Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Securities Transaction Settlement Optimization on superconducting quantum devices

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A variational quantum algorithm can find valid settlements for batches of up to 35 real transactions on today's superconducting hardware, and up to 40 in noiseless simulation.

desk verdict Honest empirical VQA study with a genuinely new NTSP formulation and iHAMMER mitigation, but the 'solved on hardware' claim is overstated and the greedy collateral heuristic can break the very feasibility constraint it is supposed to enforce. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08794 v1 pith:DKD2UHF6 submitted 2025-01-15 quant-ph

Francesco Martini , Daniele Lizzio Bosco , Carlo Barbanera , Serena Bernardini , Giacomo Ranieri , Francesca Cibrario , Davide Corbelletto , Giuseppe Bruno
show 2 more authors
Alessandra Di Pierro Luca Dellantonio
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6890C10 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords variationalquantumalgorithmssecuritiessettlementTARGET2-SecuritiesNTSPmixedintegerprogrammingconstraintencodingreadouterrormitigationBayesianoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the Night-time Transaction Settlement Problem (NTSP) used by TARGET2-Securities can be recast as an unconstrained optimization and attacked with a variational quantum algorithm on today's superconducting hardware. The key move is to fold cash, securities, collateral, and after-link constraints into the cost function using smooth non-linear penalty functions, so the objective is a diagonal observable over bitstrings representing which transactions settle. On real quantum machines the algorithm QTSA found valid settlements for instances with up to 35 transactions, which the authors state is the largest NTSP instance solved on quantum hardware to date; its noiseless quantum-inspired counterpart Q-INSP handled 40. The authors also introduce an iterative readout-error mitigation routine, iHAMMER, and show that with it a 20-transaction instance can exhibit convergent optimization on actual hardware. The motivating claim is that, despite current noise, small realistic settlement batches can be tackled by variational quantum optimization, and the same pipeline transfers to other mixed-integer programs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cost function C(θ) = Σ_x p̃_x(θ) C(x, y_x), built from the payoff F(x) plus penalty terms h_v(g_v(x,y)+b_v) for each constraint. It is a diagonal Ising-type observable, so no Pauli decomposition is needed; the quantum computer outputs bitstrings and a classical loop evaluates the cost per bitstring. Two ancillary mechanisms make this work in practice: a Gaussian parameter mapping G(θ_i) that biases the hardware-efficient ansatz toward sparse states so that p̃_x is close to p_x, and an iterative Hamming Reconstruction mitigation (iHAMMER) that redistributes probability from isolated noisy outcomes based on a calibration run. The classical optimizer is Bayesian optimization, and for each sampled x the integer collateral variables y_x are produced by a greedy heuristic rather than by the quantum circuit.

What would settle it

Construct a small NTSP instance where the greedy collateral heuristic can be compared against exact enumeration: compute y* by solving the full mixed-integer problem and y_g by Algorithm 1 for every possible x. If any x admits a feasible y* with C(x, y*) > C(x, y_g), then the cost function in Eq. (8) does not match the true NTSP objective, and the reported payoff ratios are measuring a different problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete variational pipeline for the NTSP. The model uses binary variables x for settled transactions and integer variables y for collateral lots, with constraints encoded through parameterized non-linear activation functions. Because the resulting cost is diagonal in the computational basis, the quantum computer only needs to sample candidate bitstrings, and the expected cost is estimated from reconstructed probabilities. A greedy heuristic computes the collateral lot count for each sampled settlement, and a Gaussian parameter mapping makes the output state sparse so that the probabilities can be estimated with a polynomial number of shots. The paper demonstrates that on current gate-based superconducting hardware, QTSA yields valid solutions for instances up to 35 transactions, and that iHAMMER readout mitigation enables convergent optimization for 20-transaction instances, while the noiseless Q-INSP solves all tested batches up to 40 transactions.

Load-bearing premise

For any proposed settlement x, the greedy collateral routine is assumed to find the best feasible collateral assignment y; if it returns a suboptimal y, the cost function misranks candidate solutions and the entire optimization is being driven by a corrupted objective.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same variational pipeline can be applied to other optimization problems modelable as mixed-integer programs, since inequality constraints are handled by generic non-linear penalty functions rather than problem-specific Pauli decompositions.
  • On current hardware, QTSA solves NTSP instances up to 35 transactions, and the authors state this surpasses the size of NTSP instances addressed in previous quantum works.
  • The noiseless Q-INSP variant solves all tested batches including 40 transactions, so if hardware noise and mitigation quality improve, the same architecture could plausibly scale to 40 and beyond on a device.
  • The demonstration that iHAMMER enables convergent Bayesian optimization for 20-transaction instances on real hardware suggests that tailored readout mitigation can extend the reach of sampling-based variational algorithms beyond what raw device fidelity allows.
  • Hardware noise currently limits scalability: for instances with up to 35 transactions, QTSA's payoff is statistically compatible with random sampling, so the method's practical value on larger T2S batches depends on further reductions in noise or more effective mitigation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: a natural next step not pursued here is to embed this variational solver inside T2S's existing night-time heuristic, either as a warm-start or as a fallback for batches where the classical heuristic is known to be suboptimal; the 45-minute run 4 window is at least compatible with the iteration budgets used in the experiments.
  • The activation-function penalty encoding is not limited to finance: the same recipe could encode capacity, precedence, and collateral-style inequalities in scheduling or logistics problems whose objective is diagonal over bitstrings and therefore amenable to this sampling-based evaluation.
  • iHAMMER's calibration-driven iterative filtering could be tested as a generic readout mitigation for any variational algorithm that estimates a diagonal observable from bitstring samples, independent of the NTSP.
  • A clean diagnostic for whether hardware noise or the greedy collateral heuristic is the true bottleneck would be to run Q-INSP on the 40-transaction instance while replacing the greedy y computation with an exact mixed-integer solve; if performance still degrades, the heuristic is the limiting component rather than shot noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes a simplified securities transaction settlement problem (NTSP) as a linear integer program, reformulates it as an unconstrained objective with nonlinear activation-function penalties, and benchmarks a variational quantum algorithm (QTSA) on IBM superconducting devices against a quantum-inspired solver (Q-INSP) and a random sampler (SAMPLER) on real-world-inspired instances of 20 to 40 transactions. It reports average payoff ratios relative to CPLEX, analyzes convergence with and without the iHAMMER readout-mitigation technique, and concludes that NTSP instances with up to 35 transactions were solved by QTSA on hardware.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the work would provide the largest demonstration of a quantum solver for a practical securities-settlement problem on current hardware, together with a penalty-encoding scheme and a heuristic readout mitigation. The experimental section is transparent about configurations and hyperparameters, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that QTSA behaves like a random sampler on smaller instances. However, the load-bearing feasibility of the greedy collateral heuristic is unproven and appears violated by the algorithm as written, which compromises the interpretation of the benchmark and the 'solved' claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Algorithm 1; Eqs. (7)-(8)] The greedy heuristic for computing y reads the variable valp (final balance of security position p after settling x) but never uses it to bound lotmax; lotmax is capped only by the remaining credit limit alim_tmp and the on-flow quantity limit qlim_l. As a result, the returned y can pledge more securities than are available in position p, violating Eq. (2b). The Non-Shared Collateral assumption does not prevent this, since a single link can over-pledge its own position. Because Eq. (2b) is penalized in the objective Eq. (7) (Table 3), the optimizer can discard a feasible x due to an inflated penalty, or report C(x,yx)>0 for an x whose y is actually infeasible. The paper provides no proof and no numerical check that for the Table 2 instances the greedy y is feasible whenever a feasible y exists. This affects QTSA, Q-INSP, and SAMPLER equally and invalidates the comparison with CPLEX, which solves the true constraint set. Please fix Algorithm 1 (e.g., cap lotmax by valp), re-run or re-analyze the benchmarks, and add a feasibility verification for all reported solutions.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 5; Sec. 5] The paper's own data show that QTSA and SAMPLER are statistically compatible for instances with up to 35 transactions (average payoff ratios and standard deviations overlap), and Sec. 4.3 concludes that QTSA behaves similarly to a random sampler. Yet the conclusion states that 'NTSP instances with up to 35 transactions were solved by QTSA on gate-based superconducting quantum hardware.' This is an overstatement: the reported evidence supports at best that QTSA matches random sampling on these instances, not that it provides a systematic solution. The claim should be qualified (e.g., 'found feasible solutions at rates comparable to a random sampler') or supported by a formal comparison showing superiority over SAMPLER.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Algorithm 1] The variable lotmax is used inconsistently with Eq. (4b): qmin_l is a quantity of securities, while lotmax appears to be a number of lots. Please clarify the units and conversion between lots and quantities.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, paragraph after Fig. 5] The text reads 'Q-ISNP can approximate it well'; this appears to be a typo for 'Q-INSP'.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, paragraph on n<=35] The statement that the total number of possible solutions 2^n is 'sufficiently small to guarantee' that QTSA and SAMPLER outperform Q-INSP for n<=35 is questionable: 2^35 is about 3.4e10, and no guarantee follows from the size of the search space alone. Please rephrase to 'small enough that random sampling can be competitive'.
  4. [App. D.2, Eq. (12)] The notation P_{n,sigma}(x <= ceil(log2 delta)) uses x both as the binomial random variable and as the settlement decision vector used throughout the paper; please use a different symbol for the random variable.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4] The fidelity is plotted as an average over 10 runs, but the text mentions that 5 of the 30-qubit runs were taken at different times with different noise conditions; indicating per-run noise conditions or separate markers would help interpret the bump at n=30.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the VQA is benchmarked against an independent CPLEX solution of the same MIP; the greedy y_x heuristic is a feasibility/correctness risk, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The NTSP payoff F(x) in Eq. (1) and constraints (2)-(5) are taken from T2S references [17,18,33], not from the algorithm's output. The unconstrained objective C(x,y) in Eq. (7) adds hand-chosen activation penalties (Table 3), and Eq. (8) estimates C(θ) from measured probabilities p̃_x; neither quantity is defined in terms of the final benchmark. The y_x values are produced by greedy Algorithm 1; while the paper does not prove that this heuristic always returns feasible/optimal collateral pledges (a genuine correctness risk that could invalidate the reported NTSP feasibility and the comparison with CPLEX), this is an algorithmic flaw or missing proof, not circularity, because the heuristic is not fitted to CPLEX solutions and C is not defined as the CPLEX payoff. The parameter-mapping σ in App. D.2 is tuned for output sparsity through Eq. (12), and iHAMMER calibrates on the all-zero state to estimate noise; neither uses the target solution as an input. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [12], [28], [30], [31]) appear only in general VQA background or in the outlook and are not load-bearing for the NTSP claim. The comparison with CPLEX and SAMPLER is an external benchmark against the same explicitly stated model, so no prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters (λ, activation shapes, σ, BO settings) and on heuristic components (greedy y-computation, iHAMMER). These are not derived from first principles, but they are explicit and documented.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda (λ) in objective Eq. (1) = 0.5
    Hand-picked to equally weight volume and amount terms (App. D.1). Affects the relative importance of cash volume vs transaction count in F(x).
  • Activation hyperparameters β_v, B_v, T_v = β: 100,10,5; B: 0.025,0.025,10; T: 0,0,-0.5
    Chosen by hand for the three constraint groups (Table 3). They set penalty strength and steepness; no optimization or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • σ in parameter mapping G(θ) = 0.35587..0.15536 per instance, plus 0.14361 for Fig. 6
    Tuned via Eq. (12) with δ=128 and S=10^4 (or δ=16, S=2000). Controls how sparse the output distribution is; directly affects shot noise in cost estimation.
  • δ and S in Eq. (12) = δ=128, S=10000 (Fig. 5); δ=16, S=2000 (Fig. 6)
    User-set targets for expected number of measured bitstrings and number of shots. These are not data-derived but chosen by the authors.
  • BO acquisition function and hyperparameters = ucb κ=2.576, 300 iterations; ei ξ=0.75, 100 iterations
    Bayesian optimization settings from App. D.2/D.3; standard choices but not justified in detail.
  • iHAMMER threshold 9/10 S γ = 0.9 * S * (1 - pcal_0)
    Stopping criterion for the iterative HAMMER procedure (App. B); a heuristic constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NTSP is modeled as a Linear Integer Programming problem using the simplifications in Table 1 (no partial settlement, simplified collateral, non-shared collateral, etc.)
    The problem formalization in Sec. 2.2 follows [17,18] but drops several real T2S features. The paper states this impact qualitatively but does not quantify how the simplifications affect solution relevance.
  • domain assumption Algorithm 1 computes the optimal or at least a correct value of collateral lots y for each settlement x
    The cost C(x,y) in Eq. (7) uses y from the greedy heuristic (App. A). No proof of optimality or feasibility under all constraint combinations is given; the Non-Shared Collateral assumption (Table 1) makes the greedy more plausible but not verified.
  • ad hoc to paper The parameter mapping G(θ) keeps the output distribution sparse enough that 10^4 shots estimate C(θ) reliably
    The mapping in Eq. (6) and the σ selection in Eq. (12) are introduced specifically to make the sampling-based cost estimation work. If the real distribution is not as sparse as modeled, the cost signal is noisy.
  • domain assumption Errors in the quantum circuit are localized in Hamming space, so HAMMER-style reconstruction improves fidelity
    iHAMMER (App. B) builds on the empirical Hamming-locality of errors from [62]; the paper does not test this assumption on the specific NTSP circuits beyond the fidelity experiments in Sec. 4.1.
  • domain assumption The hardware-efficient ansatz with NL=1 has sufficient expressibility to represent good solutions
    The chosen circuit (Sec. 3) is shallow and matches IBM connectivity; the paper acknowledges that other ansatze (e.g., QAOA) might perform better but are too deep for current devices. Expressibility is not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Securities Transaction Settlement Optimization on superconducting quantum devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKD2UHF6

@misc{pith2026250108794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Securities Transaction Settlement Optimization on superconducting quantum devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKD2UHF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08794}
}
read the original abstract

We describe a quantum variational algorithm for securities transactions settlement optimization, based on a novel mathematical formalization of the problem that includes the most relevant constraints considered in the pan-European securities settlement platform TARGET2-Securities. The proposed algorithm is designed for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum devices, specifically targeting IBM's superconducting qubit machines. We adopt non-linear activation functions to encode inequality constraints in the objective function of the problem, and design customized noise mitigation techniques to alleviate the effect of readout errors. We consider batches of up to 40 trades obtained from real transactional data to benchmark our algorithm on quantum hardware against classical and quantum-inspired solvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08794 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic diagram representing the sequence of optimization runs performed by T2S during the night [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of the proposed VQA. (a) Starting from a point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between fidelity of sparse quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Performance of our VQA approach in Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Payoff convergence analysis for QTSA and Q-INSP algorithms, solving gs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Different activation function hv (Eq. (11)) generated by varying the parameters Bv (on the left) and Tv (on the right). Here, βv is fixed to 1. For the experiment discussed in Sec. 4, we employed the hyper-parameterization described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Simulating Physics with Computers

    Richard P Feynman. “Simulating Physics with Computers”. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21.6/7 (1982)

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete loga- rithms on a quantum computer

    Peter W Shor. “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete loga- rithms on a quantum computer”. SIAM re- view 41.2 (1999), pp. 303–332

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    A fast quantum mechan- ical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. “A fast quantum mechan- ical algorithm for database search”. Pro- ceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 1996, pp. 212–219

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Fast classical simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tol- erance

    Tomislav Beguˇ si´ c and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Fast classical simulation of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tol- erance. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Gunnels, Giacomo Nannicini, Lior Horesh, and Robert Wisni- eff

    Edwin Pednault, John A. Gunnels, Giacomo Nannicini, Lior Horesh, and Robert Wisni- eff. Leveraging Secondary Storage to Simu- late Deep 54-qubit Sycamore Circuits . 2019. 13

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Questions and Concerns About Google’s Quantum Supremacy Claim

    Gil Kalai, Yosef Rinott, and Tomer Shoham. Questions and Concerns About Google’s Quantum Supremacy Claim . 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Closing the

    Yong (Alexander) Liu et al. “Closing the ”quantum supremacy” gap: achieving real- time simulation of a random quantum circuit using a new Sunway supercom- puter”. Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Com- puting, Networking, Storage and Analysis . SC ’21. New York, NY, USA: Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, 2021. doi: 10.1...

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault toler- ance

    Youngseok Kim et al. “Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault toler- ance”. Nature 618.7965 (2023), pp. 500–505

    work page 2023

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Improving the efficiency of payments systems using quantum computing

    Christopher McMahon et al. “Improving the efficiency of payments systems using quantum computing”. Management Science (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Security in quantum cryptography

    Christopher Portmann and Renato Ren- ner. “Security in quantum cryptography”. Reviews of Modern Physics 94.2 (2022), p. 025008

    2022

  3. [11]

    Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quan- tum chemistry

    Mario Motta and Julia E Rice. “Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quan- tum chemistry”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Re- views: Computational Molecular Science 12.3 (2022), e1580

    2022

  4. [12]

    Measurement-Based Infused Circuits for Variational Quantum Eigensolvers

    Albie Chan, Zheng Shi, Luca Dellantonio, Wolfgang D¨ ur, and Christine A. Muschik. “Measurement-Based Infused Circuits for Variational Quantum Eigensolvers”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (24 2024), p. 240601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.240601

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Quantum algorithms for mixed binary optimization applied to transaction settlement

    Lee Braine, Daniel J Egger, Jennifer Glick, and Stefan Woerner. “Quantum algorithms for mixed binary optimization applied to transaction settlement”. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2 (2021), pp. 1–8

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ex- ponential qubit reduction in optimization for financial transaction settlement

    Elias X Huber, Benjamin YL Tan, Paul R Griffin, and Dimitris G Angelakis. “Ex- ponential qubit reduction in optimization for financial transaction settlement”. EPJ Quantum Technology 11.1 (2024), p. 52

    2024

  7. [15]

    A threshold for quantum advantage in derivative pric- ing

    Shouvanik Chakrabarti et al. “A threshold for quantum advantage in derivative pric- ing”. Quantum 5 (2021), p. 463

    2021

  8. [16]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond”. Quantum 2 (2018), p. 79. doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Securities and Cash Settlement Framework

    Ekaterina Alekseeva, Sana Ghariani, and Nicolas Wolters. “Securities and Cash Settlement Framework”. en. Mathematical Optimization Theory and Operations Re- search. Ed. by Alexander Kononov, Michael Khachay, Valery A Kalyagin, and Panos Pardalos. Vol. 12095. Lecture Notes in C...

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Target2-Securities User Detailed Functional Specifications. 2024. url: https://www.ec b.europa.eu/paym/target/t2s/profuse/ sdd/shared/pdf/T2S_UDFS_R2024.JUN_cl ean_20240222.en.pdf?7c66fda324409a1e c87ecb9de760d8be (visited on 10/17/2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Quantum supremacy us- ing a programmable superconducting pro- cessor

    Frank Arute et al. “Quantum supremacy us- ing a programmable superconducting pro- cessor”. Nature 574.7779 (2019), pp. 505– 510

    2019

  12. [20]

    Introduction to Mathemat- ical Optimization

    Matteo Fischetti. Introduction to Mathemat- ical Optimization. M. Fischetti, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Reducibility among combi- natorial problems

    Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combi- natorial problems. Springer, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Efficient algorithms for the clearing of interbank payments

    Michael M G¨ untzer, Dieter Jungnickel, and Matthias Leclerc. “Efficient algorithms for the clearing of interbank payments”. Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research 106.1 (1998), pp. 212–219

    1998

  15. [23]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo et al. “Variational quantum algorithms”. Nature Reviews Physics 3.9 (2021), pp. 625–644

    2021

  16. [24]

    Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling

    Kunal Sharma, Sumeet Khatri, M Cerezo, and Patrick J Coles. “Noise resilience of variational quantum compiling”. New Jour- nal of Physics 22.4 (2020), p. 043006. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab784c

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Challenges of variational quantum opti- mization with measurement shot noise

    Giuseppe Scriva, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Se- bastiano Pilati, and Guglielmo Mazzola. “Challenges of variational quantum opti- mization with measurement shot noise”. Physical Review A 109.3 (2024), p. 032408

    2024

  18. [26]

    Lim- itations of variational quantum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach

    Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Cam- byse Rouz´ e, and Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca. “Lim- itations of variational quantum algorithms: a quantum optimal transport approach”. PRX Quantum 4.1 (2023), p. 010309

    2023

  19. [27]

    Connecting ansatz ex- pressibility to gradient magnitudes and bar- ren plateaus

    Zo¨ e Holmes, Kunal Sharma, Marco Cerezo, and Patrick J Coles. “Connecting ansatz ex- pressibility to gradient magnitudes and bar- ren plateaus”. PRX Quantum 3.1 (2022), p. 010313. 14

    2022

  20. [30]

    Measurement-Based Variational Quantum Eigensolver

    R. R. Ferguson et al. “Measurement-Based Variational Quantum Eigensolver”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (22 2021), p. 220501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.220501

    2021 doi

  21. [32]

    General Principles Of T2S . 2011. url: htt ps://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/target/ target - professional - use - documents - links/t2s/shared/pdf/2011_t2s_genera l_principles.pdf?0dc079ccd42f5939281 0de2c96912ebd & 0dc079ccd42f59392810de 2c96912ebd (visited on 10/17/2024)

    2011

  22. [33]

    T2S NTS Algorithms Objectives . 2018. url: https : / / www . ecb . europa . eu / paym / t arget / t2s / profuse / shared / pdf / T2S _ NTS _ algorithms _ objectives _ V1 . 1 . pdf (visited on 10/17/2024)

    2018

  23. [34]

    Quantum computing: a bubble ready to burst or a looming break- through?

    Giuseppe Bruno. “Quantum computing: a bubble ready to burst or a looming break- through?” Bank of Italy Occasional Paper 716 (2022)

    2022

  24. [35]

    T2S Auto-collateralisation. 2012. url: http s://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/target/ target - professional - use - documents - links/t2s/shared/pdf/T2S_SpecialSeri es_issue2.pdf (visited on 10/17/2024)

    2012

  25. [36]

    Combinatorial optimization: algo- rithms and complexity

    Christos H Papadimitriou and Kenneth Steiglitz. Combinatorial optimization: algo- rithms and complexity. Courier Corporation, 1998

    1998

  26. [38]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor

    Abhinav Kandala et al. “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor”. en. Nature 567.7749 (2019), pp. 491–495. doi: 10.1038/s41586- 019-1040-7

    2019 doi

  27. [39]

    Simulating lat- tice gauge theories within quantum tech- nologies

    Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls et al. “Simulating lat- tice gauge theories within quantum tech- nologies”. Eur. Phys. J. D 74.8 (2020), pp. 1–42

    2020

  28. [40]

    Practical quan- tum advantage in quantum simulation

    Andrew J Daley et al. “Practical quan- tum advantage in quantum simulation”.Na- ture 607.7920 (2022), pp. 667–676. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04940-6

    2022 doi

  29. [41]

    Self-verifying vari- ational quantum simulation of lattice mod- els

    Christian Kokail et al. “Self-verifying vari- ational quantum simulation of lattice mod- els”. Nature 569.7756 (2019), pp. 355–360. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1177-4

    2019 doi

  30. [42]

    Simulating 2D Ef- fects in Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer

    Danny Paulson et al. “Simulating 2D Ef- fects in Lattice Gauge Theories on a Quantum Computer”. PRX Quantum 2 (3 2021), p. 030334. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuan- tum.2.030334

    2021 doi

  31. [43]

    A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simula- tions of gauge theories in particle physics

    Jan F. Haase et al. “A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simula- tions of gauge theories in particle physics”. Quantum 5 (2021), p. 393. doi: 10.22331/q- 2021-02-04-393

    2021 doi

  32. [44]

    The Quantum Ap- proximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gut- mann, and Leo Zhou. “The Quantum Ap- proximate Optimization Algorithm and the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model at Infinite Size”. en-GB. Quantum 6 (2022), p. 759. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-07-07-759

    2022 doi

  33. [45]

    Adaptive quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm for solv- ing combinatorial problems on a quan- tum computer

    Linghua Zhu et al. “Adaptive quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm for solv- ing combinatorial problems on a quan- tum computer”. Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (3 2022), p. 033029. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.4.033029

    2022 doi

  34. [46]

    Quantum Optimization for the Graph Coloring Problem with Space- Efficient Embedding

    Zsolt Tabi et al. “ Quantum Optimization for the Graph Coloring Problem with Space- Efficient Embedding ”. 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2020, pp. 56–

    2020

  35. [47]

    Williams, Stefano Scali, Antonio A

    Chelsea A. Williams, Stefano Scali, Antonio A. Gentile, Daniel Berger, and Oleksandr Kyriienko. Addressing the Readout Prob- lem in Quantum Differential Equation Al- gorithms with Quantum Scientific Machine Learning. 2024. 15

    2024

  36. [48]

    Can Geometric Quan- tum Machine Learning Lead to Advantage in Barcode Classification? 2024

    Chukwudubem Umeano, Stefano Scali, and Oleksandr Kyriienko. Can Geometric Quan- tum Machine Learning Lead to Advantage in Barcode Classification? 2024

    2024

  37. [50]

    Better than classical? The subtle art of benchmarking quantum ma- chine learning models

    Joseph Bowles, Shahnawaz Ahmed, and Maria Schuld. Better than classical? The subtle art of benchmarking quantum ma- chine learning models. 2024

    2024

  38. [51]

    Qubit-efficient encoding schemes for binary optimisation problems

    Benjamin Tan, Marc-Antoine Lemonde, Su- panut Thanasilp, Jirawat Tangpanitanon, and Dimitris G Angelakis. “Qubit-efficient encoding schemes for binary optimisation problems”. Quantum 5 (2021), p. 454

    2021

  39. [52]

    Expanding the IBM Quan- tum roadmap to anticipate the future of quantum-centric supercomputing (Updated 2024)

    Jay Gambetta. “Expanding the IBM Quan- tum roadmap to anticipate the future of quantum-centric supercomputing (Updated 2024)”. IBM (2025)

    2025

  40. [53]

    On the practical usefulness of the Hardware Effi- cient Ansatz

    Lorenzo Leone, Salvatore F.E. Oliviero, Lukasz Cincio, and M. Cerezo. “On the practical usefulness of the Hardware Effi- cient Ansatz”. Quantum 8 (2024), p. 1395. doi: 10.22331/q-2024-07-03-1395

    2024 doi

  41. [54]

    Quantum Approximate Optimization Al- gorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Im- plementation on Near-Term Devices

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. “Quantum Approximate Optimization Al- gorithm: Performance, Mechanism, and Im- plementation on Near-Term Devices”. Phys. Rev. X 10 (2 2020), p. 021067. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021067

    2020 doi

  42. [55]

    Adaptive estima- tion of quantum observables

    Ariel Shlosberg et al. “Adaptive estima- tion of quantum observables”. Quantum 7 (2023), p. 906. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-01-26- 906

    2023 doi

  43. [56]

    On complexity of the quantum Ising model

    Sergey Bravyi and Matthew Hastings. “On complexity of the quantum Ising model”. Communications in Mathematical Physics 349.1 (2017), pp. 1–45

    2017

  44. [57]

    Self- mitigating Trotter circuits for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer

    Sarmed A Rahman, Randy Lewis, Emanuele Mendicelli, and Sarah Powell. “Self- mitigating Trotter circuits for SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer”. Phys. Rev. D 106 (7 2022), p. 074502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.074502

    2022 doi

  45. [59]

    Enhancing quantum computation via superposition of quantum gates

    Jorge Miguel-Ramiro et al. “Enhancing quantum computation via superposition of quantum gates”. Phys. Rev. A 108 (6 2023), p. 062604. doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.108.062604

    2023 doi

  46. [60]

    Superposed Quantum Error Mitigation

    Jorge Miguel-Ramiro et al. “Superposed Quantum Error Mitigation”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (23 2023), p. 230601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.230601

    2023 doi

  47. [61]

    Dynamical decoupling of open quan- tum systems

    Lorenza Viola, Emanuel Knill, and Seth Lloyd. “Dynamical decoupling of open quan- tum systems”. Physical Review Letters 82.12 (1999), p. 2417

    1999

  48. [62]

    doi: 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00018

    2020

  49. [63]

    Hammer: boosting fidelity of noisy quantum circuits by exploiting hamming behavior of erro- neous outcomes

    Swamit Tannu, Poulami Das, Ramin Ayan- zadeh, and Moinuddin Qureshi. “Hammer: boosting fidelity of noisy quantum circuits by exploiting hamming behavior of erro- neous outcomes”. Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Architec- tural Support for Programming La...

    2022

  50. [64]

    Quantum com- puting with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari et al. “Quantum com- puting with Qiskit”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  51. [65]

    Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a superconducting quantum computing system

    Petar Jurcevic et al. “Demonstration of quantum volume 64 on a superconducting quantum computing system”. Quantum Sci- ence and Technology 6.2 (2021), p. 025020. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/abe519

    2021 doi

  52. [66]

    Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms

    Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P Adams. “Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms”. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . Ed. by F. Pereira, C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, and K.Q. Weinberger. Vol. 25. Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2012

    2012

  53. [67]

    Convergence Rates of Ef- ficient Global Optimization Algorithms

    Adam D. Bull. “Convergence Rates of Ef- ficient Global Optimization Algorithms”. Journal of Machine Learning Research12.88 (2011), pp. 2879–2904

    2011

  54. [68]

    Taking the Human Out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando de Fre- itas. “Taking the Human Out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization”. Proceed- ings of the IEEE 104.1 (2016), pp. 148–175. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218

    2016

  55. [69]

    Review of optimization techniques

    Gerhard Venter. “Review of optimization techniques” (2010). 16

    2010

  56. [70]

    High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization with Sparse Axis-Aligned Subspaces

    David Eriksson and Martin Jankowiak. “High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization with Sparse Axis-Aligned Subspaces”. ArXiv abs/2103.00349 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  57. [71]

    Quantum Computing Tech- nology and Roadmap

    Heike Riel. “Quantum Computing Tech- nology and Roadmap”. ESSDERC 2022 - IEEE 52nd European Solid-State De- vice Research Conference (ESSDERC) . 2022, pp. 25–30. doi: 10.1109/ESS- DERC55479.2022.9947181

    2022

  58. [72]

    Benchmarking quan- tum processor performance at scale

    David C McKay et al. “Benchmarking quan- tum processor performance at scale”. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05933 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  59. [73]

    Integrated Tool Set for Control, Calibration, and Characteriza- tion of Quantum Devices Applied to Super- conducting Qubits

    Nicolas Wittler et al. “Integrated Tool Set for Control, Calibration, and Characteriza- tion of Quantum Devices Applied to Super- conducting Qubits”. Phys. Rev. Appl. 15 (3 2021), p. 034080. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevAp- plied.15.034080

    2021 doi

  60. [74]

    IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio— A primer

    Stefan Nickel, Claudius Steinhardt, Hans Schlenker, and Wolfgang Burkart. “IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio— A primer”. Decision Optimization with IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio: A Hands-On Introduction to Modeling with the Optimization Programming Lan- guage (OPL) . Ber...

    2022 doi

  61. [75]

    Hybrid Quantum- Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation

    Suguru Endo, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C. Ben- jamin, and Xiao Yuan. “Hybrid Quantum- Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation”. Journal of the Physical Soci- ety of Japan 90.3 (2021), p. 032001. doi: 10.7566/JPSJ.90.032001

    2021 doi

  62. [76]

    Ising machines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization prob- lems

    Naeimeh Mohseni, Peter L McMahon, and Tim Byrnes. “Ising machines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization prob- lems”. Nature Reviews Physics 4.6 (2022), pp. 363–379

    2022

  63. [77]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems

    Andrew Lucas. “Ising formulations of many NP problems”. Frontiers in physics 2 (2014), p. 5

    2014

  64. [78]

    A square-root speedup for finding the smallest eigenvalue

    Alex Kerzner et al. “A square-root speedup for finding the smallest eigenvalue”. Quan- tum Science and Technology 9.4 (2024), p. 045025. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ad6a36

    2024 doi

  65. [79]

    Mitigating depo- larizing noise on quantum computers with noise-estimation circuits

    Miroslav Urbanek et al. “Mitigating depo- larizing noise on quantum computers with noise-estimation circuits”. Physical review letters 127.27 (2021), p. 270502

    2021

  66. [80]

    Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python

    Fernando Nogueira. Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python . 2014. 17 A Greedy Heuristic for Collateral Computation We outlined in Algorithm 1 the classical heuristic developed for the computation of the y decision variables of the NT...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.