Tamura, Designing metamaterials with quantum annealing and factorization machines, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013319 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Izawa, K

    S. Izawa, K. Kitai, S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and K. Tsuda, Continuous black-box optimization with an Ising ma- chine and random subspace coding, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023062 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Inoue, Y

    T. Inoue, Y. Seki, S. Tanaka, N. Togawa, K. Ishizaki, and S. Noda, Towards optimization of photonic-crystal surface-emitting lasers via quantum annealing, Opt. Ex- press30, 43503 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Matsumori, M

    T. Matsumori, M. Taki, and T. Kadowaki, Application of QUBO solver using black-box optimization to struc- tural design for resonance avoidance, Sci. Rep.12, 12143 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    K. Nawa, T. Suzuki, K. Masuda, S. Tanaka, and Y. Miura, Quantum Annealing Optimization Method for the Design of Barrier Materials in Magnetic Tunnel Junc- tions, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 024044 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Couzini´ e, Y

    Y. Couzini´ e, Y. Seki, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Tanaka, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Machine learning sup- ported annealing for prediction of grand canonical crystal structures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 044802 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Tamura, Y

    R. Tamura, Y. Seki, Y. Minamoto, K. Kitai, Y. Mat- suda, S. Tanaka, and K. Tsuda, Black-box optimization using factorization and Ising machines, Applied Physics Reviews13, 021307 (2026). 12 10 2 100 102 t 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20EP(t)/M (a) 10 2 100 102 t 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20EP(t)/M (b) 10 2 100 102 t 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20EP(t)/M (c) 10 2 100 102 t...

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    Nakano, Y

    M. Nakano, Y. Seki, S. Kikuchi, and S. Tanaka, SWIFT-FMQA: Enhancing Factorization Machine With Quadratic-Optimization Annealing via Sliding Window, IEEE Access14, 10977 (2026)

    work page 2026

  30. [30]

    Karimi and G

    H. Karimi and G. Rosenberg, Boosting quantum annealer performance via sample persistence, Quantum Inf. Pro- cess.16, 166 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Karimi, G

    H. Karimi, G. Rosenberg, and H. G. Katzgraber, Effec- tive optimization using sample persistence: A case study on quantum annealers and various Monte Carlo optimiza- tion methods, Phys. Rev. E96, 043312 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    H. Irie, H. Liang, T. Doi, S. Gongyo, and T. Hatsuda, Hybrid quantum annealing via molecular dynamics, Sci. Rep.11, 8426 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Atobe, M

    Y. Atobe, M. Tawada, and N. Togawa, Hybrid Anneal- ing Method Based on subQUBO Model Extraction With Multiple Solution Instances, IEEE Trans. Comput.71, 2606 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Kikuchi, N

    S. Kikuchi, N. Togawa, and S. Tanaka, Hybrid Optimiza- tion Method Using Simulated-Annealing-Based Ising Ma- chine and Quantum Annealer, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 124002 (2023). 13

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Hattori, H

    T. Hattori, H. Irie, T. Kadowaki, and S. Tanaka, Advan- tages of fixing spins in quantum annealing, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 013001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Hattori, H

    T. Hattori, H. Irie, T. Kadowaki, and S. Tanaka, Im- pact of Fixing Spins in a Quantum Annealer with Energy Rescaling, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 074001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    S. Ide, S. Kikuchi, and S. Tanaka, Extending Sample Per- sistence Variable Reduction for Constrained Combinato- rial Optimization Problems, arXiv:2509.19280 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Hen and F

    I. Hen and F. M. Spedalieri, Quantum annealing for con- strained optimization, Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 034007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Hen and M

    I. Hen and M. S. Sarandy, Driver Hamiltonians for con- strained optimization in quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. A93, 062312 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Kudo, Constrained quantum annealing of graph col- oring, Phys

    K. Kudo, Constrained quantum annealing of graph col- oring, Phys. Rev. A98, 022301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Kudo, Localization in the constrained quantum an- nealing of graph coloring, J

    K. Kudo, Localization in the constrained quantum an- nealing of graph coloring, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89, 064001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Hirama and M

    S. Hirama and M. Ohzeki, Efficient algorithm for binary quadratic problem by column generation and quantum annealing, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 113002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Kanai, M

    H. Kanai, M. Yamashita, K. Tanahashi, and S. Tanaka, Annealing-Assisted Column Generation for Inequality- Constrained Combinatorial Optimization Problems, IEEE Access12, 157669 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Micheletti, P

    C. Micheletti, P. Hauke, and P. Faccioli, Polymer physics by quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 080501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    D. A. Chermoshentsev, A. O. Malyshev, M. Esen- can, E. S. Tiunov, D. Mendoza, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. K. Fedorov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Polynomial uncon- strained binary optimisation inspired by optical simula- tion, arXiv:2106.13167 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Outeiral, G

    C. Outeiral, G. M. Morris, J. Shi, M. Strahm, S. C. Ben- jamin, and C. M. Deane, Investigating the potential for a limited quantum speedup on protein lattice problems, New J. Phys.23, 103030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Slongo, P

    F. Slongo, P. Hauke, P. Faccioli, and C. Micheletti, Quantum-inspired encoding enhances stochastic sam- pling of soft matter systems, Sci. Adv.9, eadi0204 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Jun and H

    K. Jun and H. Lee, HUBO formulations for solving the eigenvalue problem, Results Control Optim.11, 100222 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Biamonte, Nonperturbative k-body to two-body com- muting conversion Hamiltonians and embedding prob- lem instances into Ising spins, Phys

    J. Biamonte, Nonperturbative k-body to two-body com- muting conversion Hamiltonians and embedding prob- lem instances into Ising spins, Phys. Rev. A77, 052331 (2008)

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    Ishikawa, Transformation of general binary MRF min- imization to the first-order case, IEEE Trans

    H. Ishikawa, Transformation of general binary MRF min- imization to the first-order case, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.33, 1234 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Kolmogorov and R

    V. Kolmogorov and R. Zabin, What energy functions can be minimized via graph cuts?, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.26, 147 (2004)

    work page 2004

  52. [52]

    Delong, A

    A. Delong, A. Osokin, H. N. Isack, and Y. Boykov, Fast approximate energy minimization with label costs, Int. J. Comput. Vis96, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    Freedman and P

    D. Freedman and P. Drineas, Energy minimization via graph cuts: Settling what is possible, in2005 IEEE Com- puter Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR’05), Vol. 2 (IEEE, 2005) pp. 939–946

    work page 2005

  54. [54]

    Ikeuchi, Y

    K. Ikeuchi, Y. Matsuda, and S. Tanaka, Evaluating the performance of direct higher-order formulations in com- binatorial optimization under simulated annealing, IEEE Access , 1 (2026)

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Feedback-based quantum optimization, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, Lyapunov-control-inspired strategies for quantum combinatorial optimization, Phys. Rev. A106, 062414 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Cong and F

    S. Cong and F. Meng, A survey of quantum Lyapunov control methods, Sci. World J.2013, 967529 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio,et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    L. T. Brady and S. Hadfield, Feedback-based optimally controlled quantum states, Phys. Rev. A111, 062406 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Rattighieri, G

    L. Rattighieri, G. Pexe, B. Bernardo, and F. Fan- chini, Accelerating feedback-based quantum algorithms through time rescaling, Phys. Rev. A112, 042607 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    D. Arai, K. N. Okada, Y. Nakano, K. Mitarai, and K. Fu- jii, Scalable circuit depth reduction in feedback-based quantum optimization with a quadratic approximation, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013035 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    R. K. Malla, H. Sukeno, H. Yu, T.-C. Wei, A. Weich- selbaum, and R. M. Konik, Feedback-based quantum al- gorithm inspired by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043068 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Chandarana, K

    P. Chandarana, K. Paul, K. R. Swain, X. Chen, and A. del Campo, Lyapunov controlled counterdiabatic quantum optimization, arXiv:2409.12525 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    K. R. Swain, R. K. Malla, and A. del Campo, Noise- Assisted Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems for Ground State Properties, arXiv:2510.18984 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Abdul Rahman, ¨O

    S. Abdul Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Feedback-based quantum algorithm for constrained opti- mization problems, inInternational Conference on Paral- lel Processing and Applied Mathematics(Springer, 2024) pp. 277–289

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Abdul Rahman, H

    S. Abdul Rahman, H. G. Clausen, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Adaptive sampling noise mitiga- tion technique for feedback-based quantum algorithms, inInternational Conference on Computational Science (Springer, 2024) pp. 321–329

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    J. B. Larsen, M. D. Grace, A. D. Baczewski, and A. B. Magann, Feedback-based quantum algorithms for ground state preparation, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033336 (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    T. N. Van Long, L. N. Tran, and L. B. Ho, Imaginary- time-enhanced feedback-based quantum algorithms for universal ground-state preparation, arXiv:2512.13044 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    V. P. P´ erez, M. D. Grace, C. Arenz, and A. B. Magann, Learning parameter curves in feedback-based quantum optimization algorithms, arXiv:2601.08085 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Hatomura, Classical algorithm inspired by the feedback-based algorithm for quantum optimization and local counterdiabatic driving, Phys

    T. Hatomura, Classical algorithm inspired by the feedback-based algorithm for quantum optimization and local counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. E112, 055303 (2025)

    work page 2025

  71. [71]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, E3909 (2017). 14

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Floquet-Engineering Counterdiabatic Protocols in Quan- tum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    Hatomura and K

    T. Hatomura and K. Takahashi, Controlling and explor- ing quantum systems by algebraic expression of adiabatic gauge potential, Phys. Rev. A103, 012220 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Q. Xie, K. Seki, and S. Yunoki, Variational counter- diabatic driving of the hubbard model for ground-state preparation, Phys. Rev. B106, 155153 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to Adiabatic- ity in Krylov Space, Phys. Rev. X14, 011032 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    A lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential, 2023

    B. Bhattacharjee, A Lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential, arXiv:2302.07228 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Ohga and T

    N. Ohga and T. Hatomura, Improving variational coun- terdiabatic driving with weighted actions and computer algebra, arXiv:2505.18367 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Hatomura, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and ver- satile approximations, J

    T. Hatomura, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: theoretical framework, relations between different methods, and ver- satile approximations, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 57, 102001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    J. Yao, L. Lin, and M. Bukov, Reinforcement Learn- ing for Many-Body Ground-State Preparation Inspired by Counterdiabatic Driving, Phys. Rev. X11, 031070 (2021)

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Counterdiabaticity and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum 6, 635 (2022)

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.