Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Quantum Optimization

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In slow Trotterized annealing on MaxCut, genuine multipartite entanglement rises to a barrier near the minimum gap and falls again, and the chance of finding the optimum is bounded by one minus the final entanglement.

desk verdict The analytical GGM bound is solid and the barrier observation is worth reporting, but the paper should scan the symmetry-breaking offset before claiming the barrier is generic. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08119 v2 pith:DVYIR7SP submitted 2024-11-12 quant-ph

Gopal Chandra Santra , Sudipto Singha Roy , Daniel J. Egger , Philipp Hauke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords entanglementquantummultipartiteoptimizationalgorithmannealingbipartitegenuine
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

Quantum optimization algorithms usually start from a simple state with no entanglement and try to end in a simple state representing the best answer. On the way, the quantum circuit creates correlations. This paper measures genuine multipartite entanglement with the generalized geometric measure (GGM), which asks how far the current state is from any state that can be built from separate pieces. If the state is far from every product state, it has entanglement shared by many qubits at once.

For MaxCut problems on eight qubits, the authors simulate Trotterized quantum annealing. In slow sweeps, the GGM rises as the system crosses the point where the two lowest energy levels come close together, then falls again as the algorithm approaches the product-state answer. They call this rise and fall a multipartite entanglement barrier. In fast, unsuccessful sweeps, the entanglement stays high at the end. The quantum approximate optimization algorithm behaves differently: with each added layer it builds up GGM without a barrier.

The paper also proves a simple bound: the probability of measuring the optimal answer is no larger than one minus the final GGM. In addition, overlaps with the initial product state and the exact solution product state bound the GGM throughout the sweep. Because those overlaps are easier to measure than full entanglement, the bound could serve as an experimental proxy for multipartite entanglement in optimization hardware.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central analytical result is Eq. (14): G2(|ψ(s)⟩) ≤ min{1−|c0(s)|², 1−|d+(s)|², 1/2}, giving the corollary that the final success probability |c0|² is bounded above by 1 − G2_final. If correct, the final multipartite entanglement directly caps the chance of outputting the optimal product-state solution, and the rise and fall of GGM, the multipartite entanglement barrier, tracks whether a slow anneal succeeds.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical claim of a multipartite entanglement barrier rests on the modeling assumption that the arbitrary symmetry-breaking offset f=0.05 in Eq. (8) is small enough to preserve the physical MaxCut annealing while making the solution unique. As App. C shows, the barrier mechanism is a near-GHZ superposition of the Z2-paired computational basis states |e0⟩ and |e1⟩; if the pairing or the level structure changes with f, the barrier could be an artifact of the perturbation rather than a generic feature of quantum optimization.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core derivation uses standard definitions and the fact that MaxCut eigenstates are product states. No invented entities appear. The two hand-chosen numbers, f and Δt, are not fitted to make the theorem work, but they do shape the numerical barrier observation.

free parameters (2)
  • Symmetry-breaking offset f = 0.05
    Introduced in Eq. (8) to lift Z2 degeneracy of MaxCut so the solution is a unique product state. Chosen by hand, not derived; it shapes the near-GHZ pairing that produces the GGM barrier (App. C).
  • Trotter time step Δt = 0.19 (Fig. 2); 0.2 (Figs. 5 and 6)
    Chosen to keep final energy low across all layer counts; not optimized per instance (App. B). Quantitative GGM curves depend on it, though the analytical bound does not.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math GGM equals 1 minus the squared maximum Schmidt coefficient over all bipartitions (Eq. (2)).
    Quoted from Refs. [31,32]; used to compute G2.
  • domain assumption Eigenstates |e_i> of the cost Hamiltonian are product states.
    HC in Eq. (8) is diagonal in the computational basis (Ising ZZ terms plus local Z field), so the basis states used in Eq. (9) are product states; needed for Eq. (11).
  • standard math The first-order Trotter-Suzuki decomposition (Eq. (4)) accurately represents the annealing sweep.
    Standard numerical tool; the error is O(Δt^2).
  • ad hoc to paper The f=0.05 perturbation preserves the physical annealing dynamics while lifting degeneracy.
    The barrier mechanism in App. C relies on near-degenerate Z2 pairs; if f were not small, the observed barrier could change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Quantum Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVYIR7SP

@misc{pith2026241108119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Quantum Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVYIR7SP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08119}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to generate bipartite entanglement in quantum computing technologies is widely regarded as pivotal. However, the role of genuinely multipartite entanglement is much less understood than bipartite entanglement, particularly in the context of solving complicated optimization problems using quantum devices. It is thus crucial from both the algorithmic and hardware standpoints to understand whether multipartite entanglement contributes to achieving a good solution. Here, we tackle this challenge by analyzing genuine multipartite entanglement -- quantified by the generalized geometric measure -- generated in Trotterized quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm. Using numerical benchmarks, we analyze its occurrence in the annealing schedule in detail. We observe a multipartite-entanglement barrier, and we explore how it correlates to the algorithm's success. We also prove how multipartite entanglement provides an upper bound to the overlap of the instantaneous state with an exact solution. Vice versa, the overlaps to the initial and final product states, which can be easily measured experimentally, offer upper bounds for the multipartite entanglement during the entire schedule. Our results help to shed light on how complex quantum correlations come to bear as a resource in quantum optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Pictorial representation of the GGM: The GGM of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Results as a function of normalized layer number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The GGM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. GGM from numerical benchmarks of 100 MaxCut instances. Panels (a) to (c), correspond to TQA with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relation between the multipartite entanglement barrier and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Graph instance used in Sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A non-zero magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Population of the four lowest-energy instantaneous eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Largest Schmidt coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The GGM ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Boosting quantum annealing performance through direct polynomial unconstrained binary optimization

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For 3-SAT problems, direct PUBO encoding shows larger minimum energy gaps than a standard QUBO reduction, hinting at an exponential speedup for some problem families.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    III D, the success probability, i.e., the probability corresponding to the ground-state of the cost Hamiltonian, |c0|2, is bounded above by 1 − Gfinal 2

    Final GGM and success probability As a corollary to the Sec. III D, the success probability, i.e., the probability corresponding to the ground-state of the cost Hamiltonian, |c0|2, is bounded above by 1 − Gfinal 2 . In Fig. 7(a), we see that with an increasing number of layers (slower sweep), the success probability saturates the bound. In contrast, with ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Disentanglement and success probability As a complementary analysis, we also study how the amount of dis-entanglement, i.e., the reduction of GGM af- ter its peak, ∆G = Gmax 2 − Gfinal 2 , is related to the success probability. To this end, we calculate the conditional proba- bility (Pcond[Pc,ϵ ]) of obtaining a success probability greater than some Pc, g...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Jozsa, Quantum effects in algorithms, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communi- cations (Springer, 1998) pp

    R. Jozsa, Quantum effects in algorithms, in NASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communi- cations (Springer, 1998) pp. 103–112

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Jozsa and N

    R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 459, 2011 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Ding and Z

    S. Ding and Z. Jin, Review on the study of entanglement in quantum computation speedup, Chinese Science Bulletin 52, 2161 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Linden and S

    N. Linden and S. Popescu, Good dynamics versus bad kinemat- ics: Is entanglement needed for quantum computation?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 047901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Abbas, A

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B ¨artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Co ffrin, G. Cortiana, V . Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, et al., Challenges and opportunities in quan- tum optimization, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    H. M. Bauza and D. A. Lidar, Scaling advantage in approxi- mate optimization with quantum annealing, arXiv:2401.07184 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Rajak, S

    A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quan- tum annealing: An overview, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 381, 20210417 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    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)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Hauke, L

    P. Hauke, L. Bonnes, M. Heyl, and W. Lechner, Probing entan- glement in adiabatic quantum optimization with trapped ions, Frontiers in Physics 3, 21 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Or ´us and J

    R. Or ´us and J. I. Latorre, Universality of entanglement and quantum-computation complexity, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052308 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    A. K. Pati and S. L. Braunstein, Role of entanglement in quan- tum computation, Journal of the Indian Institute of Science 89, 295 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Dupont, N

    M. Dupont, N. Didier, M. J. Hodson, J. E. Moore, and M. J. Reagor, Calibrating the classical hardness of the quantum ap- proximate optimization algorithm, PRX Quantum 3, 040339 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Dupont, N

    M. Dupont, N. Didier, M. J. Hodson, J. E. Moore, and M. J. Reagor, Entanglement perspective on the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022423 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    S. S. Roy, S. N. Santalla, J. Rodr ´ıguez-Laguna, and G. Sierra, Entanglement as geometry and flow, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195134 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    S. S. Roy, S. N. Santalla, G. Sierra, and J. Rodr ´ıguez-Laguna, Link representation of the entanglement entropies for all bipar- titions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 54, 305301 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    De Chiara and A

    G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Genuine quantum correlations in quantum many-body systems: a review of recent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Binder and A

    K. Binder and A. P. Young, Spin glasses: Experimental facts, 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 s/p 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ∏2 max 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 𝒔/𝒑=𝟎𝟎.𝟏𝟎.𝟐𝟎.𝟑𝟎.𝟒𝟎.𝟓𝟎.𝟔𝟎.𝟕𝟎.𝟖𝟎.𝟗𝟏all(4)(3)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(1, 3, 5, 6)---(5)(2)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(3)(4)(0, 2, 4, 7)---(3)(6)(6)(4)(4)(4...

    1986

  14. [22]

    Tanaka, R

    S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum spin glasses, annealing and computation, Cambridge University Press (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Hillery, V

    M. Hillery, V . Buˇzek, and A. Berthiaume, Quantum secret shar- ing, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Chen, S.-Y

    P.-X. Chen, S.-Y . Zhu, and G.-C. Guo, General form of genuine multipartite entanglement quantum channels for teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032324 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Epping, H

    M. Epping, H. Kampermann, C. macchiavello, and D. Bruß, Multi-partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribu- tion in networks, New Journal of Physics 19, 093012 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    T ´oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys

    G. T ´oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrol- ogy, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D ¨ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Measurement-based quantum computation, Nature Physics 5, 19–26 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Bruß and C

    D. Bruß and C. Macchiavello, Multipartite entanglement in quantum algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 83, 052313 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    G. C. Santra, F. Jendrzejewski, P. Hauke, and D. J. Egger, Squeezing and quantum approximate optimization, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012413 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Shimony, Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 755, 675 (1995)

    A. Shimony, Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 755, 675 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    Barnum and N

    H. Barnum and N. Linden, Monotones and invariants for multi- particle quantum states, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 6787 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entan- glement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entangle- ment measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Biswas, R

    A. Biswas, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Genuine- multipartite-entanglement trends in gapless-to-gapped transi- tions of quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. A90, 032301 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Badzia ¸ g, ˇC

    P. Badzia ¸ g, ˇC. Brukner, W. Laskowski, T. Paterek, and M. ˙Zukowski, Experimentally friendly geometrical criteria for entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 140403 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    D. A. Meyer, Sophisticated quantum search without entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2014 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Biham, G

    E. Biham, G. Brassard, D. Kenigsberg, and T. Mor, Quantum computing without entanglement, Theoretical Computer Sci- ence 320, 15 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Kenigsberg, T

    D. Kenigsberg, T. Mor, and G. Ratsaby, Quantum advantage without entanglement., Quantum Inf. Comput. 6, 606 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Van den Nest, Universal quantum computation with little entanglement, Phys

    M. Van den Nest, Universal quantum computation with little entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 060504 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Sreedhar, P

    R. Sreedhar, P. Vikstål, M. Svensson, A. Ask, G. Johansson, and L. Garc´ıa- ´Alvarez, The quantum approximate optimization algorithm performance with low entanglement and high circuit depth, arXiv:2207.03404 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Naseri, T

    M. Naseri, T. V . Kondra, S. Goswami, M. Fellous-Asiani, and A. Streltsov, Entanglement and coherence in the bernstein- vazirani algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 106, 062429 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Lanting, A

    T. Lanting, A. J. Przybysz, A. Y . Smirnov, F. M. Spedalieri, M. H. Amin, A. J. Berkley, R. Harris, F. Altomare, S. Boixo, P. Bunyk, N. Dickson, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, E. Hoskin- son, M. W. Johnson, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, R. Neufeld, T. Oh, I. Perminov, C. Rich, M. C...

    2014

  36. [44]

    D´ıez-Valle, D

    P. D´ıez-Valle, D. Porras, and J. J. Garc´ıa-Ripoll, Quantum vari- ational optimization: The role of entanglement and problem hardness, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062426 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Y . Chen, L. Zhu, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, How much entanglement do quantum optimization algorithms 13 require?, in Quantum 2.0 Conference and Exhibition (Optica Publishing Group, 2022) p. QM4A.2

    2022

  38. [46]

    Bengtsson and K

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Geometry of quantum states: an introduction to quantum entanglement (Cambridge univer- sity press, 2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Bures, An extension of Kakutani’s theorem on infinite prod- uct measures to the tensor product of semifinite w∗ -algebras, Trans

    D. Bures, An extension of Kakutani’s theorem on infinite prod- uct measures to the tensor product of semifinite w∗ -algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 135, 199 (1969)

    1969

  40. [48]

    In the absence of simplifications such as symmetries, we need to calculate over the following number of bipartitions— N 1 + ··· + N N−1 2 = 2N−1− 1 for odd N and N 1 +··· + N N 2−1 + N N 2 = 2N−1− 1 + 1 2 N N 2 for even N

  41. [49]

    Consider an arbi- trary bipartitionA :B where|A| = m and|B| = N− m

    We can understand this intuitively as follows. Consider an arbi- trary bipartitionA :B where|A| = m and|B| = N− m. For this bipartition, there can be at most dm non-zero Schmidt co- efficients, denoted as {λ1 A:B,λ 2 A:B,...,λ k=dm A:B}. To maximize the GGM, we need to arrange...

  42. [50]

    T. Das, S. S. Roy, S. Bagchi, A. Misra, A. Sen, U. Sen, et al., Generalized geometric measure of entanglement for multiparty mixed states, Physical Review A 94, 022336 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    K. G. H. V ollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Entanglement measures under symmetry, Phys. Rev. A64, 062307 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Bruß, and C. Macchiavello, Scale invariance of entanglement dynamics in grover’s quantum search algorithm, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022331 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    M. H. S. Amin, Consistency of the adiabatic theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 220401 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys. 2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Soriani, P

    A. Soriani, P. Naz ´e, M. V . S. Bonanc ¸a, B. Gardas, and S. Deffner, Three phases of quantum annealing: Fast, slow, and very slow, Phys. Rev. A105, 042423 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Miessen, D

    A. Miessen, D. J. Egger, I. Tavernelli, and G. Mazzola, Benchmarking digital quantum simulations and optimization above hundreds of qubits using quantum critical dynamics, arXiv:2404.08053 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ivakhnenko, S

    V . Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Nonadiabatic landau–zener–st¨uckelberg–majorana transitions, dynamics, and interference, Physics Reports 995, 1 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Measur- ing multipartite entanglement through dynamic susceptibilities, Nat. Phys. 12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    A. C. Nakhl, T. Quella, and M. Usman, Calibrating the role of entanglement in variational quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A109, 032413 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Teramoto, R

    K. Teramoto, R. Raymond, and H. Imai, The role of entangle- ment in quantum-relaxation based optimization algorithms, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), V ol. 1 (IEEE, 2023) pp. 543–553

    2023

  54. [62]

    Buerschaper, A

    O. Buerschaper, A. Garc´ıa-Saez, R. Or´us, and T.-C. Wei, Topo- logical minimally entangled states via geometric measure, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014, P11009 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Hart and J

    M. Hart and J. McAllister, Quantum circuit cutting minimis- ing loss of qubit entanglement, in Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (2024) pp. 207–214

    2024

  56. [64]

    Weidenfeller, L

    J. Weidenfeller, L. C. Valor, J. Gacon, C. Tornow, L. Bello, S. Woerner, and D. J. Egger, Scaling of the quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm on superconducting qubit based hardware, Quantum 6, 870 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    Bittel and M

    L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum algo- rithms is np-hard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Streif and M

    M. Streif and M. Leib, Training the quantum approximate op- timization algorithm without access to a quantum processing unit, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 034008 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Gu ´ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart ´ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Broder and E

    A. Broder and E. Shamir, On the second eigenvalue of random regular graphs, in 28th Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1987) (IEEE, 1987) pp. 286–294

    1987

  61. [69]

    Boixo, V

    S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V . Isakov, M. Dykman, V . S. Denchev, M. H. Amin, A. Y . Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, Computational multiqubit tun- nelling in programmable quantum annealers, Nature commu- nications 7, 10327 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Altshuler, H

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 12446 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Veitch, S

    V . Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New Journal of Physics 16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    A. Bera, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, S. Singha Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum discord and its allies: a review of recent progress, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 024001 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quan- tum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Power of one bit of quantum infor- mation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5672 (1998)

    1998

  67. [75]

    Aharonov, A

    D. Aharonov, A. Kitaev, and N. Nisan, Quantum circuits with mixed states, in Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM sym- posium on Theory of computing (1998) pp. 20–30

    1998

  68. [76]

    Datta and G

    A. Datta and G. Vidal, Role of entanglement and correlations in mixed-state quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 75, 042310 (2007)

    2007

  69. [77]

    Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen, R

    T. Schulte-Herbr ¨uggen, R. Marx, A. Fahmy, L. Kau ffman, S. Lomonaco, N. Khaneja, and S. J. Glaser, Control aspects of quantum computing using pure and mixed states, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 4651 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    G. C. Santra, S. Singha Roy, D. J. Egger, and P. Hauke, Dataset for ”genuine multipartite entanglement in quantum optimiza- tion”, 10.5281/zenodo.14851898 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.