Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Quantum Amplitude Estimation for Travel Time Estimation in Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Quantum Amplitude Estimation can replace Monte Carlo sampling for expected path travel times in stochastic transportation networks, with a theoretical quadratic speed-up, and validates four variants on a small network.

desk verdict A useful QAE tutorial for ITS, but the post-processing step makes the estimator circular and the reported errors inconsistent with the described method. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06145 v1 pith:KMI5W5CR submitted 2026-08-06 quant-ph

Xingyue Wang , Monika Filipovska This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumamplitudeestimationstochasticvehicleroutingtraveltimeMonteCarlospeeduptransportationnetworksexpectationrotation-anglescalingsimulation-basedoptimization
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 tries to establish that Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) can estimate the expected travel time of a path in a stochastic transportation network by reading a probability out of a quantum superposition instead of drawing many random samples. If true, this would replace Monte Carlo sampling in the inner loop of simulation-based stochastic vehicle routing with a quantum estimator that has a theoretical quadratic speed-up, using $O(1/\epsilon)$ quantum queries where classical sampling needs $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ samples for error $\epsilon$, and without assuming a parametric form for the link travel time distributions. The authors implement four QAE variants and four rotation-angle scaling strategies, and their small-network experiments report that all variants give comparable low absolute errors, with accuracy governed mainly by the scaling method and rotation-angle range rather than by the variant. A reader should care because repeated travel-time expectation evaluation is the computational bottleneck that a hybrid quantum-classical routing solver would need to accelerate.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the amplitude-estimation sandwich: a state-preparation operator $\mathcal{A}$ that loads all path realizations and their probabilities into an index register, an amplification operator $\mathcal{Q}$ that amplifies the component marked as 'good', and the identity $\mathbb{E}[\cos(T_h)] = 1 - 2a$ that converts the measured amplitude $a$ into a cosine expectation. Around this sits the data encoding via controlled $R_y(\theta)$ rotations, with four scaling methods that map link travel times $t_l$ to rotation angles $\theta_l$, and a post-processing step that tries to invert the cosine through the correction term $c = \mathbb{E}[\theta_h] - \tilde{\theta}_h$. The choice of scaling method and rotation-angle range controls how much the cosine nonlinearity distorts the difference between realizations, which is why the experiments find those choices more influential than the QAE variant.

What would settle it

Take a skewed lognormal path whose true expected travel time is known analytically, run each scaling method while withholding $\mathbb{E}[\theta_h]$ from the post-processing step, and compare the output with the analytic value; if the estimates miss by more than the reported error range, the accuracy claim depends on feeding the answer back into the correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the expected path travel time $\mathbb{E}[T_h]$ can be recovered from a measured quantum amplitude rather than from repeated simulation. The construction encodes each joint realization of link travel times into a basis state of an index register, with amplitude equal to the square root of the realization probability, and rotates a data qubit by an angle derived from the realized path travel time. QAE then estimates the amplitude $a$ of the $|1\rangle$ component, and the paper's measurement identity converts it to $\mathbb{E}[\cos(T_h)] = 1 - 2a$; post-processing rescales this cosine expectation into an estimate of $\mathbb{E}[T_h]$. Experiments on a four-node network with uniform, normal, and lognormal link travel times report absolute errors roughly between 0.006 and 1.05, with iterative amplitude estimation the most stable variant and the combination of link-level scaling with rotation-angle ranges $[0,2\pi]$ or $[0,4\pi]$ giving the smallest errors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the post-processing step can recover $\mathbb{E}[T_h]$ from $\arccos(\mathbb{E}[\cos(T_h)])$ using a correction term $c = \mathbb{E}[\theta_h] - \tilde{\theta}_h$, because computing that correction requires knowing the true expectation $\mathbb{E}[\theta_h]$ that the algorithm is supposed to estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the estimator works as claimed, expectation evaluation in simulation-based VRPSTT drops from $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ classical samples to $O(1/\epsilon)$ quantum queries, removing sample size as the dominant cost.
  • The same circuit can be reused across uniform, normal, lognormal, or empirical link travel times without re-deriving parametric formulas, since the distribution is loaded through state preparation rather than assumed.
  • A hybrid routing solver should fix the scaling method and rotation-angle range first (link-level scaling with $[0,2\pi]$ or $[0,4\pi]$ worked best) and then treat the QAE variant as a secondary choice, with IAE as the stable default.
  • The QAE module produces path cost estimates that can be fed directly into classical or quantum routing optimizers, so the contribution is an acceleration of a subproblem rather than a complete VRP solver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that $\arccos(\mathbb{E}[\cos(T_h)])$ is not a generally valid proxy for $\mathbb{E}[T_h]$; for skewed distributions this inversion is biased, so the numerical accuracy claims should be read as contingent on the ground-truth correction being supplied from outside the quantum routine.
  • The repeated finding that even multiples of $\pi$ outperform odd multiples is consistent with the periodicity of the cosine: ranges that keep the encoded angles on a monotonic branch of the cosine reduce the ambiguity in the arccos inversion, which suggests a direct test on a single monotonic branch such as $[0,\pi/2]$.
  • A natural extension would be to encode the expectation linearly into the amplitude or phase rather than through $\cos(T_h)$, which would remove the nonlinear inversion step and make the estimator genuinely distribution-free in post-processing.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum amplitude estimation (QAE) framework for estimating expected path travel times in stochastic transportation networks (STNs). Link travel times are encoded as Ry rotations of a data qubit, QAE variants estimate the probability of the |1> state, and a post-processing step involving arccos and a correction term is claimed to recover the expected path travel time E[T_h]. Four QAE variants (CAE, IAE, MLAE, FAE) and four rotation-angle scaling methods are benchmarked on a small three-node network under uniform, normal, and lognormal link travel time distributions. The central claims are that the estimator eliminates classical sampling, offers a quadratic speed-up over Monte Carlo, and works without prior distributional assumptions.

Significance. If it worked, this would be a novel first application of QAE to stochastic routing, with clear practical relevance for simulation-based optimization in intelligent transportation systems. The manuscript is pedagogically useful: it introduces QAE concepts for an ITS audience, presents a concrete circuit construction, and provides an empirical comparison of four QAE variants under several encoding strategies. However, the central post-processing step is circular: the correction term is computed from the true expected angle, so the final estimate equals the classical expectation and the QAE measurement cancels out. The numerical results are therefore not evidence for the proposed method. The quadratic-speed-up claim, while standard for QAE, does not apply to the estimator as written, because the post-processing already requires the full joint distribution needed to compute E[T_h] classically. The paper does not currently establish the significance it claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.F] The post-processing in Section III.F is circular and cancels the QAE estimate. For Scaling Method 1, theta_h = T_h, so the corrected angle is theta_h^* = theta_tilde + c = arccos(E[cos(T_h)]) + E[theta_h] - theta_tilde = E[T_h] by the definition of c. Thus the QAE measurement drops out and the output equals the classically computed expected value. Under Scaling Methods 2-4 the same cancellation occurs, because theta_h is an affine function of T_h and E[theta_h] already encodes the target expectation. The reported nonzero errors in Section V (0.0058 to 1.0531) are inconsistent with this literal implementation, indicating that the estimator used in the experiments is not the estimator described in the paper, or that the correction was not applied as written.
  2. [Section III.F and Abstract] The claim that the estimator 'operates without prior assumptions on the travel time distributions' is contradicted by the method itself. Computing c = E[theta_h] - theta_tilde requires the full joint distribution p^2(j) and the realization angles, which is exactly the information needed to evaluate E[T_h] directly by the classical formula in Eq. (7). If the correction term is omitted, theta_tilde = arccos(E[cos(T_h)]) is a biased proxy for E[T_h], because arccos is nonlinear and non-injective; the paper provides no valid inversion formula in that case. Either way, the proposed post-processing does not yield a legitimate QAE-based estimator of E[T_h].
  3. [Section IV.B and Section V.B] The 'rotation-angle range' parameter used in Experiment 2 is not defined precisely. Scaling Methods 2-4 fix gamma = pi/(S_max^h - S_min^h) or gamma = pi/(t_max^l - t_min^l), so the constructed angles lie in [0, pi] by construction. Combining a scaling method with ranges [0, 2pi], [0, 3pi], [0, 4pi], or [0, 5pi] requires an additional modification of gamma or of theta_l that is never specified. Without this definition, the central empirical finding that even multiples of pi outperform odd multiples is not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A] The word 'rerspectively' appears in the discussion of basis states and should read 'respectively.'
  2. [Section III.D.2] The notation for the good and bad subspaces is inconsistent: Eq. (5) uses |psi_0> and |psi_1>, while the preceding text uses |Psi_0> and |Psi_1>.
  3. [Section III.F] The post-processing formula for Scaling Method 4, E[T_h] = sum theta_h^* / n / gamma + t_min^l over l, is ambiguous because gamma is link-specific; it should be written as a per-link inversion followed by a sum.
  4. [Section V.A] The comparison of variants reports counts of smallest errors without statistical significance or error bars; given that the experiments run on a simulator with 1024 shots, reporting variances or confidence intervals would strengthen the comparison.
  5. [Section III.G] The complexity discussion is standard and correct for QAE in general, but it should acknowledge that the state-preparation operator A for arbitrary discrete distributions may itself be nontrivial to implement; the paper assumes exact preparation without discussing the cost.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 9.0 of 10

Section III.F post-processing is circular: the correction term c = E[theta_h] - theta_tilde is computed from the true expected value, so theta* = E[theta_h] and the final 'estimate' returns the input E[T_h] by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section III.F (Rotation-Angle Scaling and Post-processing)]
    "A correction term c = E[theta_h] - theta_h_tilde, with E[theta_h] = sum_j p^2(j) theta_j, is then added to obtain the corrected angle theta_h* = theta_h_tilde + c, and finally E[T_h] = theta_h*."

    Under Scaling Method 1, theta_l = t_l, so theta_h = T_h and E[theta_h] = E[T_h]. The formula theta_h* = theta_h_tilde + (E[theta_h] - theta_h_tilde) = E[theta_h] makes the QAE estimate theta_h_tilde cancel algebraically; the output is the true expected value inserted during post-processing. Methods 2-4 are identical in structure: theta_h is an affine function of T_h, E[theta_h] already contains E[T_h], and the affine post-processing formula recovers E[T_h] exactly. If the correction were omitted, arccos(E[cos(T_h)]) would be a biased proxy with no valid inversion supplied, so the correction is indispensable and circular.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.B and Section V.B (Rotation Angle Scaling Range Impact Analysis)]
    "For each path, distribution, and QAE variant, each scaling method is combined with five rotation-angle ranges growing from [0, pi] to [0, 5pi] in increments of pi. ... Ranges corresponding to even multiples of pi, namely [0, 2pi] and [0, 4pi], yield substantially lower mean errors than ranges corresponding to odd multiples [0, pi], [0, 3pi], and [0, 5pi]."

    The rotation ranges [0, 2pi] and [0, 4pi] are identified as best by inspecting the mean absolute errors computed in the same Experiment 2 that reports those errors; no held-out set or pre-registered hypothesis is used. The reported finding that accuracy is 'mainly affected by the scaling method and rotation-angle range' and the configuration guidance in the Conclusion therefore summarize in-sample selection rather than an independent prediction or validation.

full rationale

The central derivation of the expected path travel time is circular as written. Section III.F defines a correction term c = E[theta_h] - theta_tilde using the exact expectation of the rotation angle, and then forms theta_h* = theta_tilde + c. Since theta_tilde cancels, theta_h* = E[theta_h]. Under Scaling Method 1 theta_h = T_h, so the final output is exactly E[T_h]. Under Scaling Methods 2-4, theta_h is an affine transform of T_h and the stated post-processing inverts that affine transform, so the same cancellation occurs and the output equals E[T_h] by construction. The QAE amplitude estimate therefore plays no role in the reported recovery of the expected travel time; the claimed accuracy is forced by inserting the target expectation during post-processing. The reported nonzero errors (0.0058 to 1.0531) are inconsistent with this literal implementation, suggesting either a different post-processing was actually used or the experiments do not match the described estimator; in either case the derivation in the paper is circular. A secondary issue is that the best rotation-angle ranges are selected from the same experiment used to report their accuracy, so the practical configuration guidance is in-sample. The paper's quadratic-speed-up discussion and variant comparisons contain independent content, which is why the score is 9 rather than 10, but the paper's headline claim of accurately estimating expected path travel times without sampling reduces to a known input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fragile inputs: (1) the exact link probability distributions used in state preparation, and (2) the correction term that injects the true expectation into the post-processing. The second makes the estimator circular; the first contradicts the 'no assumptions' claim. No other invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • rotation-angle range = [0, 2pi] and [0, 4pi] selected as best
    Experiment 2 scans [0, pi] to [0, 5pi] and identifies even multiples as optimal; this choice on the test data is a post-hoc selection that contributes to the reported accuracy (Section V.B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Link travel times are mutually independent (Section III.B).
    Used to factorize the joint probability and to construct the index register as a tensor product of per-link subsystems (Section III.D.3). The paper notes an extension to correlated links but does not implement it.
  • domain assumption Each link travel time has a finite discrete support of k values (Section III.B).
    The index system and state preparation assume k realizations per link; continuous distributions must be discretized first.
  • domain assumption Exact link probability distributions are known and can be loaded into the index register via unitary operators A_l (Section III.D.3).
    This contradicts the abstract's claim that the method operates 'without prior assumptions of the travel time distribution'.
  • ad hoc to paper The true expected rotation angle E[theta_h] is available to compute the post-processing correction term (Section III.F).
    The correction c = E[theta_h] - theta_tilde uses the quantity the method is supposed to estimate, making the derivation circular.
  • standard math QAE convergence and complexity results from Brassard et al. and Montanaro are correct and apply to the constructed circuits (Section III.C).
    The quadratic speedup claim rests on standard QAE theory, which is well established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Amplitude Estimation for Travel Time Estimation in Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMI5W5CR

@misc{pith2026260806145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Amplitude Estimation for Travel Time Estimation in Stochastic Vehicle Routing Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMI5W5CR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06145}
}
read the original abstract

Solving the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) in Stochastic Transportation Networks (STNs), a core task in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), introduces estimation challenges for stochastic path travel times and the resulting VRP objective function. These challenges have typically been addressed through computationally expensive sampling-based techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation, whose performance depends on sample size, the sampling strategy, and the underlying travel time distributions. To address these issues, this study proposes and validates a quantum computing technique, Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) for path-level travel time estimation in STNs. Without relying on sampling or prior assumptions of the travel time distribution, the proposed framework encodes all feasible travel time realizations into a quantum superposition, enabling a theoretical quadratic speed-up over Monte Carlo simulation. Four QAE variants are implemented in IBM's Qiskit framework, namely Canonical AE (CAE), Iterative AE (IAE), Maximum Likelihood AE (MLAE), and Faster AE (FAE), together with four rotation-angle scaling strategies for handling different discrete travel time distributions. Experiments on a small-scale STN show that the choice of scaling method and rotation-angle range significantly affects estimation accuracy, while the four QAE variants produce comparable estimates across all tested conditions, with IAE exhibiting the most stable overall performance. The results provide practical guidance on parameter selection for future hybrid quantum-classical optimization frameworks in ITS applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06145 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A four-qubit toy CAE circuit with a three-qubit evaluation register and a one-qubit state register. Within the context of this study, the QAE workflow can be summarized in four steps: (1) A quantum circuit prepares a superposition state encoding all feasible path travel times for a given VRPSTT case. The operator 𝒜 maps the initial state to a superposition in which each basis state corresponds to a specific path rea… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    City vehicle routing problem (city VRP): A review,

    G. Kim, Y. -S. Ong, C. K. Heng, P. S. Tan, and N. A. Zhang, “City vehicle routing problem (city VRP): A review,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1654 –1666, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2015.2395536

    work page arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Optimal vehicle routing with real -time traffic information,

    S. Kim, M. E. Lewis, and C. C. White, “Optimal vehicle routing with real -time traffic information,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 178 –188, Jun. 2005, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2005.848362

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Spatio -temporal characterization of stochastic dynamic transportation networks,

    M. Filipovska and H. S. Mahmassani, “Spatio -temporal characterization of stochastic dynamic transportation networks,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9929 –9939, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2023.3276190

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Solving the dynamic vehicle routing problem under traffic congestion,

    G. Kim, Y. S. Ong, T. Cheong, and P. S. Tan, “Solving the dynamic vehicle routing problem under traffic congestion,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 2367 –2380, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2016.2521779

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Estimation of path travel time distributions in stochastic time -varying networks with correlations,

    M. Filipovska, H. S. Mahmassani, and A. Mittal, “Estimation of path travel time distributions in stochastic time -varying networks with correlations,” Transportation Research Record , vol. 2675, no. 11, pp. 498–508, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1177/03611981211018464

    work page doi:10.1177/03611981211018464 2021

  6. [6]

    Reliable least - time path estimation and computation in stochastic time-varying networks with spatio -temporal dependencies,

    M. Filipovska and H. S. Mahmassani, “Reliable least - time path estimation and computation in stochastic time-varying networks with spatio -temporal dependencies,” in 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Sep. 2020, pp. 1 –6. doi: 10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294650

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Quantum computing for finance,

    D. Herman et al. , “Quantum computing for finance,” Nat Rev Phys , vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 450 –465, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1

    doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1 2023

  8. [8]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization,

    A. Abbas et al. , “Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization,” Nat Rev Phys, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 718–735, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9

    doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Reliable trajectory-adaptive routing strategies in stochastic, time - varying networks with generalized correlations,

    M. Filipovska and H. S. Mahmassani, “Reliable trajectory-adaptive routing strategies in stochastic, time - varying networks with generalized correlations,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 133, p. 103436, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2021.103436

    2021

  3. [11]

    Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation,

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, “Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation,” in Contemporary Mathematics , vol. 305, S. J. Lomonaco and H. E. Brandt, Eds., Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, 2002, pp. 53 –74. doi: 10.1090/conm/305/05215

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    Quantum - enhanced simulation-based optimization,

    J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, “Quantum - enhanced simulation-based optimization,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , Denver, CO, USA: IEEE, Oct. 2020, pp. 47–55. doi: 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00017

    2020

  5. [13]

    IBM’s qiskit tool chain: Working with and developing for real quantum computers,

    R. Wille, R. Van Meter, and Y. Naveh, “IBM’s qiskit tool chain: Working with and developing for real quantum computers,” in Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (2019) , IEEE, Mar. 2019, pp. 1234 –1240. doi: 10.23919/DATE.2019.8715261

    2019

  6. [14]

    Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,

    D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, “Iterative quantum amplitude estimation,” npj Quantum Inf, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41534 -021- 00379-1

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Amplitude estimation without phase estimation,

    Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Tanaka, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto, “Amplitude estimation without phase estimation,” Quantum Inf Process , vol. 19, no. 2, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11128-019-2565-2

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Faster Amplitude Estimation,

    K. Nakaji, “Faster Amplitude Estimation,” QIC, vol. 20, no. 13 & 14, pp. 1109 –1123, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.26421/QIC20.13-14-2

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    A simheuristic approach for the two -dimensional vehicle routing problem with stochastic travel times,

    D. Guimarans, O. Dominguez, J. Panadero, and A. A. Juan, “A simheuristic approach for the two -dimensional vehicle routing problem with stochastic travel times,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory , vol. 89, pp. 1–14, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2018.09.004. 11

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Algorithms for the multi -objective vehicle routing problem with hard time windows and stochastic travel time and service time,

    D. M. Miranda, J. Branke, and S. V. Conceição, “Algorithms for the multi -objective vehicle routing problem with hard time windows and stochastic travel time and service time,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 70, pp. 66–79, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.05.026

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    The time-dependent vehicle routing problem with soft time windows and stochastic travel times,

    D. Taş, N. Dellaert, T. van Woensel, and T. de Kok, “The time-dependent vehicle routing problem with soft time windows and stochastic travel times,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerging Technol. , 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2014.08.007

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Reliable rescue routing optimization for urban emergency logistics under travel time uncertainty,

    Q. Li, W. Tu, and L. Zhuo, “Reliable rescue routing optimization for urban emergency logistics under travel time uncertainty,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo - Information, vol. 7, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.3390/ijgi7020077

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Probabilistic time -dependent vehicle routing problem,

    T. Režnar, J. Martinovič, K. Slaninová, E. Grakova, and V. Vondrák, “Probabilistic time -dependent vehicle routing problem,” Cent Eur J Oper Res , vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 545 –560, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10100 -016- 0459-2

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    On the stochastic vehicle routing problem with time windows, correlated travel times, and time dependency,

    F. Bomboi, C. Buchheim, and J. Pruente, “On the stochastic vehicle routing problem with time windows, correlated travel times, and time dependency,” 4OR-Q J Oper Res , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 217 –239, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10288-021-00476-z

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Solving vehicle routing problem using grover adaptive search algorithm,

    L. Liu et al. , “Solving vehicle routing problem using grover adaptive search algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 9682–9692, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2025.3562860

    2025

  16. [24]

    Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods,

    A. Montanaro, “Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods,” Proc. A , vol. 471, no. 2181, p. 20150301, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2015.0301

    2015

  17. [25]

    A quantum spectral method for simulating stochastic processes, with applications to monte carlo,

    A. Bouland, A. Dandapani, and A. Prakash, “A quantum spectral method for simulating stochastic processes, with applications to monte carlo,” Mar. 12, 2023, arXiv: arXiv:2303.06719. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.06719

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Variational quantum simulations of stochastic differential equations,

    K. Kubo, “Variational quantum simulations of stochastic differential equations,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 103, no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.052425

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Quantum - enhanced analysis of discrete stochastic processes,

    C. Blank, D. K. Park, and F. Petruccione, “Quantum - enhanced analysis of discrete stochastic processes,” npj Quantum Inf , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1 –9, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41534-021-00459-2

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    U. Azad, B. K. Behera, E. A. Ahmed, P. K. Panigrahi, and A. Farouk, “Solving vehicle routing problem using quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 7564 –7573, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2022.3172241

    2023

  21. [29]

    Analysis of the vehicle routing problem solved via hybrid quantum algorithms in the presence of noisy channels,

    N. Mohanty, B. K. Behera, and C. Ferrie, “Analysis of the vehicle routing problem solved via hybrid quantum algorithms in the presence of noisy channels,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TQE.2023.3303989

    2023

  22. [30]

    Large-scale vehicle routing problems: Quantum annealing, tunings and results,

    A. Syrichas and A. Crispin, “Large-scale vehicle routing problems: Quantum annealing, tunings and results,” Computers & Operations Research , vol. 87, pp. 52 –62, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2017.05.014

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Foundations of quantum information science for transportation networks,

    M. Filipovska, “Foundations of quantum information science for transportation networks,” Oct. 01, 2024, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY : 4976781. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4976781

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Monte carlo methods,

    D. P. Kroese and R. Y. Rubinstein, “Monte carlo methods,” Wires Comput. Stat., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 48 –58, 2012, doi: 10.1002/wics.194

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information: 10th anniversary edition . Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    An survey: Quantum phase estimation algorithms,

    D. Jiang, X. Liu, H. Song, and H. Xie, “An survey: Quantum phase estimation algorithms,” in 2021 IEEE 5th Information Technology,Networking,Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC) , Oct. 2021, pp. 884–888. doi: 10.1109/ITNEC52019.2021.9587010

    2021

  27. [35]

    Quantum arithmetic with the quantum fourier transform,

    L. Ruiz -Perez and J. C. Garcia -Escartin, “Quantum arithmetic with the quantum fourier transform,” Quantum Inf. Process., vol. 16, no. 6, p. 152, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11128-017-1603-1

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,

    F. Arute et al. , “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor,” Nature, vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505 –510, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    SamplerV2,

    IBM Quantum, “SamplerV2,” IBM Quantum Documentation. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit-ibm- runtime/sampler-v2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.