Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Frustration-Enhanced Quantum Annealing Correction Models with Additional Inter-replica Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Quantum annealing correction models can reach optimal solutions through small energy gaps by stacking replicas with antiferromagnetic couplings, because many low-lying eigenstates decode to the correct answer.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: a hardware-backed QAC result with a plausible mechanism, but the mechanism is only shown at N=3 where the gap is not small, and the hardware evidence is a single instance with no error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.11217 v1 pith:X43OSM3S submitted 2025-09-14 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Tomohiro Hattori , Shu Tanaka This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords CombinatorialoptimizationQuantumannealingcorrectionPenaltyspinmodelStackedFrustrationDiabaticFrustratedring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that quantum annealing correction (QAC) models, especially the stacked model with periodic boundary conditions, can solve problems with a small energy gap, the standard bottleneck of quantum annealing, within short annealing times. The key mechanism is that antiferromagnetic inter-replica couplings make many low-lying eigenstates of the coupled Hamiltonian decode to the optimal solution, so the system succeeds even when diabatic transitions kick it out of the ground state. On a 61-spin frustrated ring, hardware experiments show near-unity success probability at 100 to 2000 microseconds and a clear advantage over the uncorrected parallel model even at 1 microsecond. A sympathetic reader would care because near-term quantum annealers have limited coherence and noisy control; if QAC can turn the small-gap bottleneck into a resource, practical combinatorial optimization becomes more realistic.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stacked QAC Hamiltonian with periodic boundary conditions, where K replicas of the problem are coupled by inter-replica interactions J_p; choosing J_p < 0 (antiferromagnetic) with odd K introduces frustration among replicas. The workhorse property is the decodability property: a large set of low-lying eigenstates of the coupled system correspond, under energy-minimization decoding, to the optimal solution of the unprotected problem. This property is what lets diabatic transitions still yield success, and it disappears when the inter-replica couplings are ferromagnetic or when boundary conditions remove the frustration.

What would settle it

Run a full time-dependent Schrödinger simulation of the periodic-boundary stacked model on a frustrated ring with N≥11, where the gap is genuinely small, and count how many low-lying eigenstates decode to the optimum; if the fraction of optimal-decodable low-energy states collapses and the success-probability advantage disappears, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the frustrated ring benchmark, the periodic-boundary stacked QAC model with antiferromagnetic inter-replica interactions makes the optimal solution of the original problem appear, after energy-minimization decoding, in dozens of the lowest eigenstates of the coupled Hamiltonian (47 of the lowest 47 states for N=3, K=3). Consequently the annealer does not need to remain in the ground state to return the right answer: diabatic transitions into these low-lying states still decode to success. The same decodability is absent for ferromagnetic couplings and is weaker for the open-boundary stacked and penalty-spin models, which must rely on adiabatic evolution and are more sensitive to interacti

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the decodability property observed at N=3, where the frustrated-ring gap is still relatively large, persists in the small-gap regime that governs the N=61 hardware results, since no direct simulation covers a small-gap coupled system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On near-term annealers with limited coherence, the periodic-boundary stacked model with moderately strong antiferromagnetic couplings can reach near-optimal solutions at 1 microsecond, where the classical parallel model fails.
  • Frustration among replicas is the load-bearing feature: with odd K and periodic boundaries the success probability stays high even for large |J_p|, whereas open-boundary stacked and penalty-spin models degrade at strong coupling.
  • The decodability property is preserved under energy-minimization decoding, so the mechanism should transfer to other ground-state-search Ising solvers, not only quantum annealers.
  • Strong antiferromagnetic couplings still hurt at short annealing times because energy-scale effects dominate, so interaction strength must be tuned relative to the annealing schedule.
  • Adding replicas increases chain length and embedding overhead, especially for the penalty-spin model, so the stacked model is the more embedding-friendly route in practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the decodability mechanism is spectral rather than hardware-specific, it should also improve classical heuristics: running simulated annealing on the coupled QAC Hamiltonian and decoding the lowest-energy replica may outperform the same heuristic on the original problem, a testable extension the paper does not make.
  • The even-odd dependence of success probability on K under strong antiferromagnetic coupling is a sharp experimental signature; a reader could probe it directly on hardware to confirm the frustration mechanism.
  • The N=3 numerical basis suggests a scaling risk: if the number of optimal-decodable low-energy states grows only polynomially with N while the gap closes exponentially, the short-time advantage could fade for very large problems; simulating with N≥11 would resolve this.
  • The authors' design principle, engineering frustration into the replicated Hamiltonian so that low-lying states are 'correct' under decoding, could be applied to other hard optimization problems such as spin glasses or MAX-CUT, with the prediction that odd frustrated loops should outperform open, non-frustrated replicas.
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 studies three quantum annealing correction (QAC) constructions—the penalty-spin model, the open-boundary stacked model, and the periodic-boundary stacked model—applied to a frustrated ring with a small energy gap. It reports experiments on D-Wave Advantage2 for system sizes N=11–61 with up to K=35 replicas and annealing times 1–2000 µs, together with exact time-dependent Schrödinger simulations at N=3, K=3. The central finding is that antiferromagnetic inter-replica interactions improve success probability relative to the classical/unprotected model, while ferromagnetic interactions degrade it. The periodic-boundary stacked model performs best, and the authors attribute this to geometric frustration among replicas and to the fact that many low-lying eigenstates of the coupled Hamiltonian decode to the optimal solution, so that diabatic transitions do not necessarily lead to failure. The paper concludes that QAC models can solve small-gap problems at short annealing times by exploiting diabatic transitions.

Significance. If substantiated, the work identifies a concrete and somewhat counterintuitive mechanism for QAC: antiferromagnetic inter-replica couplings, especially with periodic boundary conditions, create a low-energy manifold of states that all decode to the optimum, so that nonadiabatic evolution remains successful. The odd/even K dependence and the decodable-manifold counts are testable predictions, and the use of exact diagonalization to illustrate the spectral structure is a strength. The broad experimental contrast between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic couplings is large and credible. The main weakness is that the proposed mechanism is demonstrated only at N=3, where the frustrated-ring gap is not small, while the claim that motivates the paper is specifically about the small-gap regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B (Figs. 8, 9) and Fig. 14] The mechanism central to the abstract—that QAC succeeds in small-gap problems because many low-lying eigenstates decode to the optimum—is established only for N=3, where Fig. 14 shows the bare frustrated-ring gap is O(1), not the exponentially small gap that defines the bottleneck. The paper does not show that the property '47 lowest-energy states correspond to the optimal solution' persists as N grows and the gap closes. The N=61 hardware data are a single instance and cannot resolve the spectrum. Please provide larger-N numerical evidence (e.g., N=5–11 exact or tensor-network calculations) or an analytic argument that the decodable low-energy manifold survives in the small-gap regime; otherwise the small-gap part of the central claim is an extrapolation.
  2. [Sec. III and Sec. IV.A, Fig. 4] All hardware success probabilities are based on num_reads=100 with no confidence intervals. Under binomial sampling, adjacent entries such as 0.91 and 0.87 at τ=20 µs in Fig. 4(a) differ by less than one standard deviation (about 0.03–0.05), so fine-grained claims such as 'enhancement is observed regardless of the magnitude of the antiferromagnetic interactions' are not statistically supported. The large contrast between antiferromagnetic and classical models is credible, but the quantitative near-unity values and the detailed J_p/τ patterns need error bars, more reads, or appropriately restricted language.
  3. [Abstract/Conclusion vs Sec. III] All results are for a single instance of the frustrated ring with fixed parameters J_R=0.45, J_L=0.5, h1=0.01. The abstract and conclusion state a general result for 'problems with a small energy gap'. Without additional instances, a range of parameters, or a theoretical argument that the decodable-manifold mechanism is generic, the central claim is overgeneralized. At minimum, the claims should be explicitly restricted to the frustrated-ring instance and to the tested parameter range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The formula for n_suc is incorrect: for K=1 it gives N rather than 1. The correct number of combined states with at least one replica in the nondegenerate ground state is (2^N)^K − (2^N−1)^K; if the intended count is exactly one ground replica, it is K(2^N−1)^{K−1}. Please correct or remove this formula.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Fig. 7] The vertical axis is labeled 's', but the caption and text use µs. Please unify the units.
  3. [Sec. III (experimental setup)] The manuscript states 'All other parameters were set to their default values.' For reproducibility, please report the chain strength, the minor-embedding tool settings, and the physical qubit count used for each model at N=61, K=35.
  4. [Figs. 5, 6, 12, 13] The lines between points are guides to the eye and no error bars are shown. Given that failure/success is a Bernoulli quantity, error bars or raw sample counts should be provided.
  5. [Sec. IV.B] The simulation uses linear schedules A(t)=1−t/τ and B(t)=t/τ, which differ from the device schedules. This is acceptable for a mechanistic study, but the text should explicitly state that the absolute annealing-time comparison between numerics and hardware is not intended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are produced by direct hardware measurements and exact diagonalization, not by fitting, decoding by construction, or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that QAC stacked models with moderate antiferromagnetic inter-replica interactions reach the optimum at short annealing times through diabatic transitions—is supported by (i) hardware success probabilities on the N=61 frustrated ring and (ii) exact diagonalization of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation at N=3, K=3. The success probability metric is not defined so that it equals the QAC Hamiltonian's ground-state overlap only; it is computed by summing the final-state population over eigenstates that decode to the optimal replica, and the paper explicitly computes how many low-lying eigenstates decode to the optimum for different Jp (e.g., 'For Jp=-1.0 and -0.1, the 47 lowest-energy states correspond to the optimal solution'). This is a verified spectral property, not an assumption. Jp is scanned over a grid, not fitted to the reported success probabilities, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The references to prior QAC work, including Ref. [63] co-authored by S. Tanaka, are background: the stacked model is adopted from [62,63,66] and the paper then contributes new dynamics and hardware results; no theorem or uniqueness claim from those references is used to force the conclusion. The numerical success probabilities in Fig. 7 and the analytic classical-model formula in Appendix D are independent checks rather than inputs to the main claim. The only concern worth noting is an extrapolation: the decodable low-energy manifold is demonstrated at N=3 where the bare frustrated-ring gap is O(1), while the hardware claim concerns small-gap N=61; that is a robustness/validity gap, not a circular reduction, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a benchmark parameter set taken from prior literature (free parameters J_R, J_L, h1), on the standard QA framework, and on one load-bearing transfer assumption about the persistency of the decodability mechanism from a large-gap N=3 simulation to the small-gap regime.

free parameters (3)
  • h1 (longitudinal field) = 0.01
    Hand-chosen field at site 1 that lifts the all-up/all-down degeneracy of the frustrated ring; it modifies the gap profile and is kept fixed for all experiments and simulations.
  • J_R and J_L (ring couplings) = J_R=0.45, J_L=0.5, J=1
    Coupling strengths chosen by hand following Ref. [67] to place the ring in the spin-glass bottleneck region; all results use this single parameter set.
  • Numerical annealing schedules = A(t)=1-t/τ, B(t)=t/τ
    Linear schedules used only in QuTiP simulations; the D-Wave hardware runs with its own default schedules, so the numerical dynamics do not exactly match the hardware dynamics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Transverse-field quantum annealing Hamiltonian and boundary conditions of the schedules (Eqs. 1-2).
    Background QA model from Refs. [1-6]; the base framework for all subsequent constructions.
  • domain assumption The frustrated ring with J_R=0.45, J_L=0.5 has a spin-glass bottleneck with gap closing in the thermodynamic limit.
    Taken from Ref. [67]; the paper's Fig. 14 reproduces the gap closing trend for small N.
  • domain assumption Energy-minimization decoding is the correct decoding strategy for QAC models.
    Adopted from Refs. [52,53,55]; the paper states this without re-derivation in Section II.
  • ad hoc to paper The decodability mechanism observed at N=3 transfers to the small-gap regime.
    The exact-diagonalization explanation for the hardware results is computed at N=3, where the gap is not small; no numerical evidence is presented at sizes where the gap closes.
  • domain assumption The D-Wave annealer with default control parameters faithfully implements the intended Hamiltonian; embedding artifacts are small enough not to invert the conclusions.
    The paper relies on hardware samples as evidence and characterizes chain breaks in Appendix A, but does not quantify how chain breaks affect each reported success probability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frustration-Enhanced Quantum Annealing Correction Models with Additional Inter-replica Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X43OSM3S

@misc{pith2026250911217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frustration-Enhanced Quantum Annealing Correction Models with Additional Inter-replica Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X43OSM3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.11217}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum annealing correction (QAC) models provide a promising approach for mitigating errors in quantum annealers. Previous studies have established that QAC models are crucial for ensuring the robustness of the ground state of the Ising model on hardware. In this work, the effects of QAC models incorporating replicas with additional interactions, specifically, the penalty spin model and the stacked model, are investigated for problems characterized by a small energy gap between the ground and first excited states during quantum annealing, a well-known bottleneck to reaching the ground state. The results demonstrate that these QAC models can obtain the optimal solution within short annealing times by exploiting diabatic transitions, even for problems with a small energy gap. These findings highlight the potential of QAC models as practical near-term algorithms for hardware subject to runtime limitations and control noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagrams of the QAC models: (a) the unprotected model, (b) the classical model, (c) the penalty spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic diagram of the frustrated ring model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy gap ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Final success probability with the different QAC models on an actual quantum annealer as a function of the interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The final success probability as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Final success probability of different QAC models as a function of the interaction strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Final population in the periodic-boundary stacked model. The problem size is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Energy spectrum during QA for the periodic-boundary stacked model. The problem size is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The maximum chain length as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The chain-break fractions as a function of the interaction strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Scaling of the final success probability of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Energy gap ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Final success probability of QAC models on an actual quantum annealer as a function of the interaction strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Structural Comparison of Error Mitigation Methods for Ising Machines: Penalty-Spin Model versus Stacked Model

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On sparse assignment problems, ferromagnetically coupled stacked replicas of an Ising model outperform the centralized penalty-spin design, which loses solution structure when many replicas are averaged in its auxilia...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106 (2000)

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    C. C. McGeoch,Adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing: Theory and practice(Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Tanaka, R

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

    2017

  5. [5]

    Albash and D

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

    2018

  6. [6]

    B. K. Chakrabarti, H. Leschke, P. Ray, T. Shirai, and 13 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.1 1.0 Jp 1.0 20.0 100.0 1000.0 2000.0 s 0.58 0.57 0.18 0.16 0.2 0.04 0.0 0.99 0.91 0.91 0.45 0.36 0.0 0.0 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.53 0.25 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.96 0.89 0.86 0.54 0.0 0.0 0.99 0.87 0.99 0.83 0.59 0.0 0.0 (a) 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.1 1.0 Jp 1.0 20.0 100.0 1000.0 2000.0 s 0.65...

    2000

  7. [7]

    Karimi and G

    H. Karimi and G. Rosenberg, Boosting quantum annealer performance via sample persistence, Quantum Inf. Pro- cess.16, 166 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Karimi, G

    H. Karimi, G. Rosenberg, and H. G. Katzgraber, Effec- tive optimization using sample persistence: A case study on quantum annealers and various Monte Carlo optimiza- tion methods, Phys. Rev. E96, 043312 (2017)

    2017

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    H. Irie, H. Liang, T. Doi, S. Gongyo, and T. Hatsuda, Hybrid quantum annealing via molecular dynamics, Sci. Rep.11, 8426 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Atobe, M

    Y. Atobe, M. Tawada, and N. Togawa, Hybrid annealing method based on subQUBO model extraction with mul- tiple solution instances, IEEE Trans. Comput.71, 2606 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kikuchi, N

    S. Kikuchi, N. Togawa, and S. Tanaka, Hybrid opti- mization method using simulated-annealing-based Ising machine and quantum annealer, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 124002 (2023), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.92.124002

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Hattori, H

    T. Hattori, H. Irie, T. Kadowaki, and S. Tanaka, Advan- tages of fixing spins in quantum annealing, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 013001 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Hattori, H

    T. Hattori, H. Irie, T. Kadowaki, and S. Tanaka, Impact of fixing spins in a quantum annealer with energy rescal- ing, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 074001 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Hirama and M

    S. Hirama and M. Ohzeki, Efficient algorithm for binary quadratic problem by column generation and quantum annealing, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 113002 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Kanai, M

    H. Kanai, M. Yamashita, K. Tanahashi, and S. Tanaka, Annealing-assisted column generation for inequality- constrained combinatorial optimization problems, IEEE Access12, 157669 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Hattori and S

    T. Hattori and S. Tanaka, Controlled diagonal cata- lyst improves the efficiency of quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15244 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    M. H. Amin, A. D. King, J. Raymond, R. Harris, W. Bernoudy, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, A. Smirnov, F. Altomare, M. Babcock,et al., Quantum er- ror mitigation in quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01306 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Shingu, T

    Y. Shingu, T. Nikuni, S. Kawabata, and Y. Matsuzaki, Quantum annealing with error mitigation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042606 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Tanahashi, S

    K. Tanahashi, S. Takayanagi, T. Motohashi, and S. Tanaka, Application of Ising machines and a software development for Ising machines, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 061010 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Kitai, J

    K. Kitai, J. Guo, S. Ju, S. Tanaka, K. Tsuda, J. Shiomi, and R. Tamura, Designing metamaterials with quantum annealing and factorization machines, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013319 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Izawa, K

    S. Izawa, K. Kitai, S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and K. Tsuda, Continuous black-box optimization with an Ising ma- chine and random subspace coding, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023062 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Inoue, Y

    T. Inoue, Y. Seki, S. Tanaka, N. Togawa, K. Ishizaki, and S. Noda, Towards optimization of photonic-crystal surface-emitting lasers via quantum annealing, Opt. Ex- press30, 43503 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Matsumori, M

    T. Matsumori, M. Taki, and T. Kadowaki, Application of QUBO solver using black-box optimization to struc- tural design for resonance avoidance, Sci. Rep.12, 12143 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. Nawa, T. Suzuki, K. Masuda, S. Tanaka, and Y. Miura, Quantum annealing optimization method for the design of barrier materials in magnetic tunnel junc- tions, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 024044 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Couzini´ e, Y

    Y. Couzini´ e, Y. Seki, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Tanaka, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Machine learning sup- ported annealing for prediction of grand canonical crystal structures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.94, 044802 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Tamura, Y

    R. Tamura, Y. Seki, Y. Minamoto, K. Kitai, Y. Mat- suda, S. Tanaka, and K. Tsuda, Black-box optimization using factorization and Ising machines, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18003 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Harris, Y

    R. Harris, Y. Sato, A. J. Berkley, M. Reis, F. Altomare, M. Amin, K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, C. Deng, C. Enderud, et al., Phase transitions in a programmable quantum spin glass simulator, Science361, 162 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    A. D. King, J. Carrasquilla, J. Raymond, I. Ozfidan, 14 E. Andriyash, A. Berkley, M. Reis, T. Lanting, R. Harris, F. Altomare,et al., Observation of topological phenom- ena in a programmable lattice of 1,800 qubits, Nature 560, 456 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    K. Endo, Y. Matsuda, S. Tanaka, and M. Muramatsu, A phase-field model by an Ising machine and its application to the phase-separation structure of a diblock polymer, Sci. Rep.12, 10794 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Honda, K

    R. Honda, K. Endo, T. Kaji, Y. Suzuki, Y. Matsuda, S. Tanaka, and M. Muramatsu, Development of optimiza- tion method for truss structure by quantum annealing, Sci. Rep.14, 13872 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Z. Xu, W. Shang, S. Kim, E. Lee, and T. Luo, Quan- tum annealing-assisted lattice optimization, npj Comput. Mater.11, 4 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Rosenberg, P

    G. Rosenberg, P. Haghnegahdar, P. Goddard, P. Carr, K. Wu, and M. L. De Prado, Solving the optimal trading trajectory problem using a quantum annealer, inPro- ceedings of the 8th workshop on high performance com- putational finance(2015) pp. 1–7

    2015

  25. [33]

    Grant, T

    E. Grant, T. S. Humble, and B. Stump, Benchmarking quantum annealing controls with portfolio optimization, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 014012 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, J

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, J. Phys. Soc. Jan.5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  27. [35]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front

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

    2014

  28. [36]

    Altshuler, H

    B. Altshuler, H. Krovi, and J. Roland, Anderson local- ization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12446 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Pearson, A

    A. Pearson, A. Mishra, I. Hen, and D. A. Lidar, Ana- log errors in quantum annealing: doom and hope, npj Quantum Inf.5, 107 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A91, 062320 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Seki and H

    Y. Seki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing with an- tiferromagnetic fluctuations, Phys. Rev. E85, 051112 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    R. D. Somma, D. Nagaj, and M. Kieferov´ a, Quantum speedup by quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 050501 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Y. Susa, Y. Yamashiro, M. Yamamoto, and H. Nishimori, Exponential speedup of quantum annealing by inhomo- geneous driving of the transverse field, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 023002 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Y. Susa, Y. Yamashiro, M. Yamamoto, I. Hen, D. A. Lidar, and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing of the p- spin model under inhomogeneous transverse field driving, Phys. Rev. A98, 042326 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    J. I. Adame and P. L. McMahon, Inhomogeneous driving in quantum annealers can result in orders-of-magnitude improvements in performance, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 035011 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Albash and M

    T. Albash and M. Kowalsky, Diagonal catalysts in quan- tum adiabatic optimization, Phys. Rev. A103, 022608 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Zaborniak and R

    T. Zaborniak and R. Sousa, Benchmarking Hamiltonian Noise in the D-Wave Quantum Annealer, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.2, 3100206 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Feinstein, L

    N. Feinstein, L. Fry-Bouriaux, S. Bose, and P. A. War- burton, Effects of XX catalysts on quantum annealing spectra with perturbative crossings, Phys. Rev. A110, 042609 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Ghosh, L

    R. Ghosh, L. A. Nutricati, N. Feinstein, P. A. Warburton, and S. Bose, Exponential speed-up of quantum anneal- ing via n-local catalysts, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13029 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Crosson and D

    E. Crosson and D. Lidar, Prospects for quantum en- hancement with diabatic quantum annealing, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 466 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Cˆ ot´ e, F

    J. Cˆ ot´ e, F. Sauvage, M. Larocca, M. Jonsson, L. Cincio, and T. Albash, Diabatic quantum annealing for the frus- trated ring model, Quantum Sci. and Technol.8, 045033 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Feinstein, I

    N. Feinstein, I. Shalashilin, S. Bose, and P. Warburton, Robustness of diabatic enhancement in quantum anneal- ing, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 025011 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Pelofske, G

    E. Pelofske, G. Hahn, and H. N. Djidjev, Parallel quan- tum annealing, Sci. Rep.12, 4499 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Error- corrected quantum annealing with hundreds of qubits, Nat. Commun.5, 3243 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    K. L. Pudenz, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Quantum annealing correction for random Ising problems, Phys. Rev. A91, 042302 (2015)

    2015

  46. [55]

    Vinci, T

    W. Vinci, T. Albash, G. Paz-Silva, I. Hen, and D. A. Lidar, Quantum annealing correction with minor embed- ding, Phys. Rev. A92, 042310 (2015)

    2015

  47. [56]

    Vinci, T

    W. Vinci, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Nested quantum annealing correction, npj Quantum Inf.2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Matsuura, H

    S. Matsuura, H. Nishimori, T. Albash, and D. A. Li- dar, Mean field analysis of quantum annealing correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 220501 (2016)

    2016

  49. [58]

    Mishra, T

    A. Mishra, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Performance of two different quantum annealing correction codes, Quan- tum Inf. Process.15, 609 (2016)

    2016

  50. [59]

    Matsuura, H

    S. Matsuura, H. Nishimori, W. Vinci, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Quantum-annealing correction at finite tem- perature: Ferromagnetic p-spin models, Phys. Rev. A95, 022308 (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    Vinci and D

    W. Vinci and D. A. Lidar, Scalable effective-temperature reduction for quantum annealers via nested quantum an- nealing correction, Phys. Rev. A97, 022308 (2018)

    2018

  52. [61]

    Matsuura, H

    S. Matsuura, H. Nishimori, W. Vinci, and D. A. Lidar, Nested quantum annealing correction at finite tempera- ture: p-spin models, Phys. Rev. A99, 062307 (2019)

    2019

  53. [62]

    Bennett, A

    J. Bennett, A. Callison, T. O’Leary, M. West, N. Chan- cellor, and V. Kendon, Using copies can improve preci- sion in continuous-time quantum computing, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 035031 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    Hino and S

    K. Hino and S. Tanaka, Physical properties of error re- duction algorithms for Ising machines, in2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and En- gineering (QCE), Vol. 02 (2024) pp. 434–435

    2024

  55. [64]

    R. Y. Li, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Improved Boltz- mann machines with error corrected quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01283 (2019)

    1910 arXiv

  56. [65]

    R. Y. Li, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, Limitations of error corrected quantum annealing in improving the per- formance of Boltzmann machines, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 045010 (2020)

    2020

  57. [66]

    K. C. Young, R. Blume-Kohout, and D. A. Lidar, Adia- batic quantum optimization with the wrong hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A88, 062314 (2013). 15

    2013

  58. [67]

    Roberts, L

    D. Roberts, L. Cincio, A. Saxena, A. Petukhov, and S. Knysh, Noise amplification at spin-glass bottlenecks of quantum annealing: A solvable model, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042317 (2020)

    2020

  59. [68]

    R. Wang, V. R. Arezzo, K. Thengil, G. Pecci, and G. E. Santoro, From exponential to quadratic: Optimal control for a frustrated Ising ring model, Quantum Sci. Technol. (2025)

    2025

  60. [69]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt Jr, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, Science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  61. [70]

    Per-QPU solver properties and schedules,https: //docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/quantum_ research/solver_properties_specific.html# advantage2-system1-6, (accessed 2025-9-11)

    2025

  62. [71]

    Boothby, K

    A. Boothby, K. andKing and J. Raymond, Zephyr topol- ogy of D-Wave quantum processors (2021)

    2021

  63. [72]

    Choi, Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum compu- tation: I

    V. Choi, Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum compu- tation: I. The parameter setting problem, Quantum Inf. Process.7, 193 (2008)

    2008

  64. [73]

    Choi, Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum compu- tation: II

    V. Choi, Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum compu- tation: II. Minor-universal graph design, Quantum Inf. Process.10, 343 (2011)

    2011

  65. [74]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems., Phys. Comm.183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  66. [75]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems., Phys. Comm.184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

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