Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Protein folding with an all-to-all trapped-ion quantum computer

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trapped-ion experiments show BF-DCQO reaches optimal solutions for dense HUBO problems, including protein folding up to 12 amino acids on 33 qubits.

desk verdict A genuine trapped-ion HUBO demo at record sizes, but the abstract's 'consistently achieves optimal solutions' is only true after a classical post-processing step, and no baseline isolates what the QPU contributes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07866 v2 pith:OP56KCL5 submitted 2025-06-09 quant-ph

Sebastián V. Romero , Alejandro Gomez Cadavid , Pavle Nikačević , Enrique Solano , Narendra N. Hegade , Miguel Angel Lopez-Ruiz , Claudio Girotto , Masako Yamada
show 3 more authors
Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos Ananth Kaushik Martin Roetteler
This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac03.67.Lx
keywords proteinfoldingHUBOcounterdiabaticquantumoptimizationtrapped-ioncomputingbias-fieldDCQOMAX4-SATspinglassall-to-allconnectivity
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 sets out to show that a non-variational quantum optimization algorithm called BF-DCQO, run on a fully connected trapped-ion processor, can reliably find ground states of dense higher-order binary optimization problems. It demonstrates this on lattice protein folding for peptides of up to 12 amino acids, MAX 4-SAT instances generated near the computational phase transition, and fully connected 36-qubit spin glasses. With light local post-processing, the reported method reaches the exact optimum on every instance, and the authors describe these as the largest protein-folding implementations on quantum hardware reported to date. The broader claim is that all-to-all qubit connectivity plus a counterdiabatic, bias-field update strategy makes dense many-body Hamiltonians practical on near-term hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization, an iterative non-variational protocol that Trotterizes a short evolution under an adiabatic Hamiltonian plus a first-order nested-commutator counterdiabatic term, then updates each qubit's longitudinal bias from the lowest-energy samples of the previous round. The counterdiabatic term suppresses diabatic transitions during a fast sweep, and the bias update steers later sweeps toward promising regions of the energy landscape. A gate-angle cutoff, theta_cutoff, prunes small-angle terms so the circuit shrinks to a few hundred ZZ gates, and the processor's all-to-all connectivity lets every high-order term be implemented directly without swap overhead.

What would settle it

A noiseless classical simulation of the unpruned BF-DCQO circuit for any one of the 24-qubit MAX 4-SAT instances, compared with the pruned circuit's ground-state probability, would settle the pruning assumption: if the two differ materially, the hardware results cannot be attributed to the intended full dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that BF-DCQO, which combines a short digitized counterdiabatic drive with iteratively updated longitudinal bias fields drawn from the best sampled solutions, saturates the optimal value for every tested instance on a 36-qubit all-to-all trapped-ion processor. The protein-folding Hamiltonians contain up to five-body spin terms, the MAX 4-SAT Hamiltonians are four-body, and the spin glasses are fully connected two-body systems. The paper reports that pruned circuits containing a few hundred two-qubit entangling gates, rather than the thousands present before pruning, still yield optimal or near-optimal results, with aggressive pruning often outperforming gentler pruning because shorter circuits accumulate less noise. The authors take this as evidence that pairing BF-DCQO with native all-to-all interactions is a practical route to solving dense HUBO problems on current and next-generation hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dropping every term whose gate angle falls below theta_cutoff removes only negligible dynamics, so the short pruned circuit still reaches the ground state of the original problem; because the unpruned circuits are too large to execute, the paper never checks this directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense HUBO problems that are impractical on sparse-connectivity architectures become addressable on all-to-all trapped-ion processors at the 36-qubit scale.
  • Protein folding on a tetrahedral lattice for 10 to 12 amino acids is solvable to optimality with a few hundred two-qubit gates plus light classical post-processing.
  • Aggressive circuit pruning can outperform gentler pruning on noisy hardware, so shorter circuits are the better engineering choice even at some cost to expressivity.
  • BF-DCQO resource requirements decrease as iterations proceed while solution quality improves, suggesting favorable scaling if gate fidelities continue to rise.
  • Avoiding variational training sidesteps barren-plateau difficulties, making the optimization run's behavior more predictable and reproducible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not run is a noiseless classical simulation of the unpruned BF-DCQO circuit on a small instance; if pruning significantly changes ground-state probabilities, the hardware success cannot be attributed to the intended full dynamics.
  • The authors' all-to-all connectivity argument suggests trapped-ion processors could also benefit other non-local Hamiltonian simulation tasks beyond optimization, though this paper only demonstrates optimization.
  • The results do not yet establish a scaling law; at larger sizes the relevant question is whether the pruned circuit depth stays roughly constant while solution quality holds.
  • A head-to-head comparison against variational HUBO solvers on identical instances, rather than only against classical solvers, would isolate how much of the advantage is algorithmic versus hardware-specific.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental implementation of the bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (BF-DCQO) algorithm on IonQ's Forte and Forte Enterprise trapped-ion processors. It addresses three classes of optimization problems: lattice protein folding on a tetrahedral lattice with up to 33 qubits, MAX 4-SAT instances at the computational phase transition with up to 36 qubits, and fully connected Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glasses with 36 qubits. The paper compares hardware samples against exact solutions obtained by brute force, PySAT, or Gurobi, and applies a classical post-processing step when the hardware alone does not reach the optimum. The headline claim is that, with post-processing where needed, the method consistently finds optimal solutions across all instances.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a noteworthy experimental benchmark: it is the largest trapped-ion protein-folding implementation reported to date, and it demonstrates a non-variational quantum optimization algorithm on dense HUBO problems using all-to-all connectivity. The authors are transparent about the use of post-processing and about the fact that some instances reach optimality only after that step, and they verify the reported optima with independent classical solvers. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of any classical baseline comparison and by an unvalidated circuit-pruning assumption, so the paper establishes feasibility of the specific hardware-algorithm combination but not yet an 'efficient approach' or a demonstrated quantum contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Section IV (Post-processing)] Table I shows that for the three protein instances, for MAX 4-SAT instances 28-1, 28-2, 32-3, 36-2, and 36-3, and for spin-glass instance 2, the optimal value is reached only after the post-processing step described in Section IV, which takes the 5% best samples and applies up to three zero-temperature Metropolis sweeps. The paper does not report any baseline in which the same post-processor is applied to uniform random bitstrings or to classically simulated samples, so the data do not establish that the QPU samples contribute to the stated 'consistently achieves optimal solutions' outcome. This attribution is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim.
  2. [Section II.B and Appendix C] The pruning assumption is not tested. Section II.B defines theta_cutoff and states that pruned terms have a 'presumed negligible contribution' while also acknowledging that pruning 'does reduce circuit expressivity'; Appendix C (Table II) reports unpruned circuits with 7390 to 13028 ZZ gates versus hundreds after pruning, and Section IV.B states that the full versions are too deep to execute. Because all hardware results are obtained with pruned circuits, the paper needs at least a classical simulation comparison of pruned and unpruned dynamics for the smallest instances, or an error bound, to support the claim that the executed circuits still approximate the intended BF-DCQO evolution. Without that, the hardware results could reflect the dynamics of a different, shallower model.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (6)] The bias-field update in Eq. (6) depends on a fraction alpha in (0,1], but no value of alpha used in any experiment is reported in Section III, Table I, or the appendices. This is a free parameter of the central algorithm, and its omission prevents reproduction and obscures how strongly the feedback term influences the results.
  4. [Abstract and Section V] The paper claims an 'efficient approach' to dense HUBO problems, but it reports no comparison with classical solvers (e.g., simulated annealing, tabu search, or Gurobi) in terms of time-to-solution, number of samples, or solution quality for the same instances. Section IV only compares final energies with exact reference values. The runtime-advantage statement in the Introduction cites Ref. [61], a separate work, not the experiments presented here; therefore the efficiency claim is not supported by the reported data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.B] The word 'connectiviy' in the sentence about limited-connectivity hardware should be 'connectivity'.
  2. [Section II.B] The word 'primaly' in the discussion of non-stoquasticity should be 'primarily'.
  3. [Appendix B, reference [84]] The title of reference [84] contains 'Inmunoglobulin' and should be corrected to 'Immunoglobulin'.
  4. [Table I] The em-dashes in the ZZ-gates (hard) column are not defined; a note should state explicitly that hard pruning was not run for those instances.
  5. [Data availability statement] The data availability statement offers data only 'upon reasonable request'; consider depositing the raw samples, circuit parameters, and post-processing scripts in a permanent repository to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the target ground states are fixed by external instances and verified by independent classical solvers.

full rationale

The paper's claimed result is an experimental benchmark of the BF-DCQO algorithm on external HUBO instances. The objective Hamiltonians are defined by the problems themselves, and the optimal values are determined independently by brute force, PySAT, and Gurobi, not by the algorithm. The bias-field update in Eq. (6) uses measured samples from prior iterations, but the final reported optimum is not inserted as an input; it is compared against externally verified optima. The gate-angle cutoff described in Sec. II.B is chosen from circuit-depth budgets and reported per problem class; it is not tuned to the known optima, and the paper explicitly notes that pruning reduces expressivity. The post-processing step, taking the 5% best samples and applying zero-temperature Metropolis sweeps, is a classical local search whose final value is still checked against the independently computed optimum; it does not make the optimal label true by construction. Citations to the authors' prior BF-DCQO and DCQO papers supply the algorithm and motivation, but the present demonstration is not an argument whose conclusion is assumed in those citations; the experiments stand or fall on the hardware data and the external reference solutions. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of itself or fits a parameter to the target answer. Therefore there is no circular step to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about counterdiabatic approximations and circuit pruning, plus undisclosed or hand-tuned hyperparameters. No new physical entities are postulated. The most consequential free parameters are the per-instance pruning thresholds and the unreported bias-field fraction alpha.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (bias-field update fraction) = not reported
    Defined in Section II.B as the fraction of lowest-energy samples used in the bias-field update. The value used in experiments is never stated, yet it directly controls how strongly the bias fields respond to measured samples and therefore affects convergence.
  • theta_cutoff (soft and hard pruning thresholds) = protein: 0.005-0.006 soft, 0.011-0.013 hard; MAX 4-SAT: 0.03/0.035; spin-glass: 0.05/0.1
    Set per problem class 'such that the corresponding circuits require on the order of several hundreds of entangling gates'. This is a hand-tuned resource tradeoff that changes the evolved Hamiltonian by discarding small-angle counterdiabatic terms.
  • lambda_gc (geometric constraint penalty weight) = 10
    Lagrange multiplier for the geometric constraint Hamiltonian in the protein folding model (Section III.A). Chosen by hand; it shapes the energy landscape and the degeneracy that the solver must navigate.
  • post-processing parameters = 5% best samples, up to 3 sweeps
    The classical refinement step uses the 5% best hardware samples and applies up to three sweeps of zero-temperature Metropolis-Hastings local search. This step is responsible for turning near-optimal hardware outputs into the reported optimal solutions for several instances.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption First-order nested-commutator counterdiabatic term (l=1) is a sufficient approximation to the exact adiabatic gauge potential for these HUBO instances.
    The paper uses Eq. (4) with l=1 without verifying convergence of the nested-commutator series for any of the specific problem Hamiltonians. This is a standard approximation in the CD literature but is not checked against exact dynamics here.
  • domain assumption Setting T=1 with a single Trotter step and omitting H_ad in the fast-evolution regime yields a unitary that still drives the system toward the ground state.
    Section II.B states 'we use T=1, and a single Trotter step is implemented to preserve fidelity' and omits H_ad, following the fast-evolution regime. The validity of this regime for the dense HUBO Hamiltonians is assumed, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Pruning terms with |gamma_j(k*dt)*dt| mod 2*pi < theta_cutoff removes only negligible dynamics, and the pruned circuit still converges to the ground state of the original HUBO.
    The paper sets theta_cutoff to control gate count and admits pruning 'reduces circuit expressivity' (Section II.B). No validation against the unpruned evolution is possible because the full circuits are too deep (Table II). This is a load-bearing assumption for all hardware results.
  • domain assumption The tetrahedral-lattice Miyazawa-Jernigan contact-energy model from Ref [40] is a valid formulation of protein folding for this study.
    The paper adopts the Hamiltonian from Ref [40] with lambda_gc=10 and contact energies from Ref [78] as the problem definition. It does not justify this physical model, but this is an accepted standard in the quantum protein folding literature.
  • domain assumption IonQ Forte's all-to-all connectivity allows native implementation of all terms without swap overhead, and the stated gate fidelities are representative of the executed circuits.
    The paper relies on the hardware providing all-to-all ZZ gates (Section IV.A). While this is a property of the trapped-ion architecture, the claim that no swap overhead affects the specific compiled circuits is not verified circuit-by-circuit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protein folding with an all-to-all trapped-ion quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OP56KCL5

@misc{pith2026250607866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protein folding with an all-to-all trapped-ion quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OP56KCL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07866}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally demonstrate that the bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization (BF-DCQO) algorithm, implemented on IonQ's fully connected trapped-ion quantum processors, offers an efficient approach to solving dense higher-order unconstrained binary optimization (HUBO) problems. Specifically, we tackle protein folding on a tetrahedral lattice for up to 12 amino acids, representing the largest quantum hardware implementations of protein folding problems reported to date. Additionally, we address MAX 4-SAT instances at the computational phase transition and fully connected spin-glass problems using all 36 available qubits. Across all considered cases, our method consistently achieves optimal solutions, highlighting the powerful synergy between non-variational quantum optimization approaches and the intrinsic all-to-all connectivity of trapped-ion architectures. Given the expected scalability of trapped-ion quantum systems, BF-DCQO represents a promising pathway toward practical quantum advantage for dense HUBO problems with significant industrial and scientific relevance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Degeneracy of the lowest-energy valued spectrum for the three proteins studied (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hardware results of the MAX 4-SAT instances using soft and hard pruning (teal and maroon, respectively), with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin-glass Forte Enterprise results using soft and hard pruning (teal and maroon, respectively), with increasing BF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Degeneracy of the full energy spectrum (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum Algorithm for Protein Structure Prediction Using the Face-Centered Cubic Lattice

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors encode protein structures on an FCC lattice using 4N-10 qubits and demonstrate ground-state sampling for a six-residue peptide on two IBM quantum computers with two slack-variable-free constraint methods.

  2. Resource-Efficient Quantum Optimization via Higher-Order Encoding

    quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HUBO encodings reduce qubit counts from n*m to n*ceil(log2 m) and cut CNOT counts by 89.6-100% in QAOA benchmarks on gate assignment, max k-colorable subgraph, and integer programming instances.

  3. Sequential Quantum Computing

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Feeding a quantum annealer's approximate solutions into a digital quantum computer's counterdiabatic optimization finds the exact ground state of a 156-qubit problem that neither standalone machine found.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [61]

    Chandarana, A

    P. Chandarana, A. G. Cadavid, S. V. Romero, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Runtime Quantum Ad- vantage with Digital Quantum Optimization (2025), arXiv:2505.08663 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science 220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  3. [2]

    Glover, E

    F. Glover, E. Taillard, and D. de Werra, Annals of Op- erations Research41, 3 (1993)

    1993

  4. [3]

    I. I. Cplex, International Business Machines Corporation 46, 157 (2009)

    2009

  5. [4]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    D. P. Bertsekas, A. Nedic, and A. E. Ozdaglar,Convex Analysis and Optimization(Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 2003)

    2003

  7. [6]

    C. A. Floudas, I. G. Akrotirianakis, S. Caratzoulas, C. A. Meyer, and J. Kallrath, Computers & Chemical Engi- neering29, 1185 (2005)

    2005

  8. [7]

    Burer and A

    S. Burer and A. N. Letchford, Surveys in Operations Re- search and Management Science17, 97 (2012)

    2012

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    Arjevani, Y

    Y. Arjevani, Y. Carmon, J. C. Duchi, D. J. Foster, A. Sekhari, and K. Sridharan, inProceedings of the 33rd Conference on Learning Theory, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 125 (PMLR, 2020) pp. 242–299

    2020

  2. [9]

    Danilova, P

    M. Danilova, P. Dvurechensky, A. Gasnikov, E. Gor- bunov, S. Guminov, D. Kamzolov, and I. Shibaev, in High-Dimensional Optimization and Probability: With a View Towards Data Science, Springer Optimization and Its Applications, Vol. 191 (Springer, 2022) pp. 79–163

    2022

  3. [10]

    Xu and L

    L. Xu and L. Liberti, Relaxations for binary poly- nomial optimization via signed certificates (2024), arXiv:2405.13447 [math.OC]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Lucas, Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014). 11

    2014

  5. [12]

    Gardner, Nuclear Physics B257, 747 (1985)

    E. Gardner, Nuclear Physics B257, 747 (1985)

    1985

  6. [13]

    Pelofske, A

    E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, and S. Eidenbenz, inHigh Performance Computing: 38th International Conference, ISC High Performance 2023, Hamburg, Germany, May 21–25, 2023, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 13944 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham,

    2023

  7. [14]

    Pelofske, A

    E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, and S. Eidenbenz, npj Quantum Information10, 1–19 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quan- tum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Barends, A

    R. Barends, A. Shabani, L. Lamata, J. Kelly, A. Mezza- capo, U. L. Heras, R. Babbush, A. G. Fowler, B. Camp- bell, Y. Chen,et al., Nature534, 222–226 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Abbas, A

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen,et al., Nature Reviews Physics 6, 718–735 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Boulebnane and A

    S. Boulebnane and A. Montanaro, PRX Quantum5, 030348 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Kotil, E

    A. Kotil, E. Pelofske, S. Riedm¨ uller, D. J. Eg- ger, S. Eidenbenz, T. Koch, and S. Woerner, Quan- tum Approximate Multi-Objective Optimization (2025), arXiv:2503.22797 [quant-ph]

    2025

  14. [21]

    T. Koch, D. E. B. Neira, Y. Chen, G. Cortiana, D. J. Egger, R. Heese, N. N. Hegade, A. G. Cadavid, R. Huang, T. Itoko,et al., Quantum Optimization Benchmark Library – The Intractable Decathlon (2025), arXiv:2504.03832 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Durr and P

    C. Durr and P. Hoyer, A Quantum Algorithm for Finding the Minimum (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9607014 [quant- ph]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, H. Barnum, and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 130504 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    Wocjan and A

    P. Wocjan and A. Abeyesinghe, Phys. Rev. A78, 042336 (2008)

    2008

  18. [25]

    M. B. Hastings, Quantum2, 78 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    Montanaro, Theory of Computing14, 1 (2018)

    A. Montanaro, Theory of Computing14, 1 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Montanaro, Phys

    A. Montanaro, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013056 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    Chakrabarti, P

    S. Chakrabarti, P. Minssen, R. Yalovetzky, and M. Pis- toia, Universal Quantum Speedup for Branch-and- Bound, Branch-and-Cut, and Tree-Search Algorithms (2022), arXiv:2210.03210 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A. M. Dalzell, N. Pancotti, E. T. Campbell, and F. G. Brand˜ ao, inProceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Sympo- sium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023) p. 1131–1144

    2023

  23. [30]

    Boehmer, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 156 (1967)

    A. Boehmer, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 156 (1967)

    1967

  24. [31]

    Schroeder, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 16, 85 (1970)

    M. Schroeder, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 16, 85 (1970)

    1970

  25. [32]

    Shaydulin, C

    R. Shaydulin, C. Li, S. Chakrabarti, M. DeCross, D. Her- man, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, P. Minssen, Y. Sun, et al., Science Advances10, eadm6761 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an-Arriagada, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. A104, L050403 (2021)

    2021

  27. [34]

    Battiti, Maximum satisfiability problem, inEncyclo- pedia of Optimization, edited by C

    R. Battiti, Maximum satisfiability problem, inEncyclo- pedia of Optimization, edited by C. A. Floudas and P. M. Pardalos (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009) pp. 2035– 2041

    2009

  28. [35]

    S. V. Barron, D. J. Egger, E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, S. Ei- denbenz, M. Lehmkuehler, and S. Woerner, Nature Com- putational Science4, 865–875 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Perdomo, C

    A. Perdomo, C. Truncik, I. Tubert-Brohman, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Phys. Rev. A78, 012320 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    Perdomo-Ortiz, N

    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Dickson, M. Drew-Brook, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Scientific Reports2, 571 (2012)

    2012

  31. [38]

    Babbush, A

    R. Babbush, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, B. O’Gorman, W. Macready, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Construction of Energy Functions for Lattice Heteropolymer Models: Efficient Encodings for Constraint Satisfaction Program- ming and Quantum Annealing, inAdvances in Chemical Physics: Volume 155(John ...

    2014

  32. [39]

    Babej, C

    T. Babej, C. Ing, and M. Fingerhuth, Coarse-grained lattice protein folding on a quantum annealer (2018), arXiv:1811.00713 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Robert, P

    A. Robert, P. K. Barkoutsos, S. Woerner, and I. Taver- nelli, npj Quantum Information7, 1–5 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, I. Montalban, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014024 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    J. V. Pamidimukkala, S. Bopardikar, A. Dakshinamoor- thy, A. Kannan, K. Dasgupta, and S. Senapati, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation20, 10223 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Wang and X

    Y. Wang and X. Zhou, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015056 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  38. [45]

    M. V. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  39. [46]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 063002 (2010)

    2010

  40. [47]

    del Campo, Phys

    A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  41. [48]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  42. [49]

    P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. X14, 011032 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013141 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    N. N. Hegade, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042030 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    Simen, S

    A. Simen, S. V. Romero, A. G. Cadavid, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Branch-and-bound digitized counter- diabatic quantum optimization (2025), arXiv:2504.15367 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [54]

    A. G. Cadavid, A. Dalal, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022010 (2025)

    2025

  48. [55]

    S. V. Romero, A.-M. Visuri, A. G. Cadavid, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Bias-Field Digitized Counterdiabatic Quantum Algorithm for Higher-Order Binary Optimiza- tion (2024), arXiv:2409.04477 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    IBM Quantum, Iskay Quantum Optimizer - A Qiskit Function by Kipu Quantum,https://docs.quantum .ibm.com/guides/kipu-optimization(2025), [Online: 14/04/25]

    2025

  50. [57]

    Graß, Phys

    T. Graß, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 120501 (2019)

    2019

  51. [58]

    Grass, Phys

    T. Grass, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 044036 (2022)

    2022

  52. [59]

    Cerezo, M

    M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc ´ ıa-Mart ´ ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp,et al., Does provable absence of 12 barren plateaus imply classical simulability? Or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing (2024)...

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Nature Reviews Physics7, 174–189 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    IonQ,https://ionq.com/(2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Sherrington and S

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.35, 1792 (1975)

    1975

  56. [64]

    D-Wave Systems,https://www.dwavesys.com/(2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Pelofske, A

    E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, J. Golden, and S. Eidenbenz, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Com- puting and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 01 (2023) pp. 506– 517

    2023

  58. [66]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Physics Reports697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Hatomura and K

    T. Hatomura and K. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A103, 012220 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Hormozi, E

    L. Hormozi, E. W. Brown, G. Carleo, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B95, 184416 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y. Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    P. K. Barkoutsos, G. Nannicini, A. Robert, I. Tavernelli, and S. Woerner, Quantum4, 256 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Levinthal, J

    C. Levinthal, J. Chim. Phys.65, 44 (1968)

    1968

  64. [72]

    Levinthal, inM¨ ossbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems, edited by J

    C. Levinthal, inM¨ ossbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems, edited by J. T. P. DeBrunner and E. M¨ unck (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1969) pp. 22– 24

    1969

  65. [73]

    Jumper, R

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Fig- urnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. ˇZ ´ ıdek, A. Potapenko,et al., Nature596, 583 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Evans, J

    R. Evans, J. Mulholland, A. Suliana, J. Pei, B. Qian, A. Senior, J. Yim, J. Jumper, T. Green, O. Ronneberger, and D. Hassabis, Nature629, 319 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    L. Wang, N. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yan, G. Shao, X. Wang, R. Wang, and C. Fu, Signal Trans- duction and Targeted Therapy7, 48 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    D. L. Dunkelmann, C. Piedrafita, A. Dickson, K. C. Liu, T. S. Elliott, M. Fiedler, D. Bellini, A. Zhou, D. Cervet- tini, and J. W. Chin, Nature625, 603 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Miura, T

    T. Miura, T. R. Malla, C. D. Owen, A. Tumber, L. Bre- witz, M. A. McDonough, E. Salah, N. Terasaka, T. Ka- toh, P. Lukacik,et al., Nature Chemistry15, 998 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Miyazawa and R

    S. Miyazawa and R. L. Jernigan, Journal of Molecular Biology256, 623 (1996)

    1996

  71. [79]

    Honda, K

    S. Honda, K. Yamasaki, Y. Sawada, and H. Morii, Struc- ture12, 1507 (2004)

    2004

  72. [80]

    RCSB Protein Data Bank, NMR Structure of designed protein, Chignolin, consisting of only ten amino acids (2003)

    2003

  73. [81]

    Bodenm¨ uller and H

    H. Bodenm¨ uller and H. C. Schaller, Nature293, 579–580 (1981)

    1981

  74. [82]

    UniProt Consortium, Morphogenetic neuropeptide - Homo sapiens (Human) (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    K. J. L. Jackson, Y. Wang, B. A. Gaeta, W. Pomat, P. Siba, J. Rimmer, W. A. Sewell, and A. M. Collins, Immunogenetics64, 3–14 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    UniProt Consortium, IGKJ1 - Inmunoglobulin kappa joining 1 - Homo sapiens (Human) (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Zielinski, J

    S. Zielinski, J. Nublein, M. Kolle, T. Gabor, C. Linnhoff- Popien, and S. Feld, in2024 IEEE International Confer- ence on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 1 (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,

  78. [86]

    Philathong, V

    H. Philathong, V. Akshay, K. Samburskaya, and J. Bia- monte, Journal of Physics: Complexity2, 011002 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    I. P. Gent and T. Walsh, inProceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’94 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 1994) p. 105–109

    1994

  80. [88]

    Kirkpatrick and B

    S. Kirkpatrick and B. Selman, Science264, 1297 (1994)

    1994

  81. [89]

    Ignatiev, Z

    A. Ignatiev, Z. L. Tan, and C. Karamanos, in27th In- ternational Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2024), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 305, edited by S. Chakraborty and J.-H. R. Jiang (Schloss Dagstuhl – Lei...

    2024

  82. [90]

    PySAT, A toolkit for SAT-based prototyping in Python, https://github.com/pysathq/pysat(2021)

    2021

  83. [91]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  84. [92]

    W. K. Hastings, Biometrika57, 97 (1970)

    1970

  85. [93]

    J.-S. Chen, E. Nielsen, M. Ebert, V. Inlek, K. Wright, V. Chaplin, A. Maksymov, E. P´ aez, A. Poudel, P. Maunz, et al., Quantum8, 1516 (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    S. Kim, R. R. McLeod, M. Saffman, and K. H. Wagner, Appl. Opt.47, 1816 (2008)

    2008

  87. [95]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler,et al., PRX Quantum2, 020343 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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