Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

GPU-Accelerated Distributed QAOA on Large-scale HPC Ecosystems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 GPU-accelerated distributed QAOA on Frontier achieves up to a 10x speedup over CPU execution, and impact-factor decomposition converges faster than random decomposition on dense QUBO problems.

desk verdict Solid benchmark study of GPU-accelerated DQAOA on Frontier, but the headline '10x speedup' rests on an unfair one-GPU-vs-one-CPU-core comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10531 v1 pith:43W7J4IH submitted 2025-06-12 cs.DC

Zhihao Xu , Srikar Chundury , Seongmin Kim , Amir Shehata , Xinyi Li , Ang Li , Tengfei Luo , Frank Mueller
show 1 more author
In-Saeng Suh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords distributedquantumcomputinghighperformanceoptimizationGPUaccelerationQAOADQAOAQUBOFrontier
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 paper tries to establish that distributed QAOA (DQAOA) can be made practically scalable for large QUBO optimization problems by running on GPU-accelerated HPC systems. It claims that on the Frontier supercomputer, replacing CPU-based quantum circuit simulation with GPU-based simulation cuts time-to-solution by roughly an order of magnitude for dense problems of 300 to 1000 variables. It also claims that a new impact-factor-directed (IFD) decomposition, which samples the variables whose flips change the objective most, converges faster than random decomposition on dense problems, while graph-traversal variants BFS and PFS do better on sparse Max-Cut problems. The work matters because it provides concrete benchmarks and a software path for running hybrid quantum-classical algorithms on exascale systems rather than small toy instances.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the DQAOA cycle: decompose a large QUBO matrix into smaller sub-QUBOs, solve each sub-QUBO with single-layer QAOA on a distributed simulator backend, then aggregate the sub-solutions into the global solution, accepting only updates that lower energy. QAOA is a variational quantum algorithm that prepares a parameterized quantum state to minimize the cost Hamiltonian of the QUBO. The decomposition machinery is the impact-factor-directed (IFD) method, which ranks decision variables by local sensitivity of the objective and packs the top-ranked variables into sub-QUBOs, plus BFS/PFS traversal variants that follow strong pairwise couplings. GPU-accelerated state-vector simulation is what carries the 10x speedup claim, while MPI-based distribution carries the scalability across nodes.

What would settle it

Run the same DQAOA benchmarks with the CPU baseline using all 64 cores of a Frontier node instead of a single core, and measure time-to-solution for QUBO sizes 300, 500, and 1000; if the GPU-to-CPU ratio falls close to 1, the 'up to 10x' claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that DQAOA on Frontier runs nearly 10x faster when quantum circuit simulation is done on GPUs instead of CPU cores, and that the choice of decomposition strategy controls practical performance at least as much as simulator speed. On fully connected metamaterial QUBO instances of size 300, 500, and 1000, IFD decomposition consistently reaches higher approximate ratios in fewer cycles than random decomposition. On sparse Max-Cut graphs, priority-first search (PFS) and breadth-first search (BFS) decompositions produce higher approximate ratios than random and IFD because they preserve local pairwise interactions. The paper also demonstrates strong scaling to thousands of sub-QUBOs on up to 1000 CPU/GPU devices, and it identifies aggregation as the dominant computational cost for large problem sizes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one GPU and one CPU core are comparable units when counting 'cores' in the scaling plots; a CPU baseline using all 64 cores of a node, or matched peak compute, would make the claimed 10x speedup much smaller.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense QUBO problems up to at least 1000 variables become solvable by DQAOA in times that are roughly an order of magnitude shorter when a GPU-accelerated cluster is available.
  • Impact-factor decomposition gives a practical advantage for dense industrial QUBO instances by reducing the number of DQAOA cycles needed to converge.
  • For sparse problems like Max-Cut, graph-traversal decompositions should be preferred over pure impact-factor selection, since they preserve local structure.
  • Increasing the number of sub-QUBOs, when backed by enough parallel CPU or GPU devices, accelerates convergence and makes expensive HPC resources directly translate into faster time-to-solution.
  • Asynchronous task-based execution through the QFw software stack can replace the rigid one-process-per-subproblem MPI binding and improve resource utilization as the number of sub-QUBOs grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the 10x speedup is measured entirely in simulation, a reader should not expect the same factor when QAOA runs on real quantum hardware; the decomposition improvements would transfer independently of simulation hardware.
  • The one-GPU-versus-one-CPU-core plotting convention probably understates CPU capability, so the headline speedup factor should be read as sensitive to how computational resources are counted.
  • Because decomposition cost scales as O(N^3) and aggregation as O(mkN^2), the paper's own runtime breakdown suggests that for very large N these classical steps, not the QAOA solves, will become the bottleneck; incremental or hierarchical aggregation would be a natural next step.
  • The BFS/PFS result on Max-Cut suggests a general recipe for sparse QUBOs: start from high-impact variables and extend along strong pairwise couplings; testing this recipe on other sparse problems such as TSP would show whether it transfers.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents GPU-accelerated Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (DQAOA) for solving large-scale QUBO problems on the Frontier supercomputer. It introduces an impact-factor-directed (IFD) decomposition strategy, compares it with random, BFS, and PFS decomposition, and reports scaling experiments on up to 160 or 1000 CPU cores/GPUs. The authors claim an up-to-10x speedup for GPU-based DQAOA over CPU-based DQAOA, and they describe an integration with the Quantum Framework (QFw) for distributed execution of QAOA circuits. The paper also reports strong scaling for GHZ and QAOA workloads through QFw.

Significance. If the central speedup claim survives a fair resource comparison, this work provides a useful engineering benchmark for deploying hybrid quantum-classical optimization on an exascale system. The comparison of decomposition strategies on dense and sparse QUBO problems is also of interest, particularly the finding that IFD degrades approximate ratio on Max-Cut while improving time-to-solution. The QFw integration results, including 11.7x speedup for GHZ-30, are a positive contribution. However, the headline 10x GPU-over-CPU claim is currently supported only by an unequal device-count comparison, and the approximate-ratio baseline is a same-group heuristic without comparison to exact or classical baselines. The absence of artifacts further limits the reproducibility of the empirical claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI-B1, Figures 10 and 11] The central claim of 'up to 10x speedup' rests on a resource-unfair comparison. The text states that the number of CPU/GPU devices used equals the number of sub-QUBOs, and both curves in Figures 10 and 11 are labeled with 'Number of Cores' on the x-axis. Since each AMD MI250X GPU contains far more parallelism, memory bandwidth, and compute throughput than a single AMD EPYC core, treating one GPU as equivalent to one CPU core in the scaling plots is not an apples-to-apples comparison of compute resources. The order-of-magnitude speedup could largely be an artifact of this accounting. Please re-run the comparison with matched resources (e.g., equal node counts, equal peak FLOPS, or equal memory bandwidth) or, at minimum, report the CPU core-to-GPU ratio and justify the comparison as an application-level metric. Without this, the abstract and Section VII's 'approximately 10 times faster' claim are not supported.
  2. [Section VI-A, Figure 7 and Figure 8] The approximate ratio is defined as the ratio between DQAOA energy and energy from hybrid quantum annealing (HQA), citing ref [46] by the same group. HQA is itself a heuristic, so the A.R. values do not establish absolute solution quality relative to optimal or classical exact baselines. Please add a comparison to exact results on small instances (e.g., brute force for N up to 20) or to a strong classical solver (e.g., Gurobi or simulated annealing) for larger instances, and report absolute energies or approximation ratios to those baselines. This is especially important because Sections VI-A and VII claim that IFD decomposition improves solution quality; the current baseline cannot validate that claim independently.
  3. [Section VI-A, Figure 8] Figure 8(a) shows approximate ratios for random, IFD, BFS, and PFS decomposition, and the text says results come from 10 independent trials, yet no error bars or statistical significance tests are reported. Without measures of variance, the observed differences (e.g., BFS vs PFS, BFS vs random) may not be significant. Please add error bars for both A.R. and time-to-solution in Figure 8, or report confidence intervals and a statistical test.
  4. [General (Reproducibility)] No artifacts, benchmark scripts, problem instances, or configuration details are provided. Since the paper's primary contribution is an empirical benchmark, the absence of released code and data makes it impossible for the community to reproduce the scaling and speedup results. Please provide the source code, the exact QUBO instances, the software versions (already partly given), the MPI configuration, and the CPU/GPU resource allocation details for each experiment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-A, Figure 2 and Figure 9] The statement that 'even a single GPU significantly outperforms a CPU-based implementation' should specify whether the CPU baseline is one core, one socket, one MPI rank, or one node; otherwise the comparison is not interpretable.
  2. [Figure 10 and Figure 11 captions] The x-axis is labeled 'Number of Cores' for both CPU and GPU curves, which is misleading for the GPU runs; please use 'Number of Devices' or 'Number of CPU cores / GPUs' and separately define the resource allocation in the caption.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The variable 'subQUBO_size' is used in the loop bounds but is not defined in the algorithm's input list; it presumably equals 'sizeSubQ'. Please clarify.
  4. [Section VI-B3, Figure 12] The complexity expressions O(N^3 + mk^2) and O(mkN^2) for decomposition and aggregation are stated without derivation; a brief justification or a reference would improve clarity.
  5. [Section VI-A, Figure 8(b)] The definition of time-to-solution as 'the change of the A.R. remains within ±0.1 for 5 consecutive cycles' is ambiguous; please specify whether the threshold applies to the absolute or relative change and how the final time is measured.
  6. [References] Ref [46] (the HQA benchmark) is an arXiv preprint by the same research group; the paper should explicitly disclose this self-reference and discuss the potential for bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central speedup and convergence claims are direct empirical benchmarks rather than derivations from fitted inputs or self-cited constraints.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: the 10x GPU speedup is a measured time-to-solution comparison (Figures 9-11), not a quantity fitted from or defined by the inputs; the IFD-vs-random convergence comparison is an empirical benchmark using an external HQA reference value [46]; and the QFw integration results are separate scaling measurements. No equation in the paper defines X in terms of Y and then presents Y as predicted from X. The IFD decomposition is a heuristic that selects high-impact variables, and its faster convergence is demonstrated experimentally rather than forced by construction. The self-citations to the prior DQAOA study [4] and to QFw work [22,33,47] serve as baselines or background, but the present claims do not reduce to those citations. The resource-equivalence concern about counting one MI250X GPU per sub-QUBO versus one CPU core per sub-QUBO is a real benchmarking-methodology limitation, but it is not a circularity of the derivation-chain type this pass targets. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are experimental hyperparameters that shape runtime and solution quality. The main assumptions are the QUBO mapping, the HQA baseline, and the heuristic value of impact-factor-based decomposition. QFw is a software framework from prior work, not a new invented entity.

free parameters (4)
  • sub-QUBO size (sizeSubQ) = 4 to 28
    Chosen by hand in Section VI-B.2; performance optimum depends on this hyperparameter.
  • number of sub-QUBOs (nSubQ) = 15%, 25%, or 50% of original N
    Chosen for scaling tests; controls parallelism and coverage of the original QUBO.
  • QAOA circuit depth p = 1
    All circuits use a single QAOA layer (Section IV); deeper circuits would change runtime and solution quality.
  • Convergence tolerance for time-to-solution = +/-0.1 A.R. for 5 consecutive cycles
    Defined in Section VI-A; a loose stopping rule directly shapes the reported time-to-solution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption QAOA variational ansatz with COBYLA optimization converges to meaningful minima for the QUBO instances.
    Section IV uses QAOA p=1 with COBYLA without convergence guarantees.
  • domain assumption Max-Cut and metamaterial design problems are faithfully represented as QUBO matrices.
    Section VI-A and VI-B.1 construct QUBOs; mapping is standard but instance generation is not fully specified.
  • ad hoc to paper Hybrid quantum annealing (HQA) energies provide a valid near-optimal benchmark for approximate ratio.
    Section VI-A: A.R. is ratio to HQA from ref [46], a same-group method; no exact or independent classical baseline.
  • ad hoc to paper Impact-factor directed decomposition improves convergence by prioritizing high-impact variables.
    Algorithm 1 in Section V-A assumes local sensitivity ranking helps; no proof or external validation, and it underperforms on sparse Max-Cut in Figure 8.
  • domain assumption Accepted sub-solution updates (only lower-energy ones) drive global solution toward the optimum.
    Section V aggregation accepts only lower-energy fragments; assumes monotone descent suffices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GPU-Accelerated Distributed QAOA on Large-scale HPC Ecosystems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43W7J4IH

@misc{pith2026250610531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GPU-Accelerated Distributed QAOA on Large-scale HPC Ecosystems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43W7J4IH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10531}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing holds great potential to accelerate the process of solving complex combinatorial optimization problems. The Distributed Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (DQAOA) addresses high-dimensional, dense problems using current quantum computing techniques and high-performance computing (HPC) systems. In this work, we improve the scalability and efficiency of DQAOA through advanced problem decomposition and parallel execution using message passing on the Frontier CPU/GPU supercomputer. Our approach ensures efficient quantum-classical workload management by distributing large problem instances across classical and quantum resources. Experimental results demonstrate that enhanced decomposition strategies and GPU-accelerated quantum simulations significantly improve DQAOA's performance, achieving up to 10x speedup over CPU-based simulations. This advancement enables better scalability for large problem instances, supporting the practical deployment of GPU systems for hybrid quantum-classical applications. We also highlight ongoing integration efforts using the Quantum Framework (QFw) to support future HPC-quantum computing systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10531 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the Frontier supercomputer that integrates with quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. QASMBench [25] with NWQ-Sim on Frontier’s CPUs and GPU. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Single-node QFw runs using NWQ-Sim for GHZ and QAOA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of DQAOA to solve large-scale optimization problems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BFS and PFS for sub-QUBO extraction. The sample QUBO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between different problem decomposition methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of DQAOA performance on Max-Cut problems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance of Qiskit Aer simulator on a single CPU and a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scaling test of DQAOA on up tp 160 CPU cores/GPUs. (a) to (c) represent QUBO problem 300, 500 and 1000, respectively. All the scaling tests [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scaling test of DQAOA on up to 1000 CPU cores/GPUs. (a) to (c) represent QUBO problem 300, 500 and 1000, respectively. All the scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average decomposing, solving and aggregating time in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: DQAOA simulations for N = 300. The number of sub-QUBOs are (a) 45 (b) 75 and (c) 150. The time-to-solution is on a log-scale. N=500, # subQUBOs=75 tim e - t o - s olu tio n (s e c) 1 10 100 1,000 A p p r o xim a t e R a tio 0.6 0.8 1 subQUBO size 5 10 15 20 25 30 (a) …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: DQAOA simulations for N = 500. The number of sub-QUBOs are (a) 75 (b) 125 and (c) 250. The time-to-solution is on a log-scale. N=1000, # subQUBOs=150 tim e - t o - s olu tio n (s e c) 1 10 100 1,000 A p p r o xim a t e R a tio 0.6 0.8 1 subQUBO size 5 10 15 20 25 30 (…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: DQAOA simulations for N = 1000. The number of sub-QUBOs are (a) 150 (b) 250 and (c) 500. The time-to-solution is on a log-scale. submit SLURM job with two heterogeneous groups setup QFw decompose QUBO create QAOA (multi-threads) aggregate sub-solutions QFw API | QPMs …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The workflow of DQAOA integrating with QFw. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Simulation of the 30-qubit GHZ circuit on multiple CPUs using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Simulation of the QUBO-20 QAOA circuit on multiple CPUs using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. DQAOA-GPT: AI-Accelerated Distributed Quantum Optimization for Combinatorial Problems

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Combining distributed QAOA with a GPT circuit generator removes the variational loop, giving roughly constant inference runtime as HUBO sub-problems grow from 4 to 12 variables while matching DQAOA accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [46]

    Quantum Annealing for Combinatorial Optimization: A Benchmarking Study

    S. Kim, S.-W. Ahn, I.-S. Suh, A. W. Dowling, E. Lee, and T. Luo, “Quantum annealing for combinatorial optimization: A benchmarking study,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06201, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1411.4028

    arXiv 2014

  3. [2]

    A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, “A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants,” Physics Reports, vol. 1068, p. 1–66, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.03.002 2024

  4. [3]

    Performance analysis of an optimization algorithm for metamaterial design on the integrated high-performance computing and quantum systems,

    S. Kim and I.-S. Suh, “Performance analysis of an optimization algorithm for metamaterial design on the integrated high-performance computing and quantum systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02211, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Distributed quantum approximate optimization algorithm on integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing systems for large-scale optimization,

    S. Kim, T. Luo, E. Lee, and I.-S. Suh, “Distributed quantum approximate optimization algorithm on integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing systems for large-scale optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20212, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with Qiskit,” 2024

    2024

  7. [6]

    Nwqsim: Northwest quantum circuit simulation environment,

    A. Li, M. Zheng, M. X. Burns, M. Wang, and C. Liu, “Nwqsim: Northwest quantum circuit simulation environment,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/pnnl/NWQ-Sim

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Sv-sim: Scalable pgas-based state vector simulation of quantum circuits,

    A. Li, B. Fang, C. Granade, G. Prawiroatmodjo, B. Heim, M. Roetteler, and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Sv-sim: Scalable pgas-based state vector simulation of quantum circuits,” in SC21: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2021, pp. 1–14

    work page 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the bsp machine on modern gpu clusters,

    A. Li, O. Subasi, X. Yang, and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Density matrix quantum circuit simulation via the bsp machine on modern gpu clusters,” in SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2020, pp. 1–15

    2020

  2. [9]

    Tensor network quantum virtual machine for simulating quantum circuits at exascale,

    T. Nguyen, D. Lyakh, E. Dumitrescu, D. Clark, J. Larkin, and A. McCaskey, “Tensor network quantum virtual machine for simulating quantum circuits at exascale,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 4, no. 1, Oct. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3547334

    2022 doi

  3. [10]

    Distributed variational quantum algorithm with many-qubit for optimization challenges,

    S. Kim and I.-S. Suh, “Distributed variational quantum algorithm with many-qubit for optimization challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00221, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Hpe slingshot,

    HPE, “Hpe slingshot,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.hpe.com/ psnow/doc/a50002546enw?jumpid=in_pdfviewer-psnow

    2025

  5. [12]

    Introduction to infiniband,

    MellanoxNvidia, “Introduction to infiniband,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://network.nvidia.com/pdf/whitepapers/IB_Intro_WP_190.pdf

    2025

  6. [13]

    Simulation of quantum computers: Review and acceleration opportunities,

    A. Cicero, M. A. Maleki, M. W. Azhar, A. F. Kockum, and P. Trancoso, “Simulation of quantum computers: Review and acceleration opportunities,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.12660

    2024

  7. [14]

    Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    D. Willsch, M. Willsch, F. Jin, K. Michielsen, and H. De Raedt, “Gpu-accelerated simulations of quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 278, p. 108411, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2022

  8. [15]

    State of practice: evaluating gpu performance of state vector and tensor network methods,

    M. Vallero, F. Vella, and P. Rech, “State of practice: evaluating gpu performance of state vector and tensor network methods,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06188

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Fast simulation of high-depth qaoa circuits,

    D. Lykov, R. Shaydulin, Y . Sun, Y . Alexeev, and M. Pistoia, “Fast simulation of high-depth qaoa circuits,” in Proceedings of the SC ’23 Workshops of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Network, Storage, and Analysis, ser. SC-W ’23. New York, NY , USA:...

    2023

  10. [17]

    CUAOA: A Novel CUDA-Accelerated Simulation Framework for the QAOA ,

    J. Stein, J. Blenninger, D. Bucher, P. J. Eder, E. Cetiner, M. Zorn, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “CUAOA: A Novel CUDA-Accelerated Simulation Framework for the QAOA ,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Comp...

    2024

  11. [18]

    Gddr6 vs hbm - defining gpu memory types,

    EXXACT, “Gddr6 vs hbm - defining gpu memory types,”

  12. [19]

    Simulating quantum systems with nwq-sim on hpc,

    I.-S. Suh and A. Li, “Simulating quantum systems with nwq-sim on hpc,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06861

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Tanq-sim: Tensorcore accelerated noisy quantum system simulation via qir on perlmutter hpc,

    A. Li, C. Liu, S. Stein, I.-S. Suh, M. Zheng, M. Wang, Y . Shi, B. Fang, M. Roetteler, and T. Humble, “Tanq-sim: Tensorcore accelerated noisy quantum system simulation via qir on perlmutter hpc,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13184

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable problem,

    R. Shaydulin, C. Li, S. Chakrabarti, M. DeCross, D. Herman, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, P. Minssen, Y . Sun, Y . Alexeev, J. M. Dreiling, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, C. V . Horst, S. Hu, J. Johansen, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, ...

    2024

  15. [22]

    A framework for integrating quantum simulation and high performance computing,

    A. Shehata, T. Naughton, and I.-S. Suh, “A framework for integrating quantum simulation and high performance computing,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08098

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Frontier

    OLCF, “Frontier.” [Online]. Available: https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/ olcf-resources/compute-systems/frontier/

  17. [24]

    Quantum computing user program

    ——, “Quantum computing user program.” [Online]. Available: https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/olcf-resources/compute-systems/ quantum-computing-user-program

  18. [25]

    QASMBench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation,

    A. Li, S. Stein, S. Krishnamoorthy, and J. Ang, “QASMBench: A low-level quantum benchmark suite for nisq evaluation and simulation,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3550488

    2023 doi

  19. [26]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    2018 doi

  20. [27]

    Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions,

    Y . Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y . J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, C. Codella, A. D. Córcoles, J. Cruise, A. Di Meglio, I. Duran, T. Eckl, S. Economou, S. Eidenbenz, B. Elmegreen, C. Fare, I. Faro, C. S. Fernández, R. N. ...

    2024

  21. [28]

    Integrating quantum computing resources into scientific hpc ecosystems,

    T. Beck, A. Baroni, R. Bennink, G. Buchs, E. A. C. Pérez, M. Eisenbach, R. F. da Silva, M. G. Meena, K. Gottiparthi, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Humble, R. Landfield, K. Maheshwari, S. Oral, M. A. Sandoval, A. Shehata, I.-S. Suh, and C. Zimmer, “Integrating quantum computing resourc...

    2024

  22. [29]

    Chemistry beyond exact solutions on a quantum-centric supercomputer,

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi-Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y . Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, “Chemistry beyond exact solutions on a quantum-centric superc...

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Exploring quantum active learning for materials design and discovery,

    M. P. Lourenço, H. Zadeh-Haghighi, J. Hostaš, M. Naseri, D. Gaur, C. Simon, and D. R. Salahub, “Exploring quantum active learning for materials design and discovery,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18731

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Materials discovery with quantum-enhanced machine learning algorithms,

    I. F. Graña, S. Varsamopoulos, T. Ando, H. Maeshima, and N. N. Matsuzawa, “Materials discovery with quantum-enhanced machine learning algorithms,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.09517

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization,

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. Bärtschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V . Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, N. Franco, F. Fratini, B. Fuller, J. Gacon, C. Gonciulea, S. Gribling, S. Gupta, S. Hadfield, R. Heese, G. Kircher, T. Kleinert, T. Koch, G. Korpas,...

    2024

  26. [33]

    Building a software stack for quantum-hpc integration,

    A. Shehata, P. Groszkowski, T. Naughton, M. G. Meena, E. Wong, D. Claudino, R. F. da Silvaa, and T. Beck, “Building a software stack for quantum-hpc integration,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.01787

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    A review on machine learning-guided design of energy materials,

    S. Kim, J. Xu, W. Shang, Z. Xu, E. Lee, and T. Luo, “A review on machine learning-guided design of energy materials,” Progress in Energy, 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    High-performance transparent radiative cooler designed by quantum computing,

    S. Kim, W. Shang, S. Moon, T. Pastega, E. Lee, and T. Luo, “High-performance transparent radiative cooler designed by quantum computing,” ACS Energy Letters, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 4134–4141, 2022

    2022

  29. [36]

    Wide-angle spectral filter for energy-saving windows designed by quantum annealing- enhanced active learning,

    S. Kim, S. Jung, A. Bobbitt, E. Lee, and T. Luo, “Wide-angle spectral filter for energy-saving windows designed by quantum annealing- enhanced active learning,” Cell Reports Physical Science, vol. 5, no. 3, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Mpi: a standard message passing interface,

    D. W. Walker and J. J. Dongarra, “Mpi: a standard message passing interface,” Supercomputer, vol. 12, pp. 56–68, 1996

    1996

  31. [38]

    A competitive divide-and-conquer algorithm for unconstrained large-scale black-box optimization,

    Y . Mei, M. N. Omidvar, X. Li, and X. Yao, “A competitive divide-and-conquer algorithm for unconstrained large-scale black-box optimization,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1–24, 2016

    2016

  32. [39]

    Partitioning optimization problems for hybrid classical/quantum execution,

    M. Boost, S. Reinhardt, and A. Roy, “Partitioning optimization problems for hybrid classical/quantum execution,” D-Wave Syst., D-Wave Technical Report Series, Burnaby, CO, Canada, Tech. Rep, 2017

    2017

  33. [40]

    Problem decomposition for quantum annealing,

    D.-W. S. Inc., “Problem decomposition for quantum annealing,” https://docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/quantum_research/ decomposing.html, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    Breadth-first search,

    A. Bundy and L. Wallen, “Breadth-first search,” Catalogue of artificial intelligence tools, pp. 13–13, 1984

    1984

  35. [42]

    Priority search trees,

    E. M. McCreight, “Priority search trees,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 257–276, 1985

    1985

  36. [43]

    Comparative analysis of pathfinding algorithms a*, dijkstra, and bfs on maze runner game,

    S. H. Permana, K. Y . Bintoro, B. Arifitama, A. Syahputra et al., “Comparative analysis of pathfinding algorithms a*, dijkstra, and bfs on maze runner game,” IJISTECH (International J. Inf. Syst. Technol, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 1, 2018

    2018

  37. [44]

    Gpu-accelerated bfs for dynamic networks,

    F. Ziche, N. Bombieri, F. Busato, and R. Giugno, “Gpu-accelerated bfs for dynamic networks,” in European Conference on Parallel Processing. Springer, 2024, pp. 74–87

    2024

  38. [45]

    a new solution for n-queens problem using blind approaches: Dfs and bfs algorithms,

    F. S. Gharehchopogh, B. Seyyedi, and G. Feyzipour, “a new solution for n-queens problem using blind approaches: Dfs and bfs algorithms,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 53, no. 1, 2012

    2012

  39. [47]

    Qfw: A quantum framework for large-scale hpc ecosystems,

    S. Chundury, A. Shehata, T. Naughton III, S. Kim, F. Mueller, and I.-S. Suh, “Qfw: A quantum framework for large-scale hpc ecosystems,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), Tech. Rep., 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, P. Barkoutsos, L. Bello, Y . Ben-Haim, D. Bucher, F. J. Cabrera-Hernández, J. Carballo-Franquis, A. Chen, C.-F. Chen et al., “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” Accessed on: Mar, vol. 16, p. 61, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Nwq-sim,

    A. Li and S. Krishnamoorthy, “Nwq-sim,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, W A (United States), Tech. Rep., 2021

    2021

  42. [2024]

    Available: https://www.exxactcorp.com/blog/hpc/ gddr6-vs-hbm-gpu-memory

    [Online]. Available: https://www.exxactcorp.com/blog/hpc/ gddr6-vs-hbm-gpu-memory

Pith tools

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