Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

A Survey on Applications of Quantum Computing for Unit Commitment

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unit Commitment scheduling is being reformulated for quantum machines through four paradigms—annealing, variational hybrid, quantum machine learning, and quantum-inspired metaheuristics—and the survey argues the field is converging on QUBO/

desk verdict Useful roadmap for a niche field, but the classification mistakes undercut the survey's central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.01777 v2 pith:STKISVRL submitted 2026-01-05 quant-ph cs.SYeess.SY

Milad Hasanzadeh , Ali Rajabi , Amin Kargarian This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.SYeess.SY
keywords unitcommitmentquantumcomputingQUBOannealingvariationalalgorithmshybridquantum-classicaloptimizationmachinelearningquantum-inspiredmetaheuristics
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

This survey aims to bring order to a fragmented literature: it claims that existing applications of quantum computing to unit commitment (UC) fall into four coherent paradigms—quantum annealing, variational hybrid quantum-classical optimization, quantum machine learning, and quantum-inspired metaheuristics. It argues that UC maps naturally to QUBO/Ising form, that decomposition methods such as quantum ADMM and quantum generalized Benders let small quantum processors handle subproblems, and that the reviewed results indicate quantum methods can accelerate discrete scheduling, reduce search effort, and support data-driven decision-making. The survey matters because UC is the central NP-hard scheduling problem in power operations, and a clear map of what has been tried, what works, and what still blocks scale-up is a precondition for judging whether near-term quantum hardware can make a practical difference.

What carries the argument

The QUBO-Ising mapping is the central object: UC's on/off variables, costs, and constraints are written as quadratic cost and penalty terms in a Hamiltonian, and the ground state gives the schedule. Around it, the survey identifies four paradigms—quantum annealing, variational/hybrid (QAOA, VQE, quantum ADMM, quantum Benders decomposition), QML (QNN, QRL), and quantum-inspired metaheuristics—and the taxonomy organizes how each paradigm encodes feasibility. The decomposition methods do the load-bearing work of shrinking QUBO size to fit near-term hardware, while compact encodings and logarithmic discretization reduce qubit counts.

What would settle it

Read each cited paper and check whether it belongs to the assigned paradigm; for example, if a 'quantum-inspired' entry turns out to use no quantum principles, or a paper is described as both exact and near-exact, the taxonomy is undermined. Then take a standard UC instance and run it on a classical solver, a quantum annealer, and a QAOA circuit with equal time limits; classical solutions matching or beating the quantum results on the same feasibility constraints would falsify the claim of reduced search effort.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quantum-UC literature is mature enough to organize into four methodological groups: annealing-based QUBO formulations executed on Ising hardware; variational hybrid gate-based frameworks that embed QAOA or VQE in classical decomposition loops; quantum machine-learning schemes using quantum neural networks or quantum reinforcement learning; and quantum-inspired metaheuristics that imitate quantum search on classical machines. Across these groups, the survey finds a shared modeling bridge: UC's binary commitment decisions and constraints can be encoded as a QUBO/Ising Hamiltonian, whose ground state is a feasible schedule. It reports that the main strategi

Load-bearing premise

The synthesis rests on treating the roughly forty selected papers as a representative, correctly classified sample whose performance claims can be taken at face value; if important work was omitted or misclassified, the four-paradigm picture and the conclusion that quantum methods reduce search effort are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UC can be expressed as a QUBO/Ising model, so quantum annealers and variational circuits can execute it directly.
  • Qubit cost can be reduced through logarithmic discretization, compact encodings, and penalty-term reformulations such as augmented Lagrangian methods.
  • Decomposition approaches (quantum ADMM, quantum generalized Benders) split UC into smaller QUBO subproblems that fit current hardware, opening a path to distributed quantum scheduling.
  • Hybrid classical-quantum loops with warm starts and classical refinement can keep solutions feasible while quantum subroutines explore commitment space.
  • Current limits remain: qubit count, noise, connectivity, large tightly coupled QUBOs, long QNN/QRL training, and no true quantum speedup in quantum-inspired methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the four-fold taxonomy holds, the next bottleneck is not new algorithms but qubit-efficient encoding; structure-aware QUBO design may become the decisive skill for scaling.
  • The survey's inclusion of classical precursor papers suggests quantum-UC is still in an early matching phase, so 'quantum advantage' should be measured against the best classical hybrids, not against naive mixed-integer programming.
  • Because QNN and QRL approaches lack reliability guarantees and training is costly, a testable near-term direction is quantum-enhanced model predictive control for UC instead of deep learning.
  • The reported speedups should be treated as provisional until the same UC instances are benchmarked across annealing, QAOA, and quantum-inspired methods under identical constraint sets and hardware assumptions.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper surveys applications of quantum computing to the unit commitment (UC) problem. It organizes the literature into four paradigms: quantum annealing–based formulations, variational/hybrid quantum–classical frameworks, quantum machine learning approaches, and quantum-inspired metaheuristics. For each category, the paper summarizes selected works, discusses QUBO/Ising modeling strategies, and concludes that quantum methods can accelerate discrete scheduling, reduce search effort, and support data-driven decision-making in UC. The paper also lists limitations of current quantum hardware and hybrid methods and suggests future directions such as structure-aware QUBO designs and distributed quantum architectures.

Significance. If the classification and synthesis are accurate, the paper would provide a useful entry point to a fragmented and fast-moving area, and its identification of recurring strategies (logarithmic discretization, ADMM/Benders decomposition, quantum subroutines embedded in classical loops) is valuable. The paper also explicitly acknowledges important limitations (qubit counts, noise, feasibility coordination, lack of reliability guarantees), which is commendable. However, the significance rests on the correctness of the taxonomy and the representativeness of the selected references. As it stands, several internal misclassifications and the absence of a stated search protocol undermine the central claim that the reviewed works form a reliable evidence base for the paper's conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A] The taxonomy is internally inconsistent. Reference [18] is described as a 'Grover-inspired quantum search algorithm' using amplitude amplification and oracle feedback — a gate-based search method — yet it is placed under 'Quantum Annealing–Based UC.' No explanation is given for why a Grover-inspired algorithm belongs in the annealing category. This misclassification directly affects the claimed four-way coverage of the literature and must be corrected or explicitly justified.
  2. [Sections III.C and III.D] The evidence base for the paper's central claims is undermined by the inclusion of clearly non-quantum works in quantum categories. In III.C, [33] is described as a classical ensemble deep RL method that 'does not use quantum hardware' and is only a 'precursor' to QRL, yet it is presented under the QML heading. In III.D, [40] is explicitly called a 'hybrid PSO' method and 'a precursor to quantum-inspired UC,' yet it appears in the quantum-inspired metaheuristics category. If classical precursors are included without a clear criterion, the conclusion that 'quantum methods can accelerate discrete scheduling' is not supported by the evidence as classified.
  3. [Section III.C, [16]] Reference [16] is described twice in contradictory terms: the text calls it 'an exact quantum UC algorithm' and later states that PCQNNs 'achieve near-exact UC schedules.' Exactness versus near-exactness is a substantive distinction for a survey that aims to characterize what the literature has achieved. This internal contradiction is emblematic of the lack of a consistent quality/classification filter and should be resolved, with the corrected description reflected in the taxonomy and conclusions.
  4. [Introduction and Section III] The paper claims to 'systematically review' the quantum-UC literature, but it provides no search protocol, inclusion criteria, or quality filter. The reader cannot determine whether the 40 selected references are representative or whether important works were omitted. A survey's central contribution is its map of the field; without a methodology section, the four-way taxonomy and the conclusion that 'these works show quantum methods can accelerate discrete scheduling' are not verifiable. This is a load-bearing omission for a survey paper and should be addressed with an explicit methodology or a reframing as a selective review.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, [9]] Reference [9] is an optimal power flow (OPF) paper, not a UC paper. The text acknowledges this ('Though centered on OPF'), but its use as evidence for annealing-based UC is a stretch; consider placing it as a related application or clearly marking it as a generalization rather than a UC study.
  2. [Section II] The claim that quantum parallelism and entanglement allow 'simultaneous evaluation of multiple states' is a common simplification but could mislead readers about the actual computational advantage; a more careful phrasing would distinguish parallelism from speedup. This is a presentation issue, not a load-bearing error.
  3. [Section IV] The conclusion states that 'quantum-inspired methods do not provide true quantum speedup,' which is correct, but the survey does not critically assess the actual performance of the quantum-inspired metaheuristics relative to state-of-the-art classical solvers. A sentence acknowledging this limitation would strengthen the survey.
  4. [Throughout] There are several minor grammatical issues (e.g., 'stochastic remain NP-hard' in Section I) and the references list is not formatted consistently (some entries have 'et al.' spacing issues). These are cosmetic and do not affect the substance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; survey's central synthesis is not forced by its inputs; minor author self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a survey paper, not a derivation: it categorizes 40 cited works into four quantum paradigms and summarizes their reported methods and limitations. There is no equation chain in which an output is defined in terms of an input, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The central conclusion that "quantum methods can accelerate discrete scheduling, reduce search effort, and support data-driven decision-making in UC" is an inductive summary of the reviewed literature, not a result derived from any single cited work. The authors cite three of their own works ([10], [11], [35]) as examples within the survey, but these are illustrative entries in a broader literature review and are not used to justify the survey's taxonomy or its overall claims. The manuscript also openly acknowledges that some items are not quantum-hardware-based, e.g., "Although [33] does not use quantum hardware" and that [40] "serves as a precursor to quantum-inspired UC," so the inclusion choices, even if debatable, are transparent rather than circular. The internal labeling inconsistency around [16] (called both "exact" and "near-exact") and the placement of classical precursors in quantum-themed sections are potential correctness or classification-quality issues, but they are not circularity: the survey's conclusions would still be the same kind of literature synthesis even if the taxonomy were imperfect. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to the paper's own assumptions, so the circularity burden is low.

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

No new free parameters or invented entities. The survey imports standard QUBO/Ising encoding and adiabatic/variational frameworks from cited literature; its own contribution is organizational, so the axioms above are the premises on which its synthesis rests.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Unit commitment problems can be faithfully encoded as QUBO/Ising Hamiltonians with penalty terms
    The survey's organization and most reviewed works depend on this mapping (Section II, paragraph 2; cited Lucas [8]). It is standard in the literature but not proved in this survey.
  • domain assumption Quantum annealing and variational circuits can find good or optimal solutions to these QUBO instances on current hardware
    Section III assumes the reviewed hardware demonstrations are meaningful evidence of viability. The survey itself lists noise and qubit limits as open limitations (Section IV), so this is a contested assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The set of 40 cited references is a representative and complete sample of quantum computing for UC literature
    The survey claims comprehensiveness but specifies no search protocol, inclusion criteria, or time window (Introduction, Section III). This is a selection made by the authors for this particular survey.
  • domain assumption Quantum parallelism and interference give a computational advantage for combinatorial optimization
    Section II presents superposition and entanglement as enabling simultaneous evaluation of many states, implying speedup potential without discussing measurement limits or negative results. This is a background assumption imported from quantum-computing advocacy literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Applications of Quantum Computing for Unit Commitment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STKISVRL

@misc{pith2026260101777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Applications of Quantum Computing for Unit Commitment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STKISVRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.01777}
}
read the original abstract

Unit Commitment (UC) is a core optimization problem in power system operation and electricity market scheduling. It determines the optimal on/off status and dispatch of generating units while satisfying system, operational, and market constraints. Traditionally, UC has been solved using mixed-integer programming, dynamic programming, or metaheuristic methods, all of which face scalability challenges as systems grow in size and uncertainty. Recent advances in quantum computing, spanning quantum annealing, variational algorithms, and hybrid quantum classical optimization, have opened new opportunities to accelerate UC solution processes by exploiting quantum parallelism and entanglement. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of existing research on the applications of quantum computing for solving the UC problem. The reviewed works are categorized based on the employed quantum paradigms, including annealing-based, variational hybrid, quantum machine learning, and quantum-inspired methods. Key modeling strategies, hardware implementations, and computational trade-offs are discussed, highlighting the current progress, limitations, and potential future directions for large-scale quantum-enabled UC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview from quantum principles to power system applications. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. A Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Simulator for Engineering Design Optimization

    cs.DC 2026-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors built and released a distributed QAOA simulator supporting monolithic and multi-QPU modes, runtime optimizations, a GUI, and demonstrations on benchmarks plus a power unit commitment problem where all mode...

  2. A Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Simulator for Engineering Design Optimization

    cs.DC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Develops and demonstrates a distributed QAOA simulator that produces solution bitstrings and costs matching classical monolithic QAOA and brute force on tested QUBO instances including unit commitment.

  3. A Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Simulator for Engineering Design Optimization

    cs.DC 2026-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    This paper presents a new open-source distributed QAOA simulator for QUBO problems that includes variable allocation across QPUs, runtime optimizations, a Streamlit GUI, and demonstrations of consistent results with m...

  4. Feasibility-Aware Security-Constrained Unit Commitment via Hybrid Soft Actor-Critic with Quantum-Sampled Features

    eess.SY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Hybrid HSAC RL with quantum sampling proposes SCUC commitments, recovered via capped MILP on IEEE test cases, revealing coverage bottlenecks at larger scales.

  5. A Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm Simulator for Engineering Design Optimization

    cs.DC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The authors release a distributed QAOA simulator package that supports monolithic and multi-QPU execution modes for QUBO instances and demonstrates consistent results with classical references on benchmarks and a unit...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [33]

    An optimization method-assisted ensemble deep reinforcement learning algorithm to solve unit commitment problems,

    J. Qin, Y . Gao, M. Bragin, and N. Yu, “An optimization method-assisted ensemble deep reinforcement learning algorithm to solve unit commitment problems,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 100 125–100 136, 2023

    2023

  2. [40]

    Solving the unit commitment problem in large systems using hybrid PSO algorithms,

    A. A. Ismail and A. N. Hussain, “Solving the unit commitment problem in large systems using hybrid PSO algorithms,” inIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1105, no. 1. IOP Publishing, 2021, p. 012007

    2021

  3. [16]

    Exact quantum algorithm for unit commitment optimization based on partially connected quantum neural networks,

    J. Liu, X. Zhou, Z. Zhou, and L. Luo, “Exact quantum algorithm for unit commitment optimization based on partially connected quantum neural networks,”Chinese Physics B, 2025

    2025

  4. [18]

    A fast quantum algorithm for searching the quasi-optimal solutions of unit commitment,

    X. Zheng, J. Wang, and M. Yue, “A fast quantum algorithm for searching the quasi-optimal solutions of unit commitment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 4755–4758, 2024

    2024

  5. [1]

    A. J. Wood, B. F. Wollenberg, and G. B. Shebl ´e,Power generation, operation, and control. John wiley & sons, 2013

    2013

  6. [2]

    A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,

    M. Carri ´on and J. M. Arroyo, “A computationally efficient mixed-integer linear formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1371–1378, 2006

    2006

  7. [3]

    Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey,

    N. P. Padhy, “Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1196–1205, 2004

    2004

  8. [4]

    Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market,

    J. M. Arroyo and A. J. Conejo, “Optimal response of a thermal unit to an electricity spot market,”IEEE Transactions on power systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1098–1104, 2002

    2002

Show all 40 references
  1. [5]

    Learning constraint surrogate model for two-stage stochastic unit commitment,

    A. B. Javadi, A. Kargarian, and M. Naraghi-Pour, “Learning constraint surrogate model for two-stage stochastic unit commitment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10246, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [6]

    A comprehensive review on evolutionary optimization techniques applied for unit commitment problem,

    N. Muralikrishnan, L. Jebaraj, and C. C. A. Rajan, “A comprehensive review on evolutionary optimization techniques applied for unit commitment problem,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 132 980–133 014, 2020

    2020

  3. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  4. [8]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems,

    A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many NP problems,”Frontiers in physics, vol. 2, p. 5, 2014

    2014

  5. [9]

    Annealing-based quantum computing for combinatorial optimal power flow,

    T. Morstyn, “Annealing-based quantum computing for combinatorial optimal power flow,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1093–1102, 2022

    2022

  6. [10]

    Learning infused quantum-classical distributed optimization technique for power generation scheduling,

    R. Mahroo and A. Kargarian, “Learning infused quantum-classical distributed optimization technique for power generation scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  7. [11]

    Distributed implementation of variational quantum eigensolver to solve QUBO problems,

    M. Hasanzadeh and A. Kargarian, “Distributed implementation of variational quantum eigensolver to solve QUBO problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17471, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [12]

    Quantum-compatible unit commitment modeling through logarithmic discretization,

    T. Christeson, A. Khodaei, and R. Eskandarpour, “Quantum-compatible unit commitment modeling through logarithmic discretization,” in2024 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  9. [13]

    Hybrid quantum annealing decomposition framework for unit commitment,

    J. Ling, Q. Zhang, G. Geng, and Q. Jiang, “Hybrid quantum annealing decomposition framework for unit commitment,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 238, p. 111121, 2025

    2025

  10. [14]

    Hybrid quantum-classical general benders decomposition algorithm for unit commitment with multiple networked microgrids,

    F. Gao, D. Huang, Z. Zhao, W. Dai, M. Yang, and F. Shuang, “Hybrid quantum-classical general benders decomposition algorithm for unit commitment with multiple networked microgrids,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06678, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [15]

    Quantum distributed unit commitment: An application in microgrids,

    N. Nikmehr, P. Zhang, and M. A. Bragin, “Quantum distributed unit commitment: An application in microgrids,”IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3592–3603, 2022

    2022

  12. [17]

    Quantum reinforcement learning-based two-stage unit commitment framework for enhanced power systems robustness,

    X. Wei, Z. Zhu, L. Zhu, Z. Hu, X. Zhang, G. Wang, S. Bu, and K. W. Chan, “Quantum reinforcement learning-based two-stage unit commitment framework for enhanced power systems robustness,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21240, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Qubit-efficient quantum annealing for stochastic unit commitment,

    W. Hong, W. Xu, and F. Teng, “Qubit-efficient quantum annealing for stochastic unit commitment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15917, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Quantum annealing for optimizing unit scheduling in renewable energy systems: Formulation and evaluation,

    S. M ¨uller, M. Dukalski, and F. Phillipson, “Quantum annealing for optimizing unit scheduling in renewable energy systems: Formulation and evaluation,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

    2025

  15. [21]

    A quantum computing approach for the unit commitment problem,

    P. Halffmann, P. Holzer, K. Plociennik, and M. Trebing, “A quantum computing approach for the unit commitment problem,” inInternational conference on operations research. Springer, 2022, pp. 113–120

    2022

  16. [22]

    Adapting quantum approximation optimization algorithm (QAOA) for unit commitment,

    S. Koretsky, P. Gokhale, J. M. Baker, J. Viszlai, H. Zheng, N. Gurung, R. Burg, E. A. Paaso, A. Khodaei, R. Eskandarpouret al., “Adapting quantum approximation optimization algorithm (QAOA) for unit commitment,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Eng...

    2021

  17. [23]

    Quantum-enabled distributed unit commitment,

    N. Nikmehr, P. Zhang, and M. A. Bragin, “Quantum-enabled distributed unit commitment,” in2022 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 01–05

    2022

  18. [24]

    Quantum-embedded robust optimization for resilience-constrained unit commitment,

    W. Fu, H. Xie, C. Chen, and Z. Bie, “Quantum-embedded robust optimization for resilience-constrained unit commitment,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

    2025

  19. [25]

    Novel resolution of unit commitment problems through quantum surrogate lagrangian relaxation,

    F. Feng, P. Zhang, M. A. Bragin, and Y . Zhou, “Novel resolution of unit commitment problems through quantum surrogate lagrangian relaxation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 2460–2471, 2022

    2022

  20. [26]

    A hybrid classical-quantum approach to highly constrained unit commitment problems,

    B. Salgado, A. Sequeira, and L. P. Santos, “A hybrid classical-quantum approach to highly constrained unit commitment problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11312, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    A new hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for solving the unit commitment problem,

    W. Aboumrad, P. R. Marthi, S. Debnath, M. Roetteler, and E. Epifanovsky, “A new hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for solving the unit commitment problem,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00145, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [28]

    A quantum-aided algorithm for unit commitment problems,

    M. Yang, F. Gao, G. Wu, B. Gong, H. Cao, and F. Shuang, “A quantum-aided algorithm for unit commitment problems,” in2023 42nd Chinese Control Conference (CCC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1733–1736

    2023

  23. [29]

    A scalable fully distributed quantum alternating direction method of multipliers for unit commitment problems,

    M. Yang, F. Gao, W. Dai, D. Huang, Q. Gao, and F. Shuang, “A scalable fully distributed quantum alternating direction method of multipliers for unit commitment problems,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2400286, 2025

    2025

  24. [30]

    Dc optimal power flow in unit commitment using quantum computing: An ADMM approach,

    M. R. Magar, D. Pandit, D. Nguyen, and N. Nguyen, “Dc optimal power flow in unit commitment using quantum computing: An ADMM approach,” in2024 56th North American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  25. [31]

    Problem-structure-informed quantum approximate optimization algorithm for large-scale unit commitment with limited qubits,

    J. Zhou, Z. Zhu, L. Zhu, and S. Bu, “Problem-structure-informed quantum approximate optimization algorithm for large-scale unit commitment with limited qubits,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20509, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Consensus-based distributed quantum decomposition algorithm for security-constrained unit commitment considering optimal transmission switching,

    D. Huang, W. Dai, F. Gao, M. Yang, Y . Pan, J. Ju, and Y . Ma, “Consensus-based distributed quantum decomposition algorithm for security-constrained unit commitment considering optimal transmission switching,”Advanced Quantum Technologies, p. e2500241

  27. [34]

    Leveraging quantum computing for accelerated classical algorithms in power systems optimization,

    R. Barrass, H. Nagarajan, and C. Coffrin, “Leveraging quantum computing for accelerated classical algorithms in power systems optimization,” inInternational Conference on the Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research. Springer, 202...

    2025

  28. [35]

    D2-UC: A distributed-distributed quantum-classical framework for unit commitment,

    M. Hasanzadeh and A. Kargarian, “D2-UC: A distributed-distributed quantum-classical framework for unit commitment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03104, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    Meta-heuristic framework: Quantum inspired binary grey wolf optimizer for unit commitment problem,

    K. Srikanth, L. K. Panwar, B. K. Panigrahi, E. Herrera-Viedma, A. K. Sangaiah, and G.-G. Wang, “Meta-heuristic framework: Quantum inspired binary grey wolf optimizer for unit commitment problem,”Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 70, pp. 243–260, 2018

    2018

  30. [37]

    Unit commitment problem solution using local attracting quantum PSO algorithm,

    A. A. Ismail and A. N. Hussain, “Unit commitment problem solution using local attracting quantum PSO algorithm,” inIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 745, no. 1. IOP Publishing, 2020, p. 012008

    2020

  31. [38]

    Development of a new unit commitment method with quantum predator prey brain storm optimization,

    Y . Kawauchi, H. Mori, and H.-D. Chiang, “Development of a new unit commitment method with quantum predator prey brain storm optimization,”Electrical Engineering in Japan, vol. 218, no. 2, p. e23509, 2025

    2025

  32. [39]

    Towards multipartite adaptive binary & real coded quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for solving multi-objective unit commitment problem with thermal units and wind farm,

    J. Singh, A. Mani, H. Singh, and D. Rana, “Towards multipartite adaptive binary & real coded quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for solving multi-objective unit commitment problem with thermal units and wind farm,” in2021 4th International Conference on Recent Development...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.