Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 109 references

Benchmarking Quantum Solvers in Noisy Digital Simulations for Financial Portfolio Optimization

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under realistic two-qubit gate noise, quantum imaginary-time evolution still identifies the optimal Markowitz portfolio where QAOA fails to converge.

desk verdict A useful empirical benchmark with a real hardware QITE demonstration, but the central QAOA-vs-QITE robustness claim rests on an asymmetric comparison that does not hold up as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21123 v1 pith:XKIRY4JJ submitted 2025-08-28 quant-ph

Ruizhe Shen , Zichang Hao , Ching Hua Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6891G10 PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords QAOAquantumimaginary-timeevolutionMarkowitzportfoliooptimizationIsingHamiltonianQUBOnoisysimulationvariationalcircuitsNISQdevices
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 benchmarks two quantum solvers, QAOA and quantum imaginary-time evolution (QITE), on the same Markowitz portfolio-selection problems encoded as Ising Hamiltonian ground states. In noiseless simulation, QAOA converges cleanly to the optimal investment bitstring for 9-, 20-, and 30-qubit instances. Once two-qubit gate errors at rates typical of current hardware are introduced, QAOA's cost landscape becomes unstable, its portfolio returns degrade toward random unoptimized levels, and it no longer peaks on the optimal bitstring. QITE, whose variational circuit is pretrained to mimic imaginary-time evolution and then executed once, still returns the optimal bitstring on real quantum hardware with small return errors. The paper's message is that for small noise-dominated instances QITE is the more reliable choice, while QAOA retains the scalability advantage if noise is mitigated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two variational circuits built from the same layer: parameterized U3 single-qubit rotations plus entangling ECR/CX gates. QAOA uses the circuit to minimize the energy gap |E_g - E(s)|, evaluating the Hamiltonian expectation every iteration; noise entering each evaluation scatters the optimizer across a rugged landscape. QITE instead constructs the non-unitary operator e^{-βH}, embeds it as a larger unitary U through singular-value and QR decompositions, trains a variational circuit V to approximate U by maximizing overlap (C_QITE ≈ 0), and then implements U once, post-selecting an ancilla qubit in |0⟩. The comparison that carries the paper's argument is therefore

What would settle it

Run a matched protocol on the same hardware: pretrain a QAOA circuit noiselessly, execute it once, and compare the probability of the optimal bitstring and the return error against the paper's QITE hardware runs. If the pretrained QAOA peak is sharp, the robustness ordering is an artifact of when noise enters the pipeline; if the peak remains broad, QITE's advantage is genuine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an empirical ordering of two solvers on one problem class. For Ising-encoded Markowitz portfolio optimization at 9 qubits, QITE is markedly more tolerant of realistic two-qubit gate noise than QAOA. With a two-qubit error rate near 0.007, QITE executed on quantum hardware produced return errors between roughly 1 and 6, and the optimal portfolio bitstring remained the most probable measured outcome. QAOA optimized through noisy cost evaluations under the same error scale produced return errors above 20, failed to converge, and showed no peak on the optimal bitstring. In noise-free conditions QAOA converged to the exact ground state within hundreds of iterations and, in te

Load-bearing premise

The noise comparison is asymmetrical: QITE is pretrained on a noiseless simulator and then executed once under hardware noise, whereas QAOA is optimized through hundreds of noisy cost evaluations; if QAOA were pretrained the same way and then executed once, or if QITE parameters were optimized under noise, the reported robustness gap could shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On near-term hardware with two-qubit error rates around 10^-2, QITE can solve 9-qubit Markowitz instances without error mitigation; the optimal allocation is identifiable from the measured state histogram.
  • QAOA at the same error scale yields portfolios whose return errors rival unoptimized random states, so its use on noisy devices requires effective error mitigation before it adds value.
  • QITE's practical ceiling is set by classical pretraining cost and circuit depth (4-8 layers for 9 qubits), not by noise, so scaling QITE to larger instances is limited classically.
  • QAOA remains the scalable route: 20- and 30-qubit noiseless tensor-network simulations converge to reasonable energies, suggesting larger instances are feasible once hardware noise is suppressed.
  • Because the same Ising/QUBO encoding covers many NP problems, the robustness ordering is a candidate general guide for ground-state optimization on noisy digital quantum processors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper compares QITE pretrained without noise against QAOA optimized through noisy cost evaluations; if QAOA were also pretrained noiselessly and then executed once under the same noise, its measured peak on the optimal bitstring might be substantially sharper than the paper's noisy-QAOA results show.
  • The claimed QITE advantage is benchmarked at one investor-preference setting (θ1=0.8, θ2=0.1, θ3=0.1); re-running the comparison across a spread of θ values would test whether noise robustness survives changes in how heavily risk and budget deviation are penalized.
  • A practical follow-up is to measure QITE's ancilla post-selection success probability; as system size grows, the accepted-branch probability decays, and that overhead will determine whether QITE's noise advantage survives beyond 9 qubits.
  • Applying standard error-mitigation techniques to QAOA on real hardware would directly test whether the paper's simulated QAOA noise sensitivity overstates what mitigated QAOA can achieve today.
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 maps a Markowitz portfolio-optimization problem to a 9-qubit Ising Hamiltonian and benchmarks two variational quantum ground-state solvers—QAOA and QITE—in noiseless simulators, noisy local simulators with controlled CX error rates, and (for QITE) on IBM Quantum hardware. The authors report that QAOA converges excellently in noiseless settings, that QAOA degrades sharply under gate noise, and that QITE, despite higher classical cost, remains robust on hardware and yields return errors comparable to noiseless QAOA. They conclude that QITE is preferable for small noisy instances while QAOA offers better scalability if noise is mitigated.

Significance. If the comparison were sound, the paper would provide a practically useful benchmark for choosing between QAOA and QITE on near-term quantum devices for portfolio optimization. The authors have made a genuine effort to include realistic hardware data: QITE results from IBM Quantum for 50 instances, a local noise model calibrated to an IBM device, and ancillary data/code availability. The problem mapping and variational-circuit implementation are clearly described. However, the central noise-robustness comparison is asymmetrically designed, and one of the QITE cost definitions is mathematically questionable; these issues prevent the stated conclusions from being supported by the reported data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B–IV.B, Eq. (10), Fig. 5] The headline comparison is not symmetric. QAOA parameters are optimized by evaluating the cost (11) on a noisy simulator (Section III.A, Fig. 3c), so noise affects the optimization trajectory itself. By contrast, QITE parameters are pretrained on a noiseless simulator to approximate the exact unitary U_circuit built from e^{-βH} (Eq. (10), Appendix S4), and the hardware run in Fig. 5(a) is a single execution of those pretrained parameters. Thus the paper measures QAOA's sensitivity to noise during training versus QITE's sensitivity to noise during execution only. The conclusion 'QITE exhibits much stronger robustness' (abstract, Section V, Table I) is not supported without a noiseless-pretrained QAOA control or a noisy-optimized QITE control.
  2. [Section III.A, Eq. (7), Figs. 3–4] The claimed 'excellent convergence' of noiseless QAOA is obtained with the cost C(s)=|Eg−E(s)|, where Eg is the exact ground-state energy. This is a supervised objective that presupposes the solution. Because E(s) ≥ Eg for physical states, minimizing |Eg−E(s)| is equivalent to minimizing E(s) in the ideal statevector limit, so the convergence is not fake; but as a benchmark it differs from the standard QAOA cost (6) and gives the optimizer information that a genuine QAOA user would not have. The noiseless convergence and scalability claims should either be reproduced with Eq. (6) or clearly presented as a supervised variant with the known answer used during training.
  3. [Eq. (10), Appendix S4] The equality C_QITE(s)=1−Tr[V†(s)U_circuit]/2^n=1−⟨ψ_h|V†(s)U_circuit|ψ_h⟩ is not correct for a general unitary A=V†U_circuit. Tr(A)/2^n is the average of the diagonal matrix elements in the computational basis, whereas ⟨ψ_h|A|ψ_h⟩ with |ψ_h⟩=Hadamard⊗n|0⟩ is the average of all matrix elements. These coincide only if the off-diagonal sum of A vanishes. Since Eq. (10) defines the training objective and the convergence threshold C_QITE<0.1, the actual optimized circuits may not target the fidelity claimed. This should be corrected or the implementation clarified.
  4. [Section V, Table I] The resource comparison is internally inconsistent. The conclusion states 'For QITE, only a single round of circuit simulation is required, equivalent to the cost of one QAOA iteration,' while Section III.C and Appendix S4 state that QITE requires between 4 and 8 variational layers and extensive classical optimization to approximate U_circuit. If the pretraining iterations are counted, QITE does not require a single circuit evaluation; if they are not counted, the comparison of 'Quantum resources' in Table I is misleading. The counting convention should be stated explicitly and applied consistently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.A] Typo 'IWhile both methods are viable' should read 'While both methods are viable.'
  2. [Section III.C] The sentence '|ψ(s)⟩ =V (s)) |ψ0⟩' has an unbalanced parenthesis.
  3. [Eq. (10)] The symbol n is reused: earlier n=mw is the number of problem binary variables, while here n denotes the total number of qubits including the ancilla. This should be disambiguated.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] Typo: 'Higher noise levels lead to a increase in errors' should be 'an increase in errors.'
  5. [Section II.B] The notation '010100100 (101011011 under little-endian qubit ordering)' is confusing; the correspondence between the bitstring and the qubit ordering should be defined explicitly.
  6. [Appendix S1] The appendix numbering starts at S13; this appears to be an artifact and should be renumbered consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central claims rest on independent hardware runs and standard algorithm definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The QAOA cost C(s)=|Eg−E(s)| (Eq. 7) is a constant-shifted energy minimization: for states above the ground energy it is equivalent to minimizing ⟨H⟩, so the inclusion of Eg is an optimization accelerator, not an injection of the solution bitstring; convergence to Eg is the training objective, while the reported return errors (F_Error, Eq. 13) are an independent metric based on the portfolio objective. QITE's training cost (Eq. 10) minimizes infidelity to the imaginary-time unitary U_circuit constructed from e^{−βH}; this is the defining construction of QITE, transparently described in Appendix S4, and the hardware execution tests the noise resilience of the compiled circuit rather than concealing a classical solve. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [23] in Appendix S4 for SVD embedding) are accompanied by external references [96] and standard methods [51], and are not load-bearing for the central QAOA-vs-QITE comparison. The asymmetry that QITE is pretrained noiselessly and executed once while QAOA is optimized under noisy cost evaluations is a methodological fairness concern, not a circularity, because the QITE hardware result is an empirical measurement not forced by the training objective alone. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen parameters (theta, b, noise levels, circuit depths) and on three non-standard methodological inputs: the exact ground-state energy oracle for QAOA, the classically precomputed imaginary-time evolution operator for QITE, and the unfair training protocol (noiseless QITE training vs noisy QAOA optimization). These choices, not the algorithms themselves, drive the headline comparison.

free parameters (5)
  • theta1, theta2, theta3 = 0.8, 0.1, 0.1
    Investor preference weights in Eq. 1 set by hand; the problem landscape and all reported results depend on this choice.
  • budget b = 10
    Scale of returns and covariance in Eqs. 2-3; chosen by hand.
  • CX error rates for noise sweeps = 0.001, 0.007, 0.011
    Noise levels chosen to represent hardware; the QAOA degradation curve in Fig. 3(d) is a function of these hand-picked values.
  • QITE convergence threshold = C_QITE < 0.1
    Training stopping criterion in Appendix S4; determines QITE circuit depth and the observed F_Error spread of 1-6.
  • variational layer counts = QAOA: 2 layers; QITE: 4-8 layers
    Circuit depths chosen ad hoc; the stated resource comparison and robustness gap depend directly on these depths.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Exact ground-state energy Eg is available as input to the QAOA cost function (Eq. 7, Section III A).
    The benchmarked QAOA variant is not standard QAOA; it is supervised with the answer. The paper acknowledges Eg is a relative shift and 'not strictly necessary', but uses it anyway.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-unitary evolution operator e^{-beta H} (and its unitary embedding U_circuit) can be computed classically and used as the QITE training target (Eq. 10, Eqs. S1-S5 in Appendix S4).
    For 9 qubits this is easy; for the claimed 20-30 qubit scalability this classical computation becomes prohibitive, limiting QITE scaling.
  • ad hoc to paper QITE parameters are trained on a noiseless simulator and then executed on hardware; this is treated as a valid noisy-performance benchmark.
    Central comparison in Fig. 5; conflates noise during training (QAOA) with noise at execution (QITE).
  • domain assumption The local noise model for QAOA, consisting only of CX (two-qubit) gate errors calibrated from IBM Brisbane, adequately represents realistic hardware noise.
    Appendix S3; single-qubit errors, readout errors, and T1/T2 decoherence are not included in QAOA local simulations, while QITE hardware runs experience full device noise.
  • domain assumption Randomly generated synthetic price data (Appendix S2) is representative of financial data for benchmarking conclusions.
    All instances use synthetic Brownian-like price paths; no real market data or realistic constraints (transaction costs, liquidity) are modeled.
  • domain assumption The Markowitz quantized-investment formulation with the given theta weights is a faithful model for portfolio optimization.
    Taken from prior literature (ref 43); the paper does not validate it against classical solvers for the stated theta values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking Quantum Solvers in Noisy Digital Simulations for Financial Portfolio Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKIRY4JJ

@misc{pith2026250821123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking Quantum Solvers in Noisy Digital Simulations for Financial Portfolio Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKIRY4JJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21123}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we benchmark two prominent quantum algorithms: Quantum Imaginary-Time Evolution (QITE) and the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) for obtaining the ground state of Ising-type Hamiltonians. Specifically, we apply them to the Markowitz portfolio optimization problem in quantitative finance, on both digital quantum computers and local quantum simulators with controllable two-qubit errors (noise). In noiseless settings, we find that QAOA achieves excellent convergence to the optimal results. Under noisy conditions, the QITE method exhibits greater robustness and stability, though it incurs substantially more classical numerical cost. In contrast, we demonstrate that QAOA offers better scalability and can still yield robust results if the noise can be effectively mitigated. Our findings provide valuable insights into the trade-offs between scalability and noise tolerance and demonstrate the practical potential of quantum algorithms for solving real-world optimization problems on near-term quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and Quantum Imaginary-Time Evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Structure of our trainable variational quantum cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evaluation of QAOA robustness in estimating the ground-state energy under noiseless and noisy simulations. Here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of the scalability of Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) to larger-scale simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Assessment of QAOA and QITE performance via return errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Probability distribution of the optimal states obtained from QAOA and QITE for the representative instance 0 (FIG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Further performance assessment of the Quantum Imaginary-Time Evolution (QITE) algorithm in noisy quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noiseless QAOA simulations As depicted in FIG.3 (a), we implement the QAOA procedure using a noiseless local simulator. Here, in each optimization iteration, we perform a full round of circuit simulation (distinct from an actual circuit run in Qiskit) and subsequently update the trainable parameters based on the feedback. For these noiseless simulations, ...

  2. [2]

    QAOA simulations with controlled noise We then conduct controlled noisy simulations of QAOA on a local simulator, and the effect of CX gate noise on the trajectory of this optimization process is presented in FIG. 3 (c). Under increasing CX noise (er- ror rates), the optimization becomes highly unstable and exhibits no clear convergence, highlighting the ...

  3. [3]

    Here, we present the results of two instances in FIG

    QAOA simulations – scaling to larger systems To further evaluate the scalability of QAOA, we sim- ulate its performance on 20- and 30-qubit systems us- ing a matrix product state (MPS) simulator. Here, we present the results of two instances in FIG. 4. For 20- qubit instances, the QAOA optimization process exhibits relatively stable convergence, and the o...

  4. [4]

    Benchmarking from predicted returns In this section, we compare the performance of QAOA and QITE in terms of their predicted returns F , as de- fined and computed by Eq. 1. Using the same represen- tative instances, we compute the return error between the circuit outputs and the exact (ideal) results, defined as F Error = F ideal − F circuit, (13) where F...

  5. [5]

    In principle, the ideal optimal so- lution corresponds to a single bitstring with the highest return

    Benchmarking from measured optimal state distribution We now examine the actual solution states obtained from both QITE and QAOA, which represents the ideal portfolio composition. In principle, the ideal optimal so- lution corresponds to a single bitstring with the highest return. Thus, to assess how the outputs of QAOA and QITE deviate from the ideal sol...

  6. [6]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Pelofske, A

    E. Pelofske, A. B¨ artschi, and S. Eidenbenz, Quantum volume in practice: What users can expect from nisq devices, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    J. W. Z. Lau, K. H. Lim, H. Shrotriya, and L. C. Kwek, Nisq computing: where are we and where do we go?, AAPPS bulletin 32, 27 (2022)

    2022

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    Torlai and R

    G. Torlai and R. G. Melko, Machine-learning quantum states in the nisq era, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 11, 325 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications 15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zale- tel, K. Temme, et al. , Evidence for the utility of quan- tum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Zhang, P

    K. Zhang, P. Rao, K. Yu, H. Lim, and V. Korepin, Im- plementation of efficient quantum search algorithms on nisq computers, Quantum Information Processing 20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ezratty, Where are we heading with nisq?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09518 (2023)

    O. Ezratty, Where are we heading with nisq?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09518 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    K. L. Brown, W. J. Munro, and V. M. Kendon, Us- ing quantum computers for quantum simulation, Entropy 12, 2268 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, et al., Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge the- ories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Paulson, L

    D. Paulson, L. Dellantonio, J. F. Haase, A. Celi, A. Kan, A. Jena, C. Kokail, R. Van Bijnen, K. Jansen, P. Zoller, et al., Simulating 2d effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, PRX quantum 2, 030334 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    D. Zhu, S. Johri, N. Nguyen, C. H. Alderete, K. Lands- man, N. Linke, C. Monroe, and A. Matsuura, Probing many-body localization on a noisy quantum computer, Physical Review A 103, 032606 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    I.-C. Chen, B. Burdick, Y. Yao, P. P. Orth, and T. Iadecola, Error-mitigated simulation of quantum many-body scars on quantum computers with pulse-level control, Physical Review Research 4, 043027 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crys- tal on 57 qubits of a quantum computer, Science advances 8, eabm7652 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simu- lating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digi- tal quantum computer, npj Quantum Information 5, 106 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, and C. H. Lee, Simulation of interaction-induced chiral topological dynamics on a dig- 10 ital quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14322 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, Y. H. Phee, W. E. Ng, and C. H. Lee, Stabilizing multiple topological fermions on a quantum computer, npj Quantum Information 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    T. Chen, R. Shen, C. H. Lee, and B. Yang, High-fidelity realization of the aklt state on a nisq-era quantum pro- cessor, SciPost Physics 15, 170 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    T. Chen, R. Shen, C. H. Lee, B. Yang, and R. W. Boman- tara, A robust large-period discrete time crystal and its signature in a digital quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11560 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, and C. H. Lee, Circuit structure- preserving error mitigation for high-fidelity quantum sim- ulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17187 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, Y. Zhong, and C. H. Lee, Robust simulations of many-body symmetry-protected topological phase transitions on a quantum processor, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08776 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, and C. H. Lee, Observa- tion of the non-hermitian skin effect and fermi skin on a digital quantum computer, Nature Communications 16, 1340 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, and C. H. Lee, Realization of higher- order topological lattices on a quantum computer, Nature Communications 15, 5807 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    R. Shen, F. Qin, J.-Y. Desaules, Z. Papi´ c, and C. H. Lee, Enhanced many-body quantum scars from the non- hermitian fock skin effect, Physical Review Letters 133, 216601 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Chen, H.-T

    T. Chen, H.-T. Ding, R. Shen, S.-L. Zhu, and J. Gong, Direct probe of topology and geometry of quantum states on the ibm q quantum processor, Physical Review B110, 205402 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    J. M. Koh, W.-T. Xue, T. Tai, D. E. Koh, and C. H. Lee, Interacting non-hermitian edge and cluster bursts on a digital quantum processor, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14595 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Desaules, E

    J.-Y. Desaules, E. J. Gustafson, A. C. Li, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Robust finite-temperature many-body scarring on a quantum computer, Physical Review A 110, 042606 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Mavroeidis, K

    V. Mavroeidis, K. Vishi, M. D. Zych, and A. Jøsang, The impact of quantum computing on present cryptography, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00200 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T. M. Fernandez-Carames and P. Fraga-Lamas, Towards post-quantum blockchain: A review on blockchain cryp- tography resistant to quantum computing attacks, IEEE access 8, 21091 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    D. J. Bernstein and T. Lange, Post-quantum cryptogra- phy, Nature 549, 188 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Pirandola, U

    S. Pirandola, U. L. Andersen, L. Banchi, M. Berta, D. Bunandar, R. Colbeck, D. Englund, T. Gehring, C. Lupo, C. Ottaviani, et al., Advances in quantum cryp- tography, Advances in optics and photonics 12, 1012 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Potential of quantum computing for drug discovery, IBM Journal of Research and Development 62, 6 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    N. S. Blunt, J. Camps, O. Crawford, R. Izs´ ak, S. Leon- tica, A. Mirani, A. E. Moylett, S. A. Scivier, C. Sunder- hauf, P. Schopf, et al. , Perspective on the current state- of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery ap- plications, Journal of Chemical Theory and Comp...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhou, S.-T

    L. Zhou, S.-T. Wang, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near- term devices, Physical Review X 10, 021067 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ajagekar and F

    A. Ajagekar and F. You, Quantum computing for energy systems optimization: Challenges and opportunities, En- ergy 179, 76 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Au-Yeung, N

    R. Au-Yeung, N. Chancellor, and P. Halffmann, Np-hard but no longer hard to solve? using quantum computing to tackle optimization problems, Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology 2, 1128576 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Mouton, F

    L. Mouton, F. Reiter, Y. Chen, and P. Rebentrost, Deep- learning-based quantum algorithms for solving nonlinear partial differential equations, Physical Review A 110, 022612 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Y. Chen, T. Koch, H. Peng, and H. Zhang, Benchmark- ing of quantum and classical computing in large-scale dynamic portfolio optimization under market frictions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05226 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kerenidis, A

    I. Kerenidis, A. Prakash, and D. Szil´ agyi, Quantum al- gorithms for portfolio optimization, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technolo- gies (2019) pp. 147–155

    2019

  39. [47]

    Rebentrost and S

    P. Rebentrost and S. Lloyd, Quantum computational fi- nance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03975 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Grant, T

    E. Grant, T. S. Humble, and B. Stump, Benchmarking quantum annealing controls with portfolio optimization, Physical Review Applied 15, 014012 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    N. N. Hegade, P. Chandarana, K. Paul, X. Chen, F. Al- barr´ an-Arriagada, and E. Solano, Portfolio optimiza- tion with digitized counterdiabatic quantum algorithms, Physical Review Research 4, 043204 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    G.-Y. Ban, N. El Karoui, and A. E. Lim, Machine learn- ing and portfolio optimization, Management Science 64, 1136 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Gunjan and S

    A. Gunjan and S. Bhattacharyya, A brief review of port- folio optimization techniques, Artificial Intelligence Re- view 56, 3847 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Brandhofer, D

    S. Brandhofer, D. Braun, V. Dehn, G. Hellstern, M. H¨ uls, Y. Ji, I. Polian, A. S. Bhatia, and T. Wellens, Bench- marking the performance of portfolio optimization with qaoa: S. brandhofer et al., Quantum Information Pro- cessing 22, 25 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Blekos, D

    K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm and its vari- ants, Physics Reports 1068, 1 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Willsch, D

    M. Willsch, D. Willsch, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Benchmarking the quantum approximate optimization algorithm, Quantum Information Process- ing 19, 1 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Ven- turelli, and R. Biswas, From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating opera- tor ansatz, Algorithms 12, 34 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, De- termining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Na- 11 ture Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simula- tion of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Informa- tion 5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Implemen- tation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on nisq devices by introducing nonlocal approximation, npj Quantum Information 7, 85 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Rebentrost and S

    P. Rebentrost and S. Lloyd, Quantum computational fi- nance: quantum algorithm for portfolio optimization, KI- K¨ unstliche Intelligenz38, 327 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Buonaiuto, F

    G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. De Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices, Scientific Reports 13, 19434 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Suzuki, S

    Y. Suzuki, S. Endo, K. Fujii, and Y. Tokunaga, Quantum error mitigation as a universal error reduction technique: Applications from the nisq to the fault-tolerant quantum computing eras, PRX Quantum 3, 010345 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, V. Russo, D. Strano, and W. J. Zeng, Error mitigation increases the effective quantum volume of quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05489 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Hassija, V

    V. Hassija, V. Chamola, V. Saxena, V. Chanana, P. Parashari, S. Mumtaz, and M. Guizani, Present land- scape of quantum computing, IET Quantum Communi- cation 1, 42 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Rietsche, C

    R. Rietsche, C. Dremel, S. Bosch, L. Steinacker, M. Meckel, and J.-M. Leimeister, Quantum computing, Electronic Markets 32, 2525 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Resch and U

    S. Resch and U. R. Karpuzcu, Benchmarking quantum computers and the impact of quantum noise, ACM Com- puting Surveys (CSUR) 54, 1 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature 434, 39 (2005)

    E. Knill, Quantum computing with realistically noisy de- vices, Nature 434, 39 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    A. J. McCaskey, Z. P. Parks, J. Jakowski, S. V. Moore, T. D. Morris, T. S. Humble, and R. C. Pooser, Quan- tum chemistry as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Information 5, 99 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical quan- tum error mitigation for near-future applications, Physi- cal Review X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error miti- gation for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical review letters 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, Funda- mental limits of quantum error mitigation, npj Quantum Information 8, 114 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Strikis, D

    A. Strikis, D. Qin, Y. Chen, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Learning-based quantum error mitigation, PRX Quan- tum 2, 040330 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    D. Qin, X. Xu, and Y. Li, An overview of quantum er- ror mitigation formulas, Chinese Physics B 31, 090306 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    R. H. T¨ ut¨ unc¨ u,Optimization in finance (Citeseer, 2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    S. A. Zenios, Financial optimization (Cambridge univer- sity press, 1993)

    1993

  68. [76]

    Gilli, D

    M. Gilli, D. Maringer, and E. Schumann, Numerical methods and optimization in finance (Academic Press, 2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Or´ us, S

    R. Or´ us, S. Mugel, and E. Lizaso, Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects, Reviews in Physics 4, 100028 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    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, inProceed- ings of the 8th Workshop on High Performance Compu- tational Finance (2015) pp. 1–7

    2015

  71. [79]

    K. J. Cohen and J. A. Pogue, An empirical evaluation of alternative portfolio-selection models, The Journal of Business 40, 166 (1967)

    1967

  72. [80]

    Rubinstein, Markowitz’s” portfolio selection”: A fifty-year retrospective, The Journal of finance 57, 1041 (2002)

    M. Rubinstein, Markowitz’s” portfolio selection”: A fifty-year retrospective, The Journal of finance 57, 1041 (2002)

    2002

  73. [81]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Li, and S. Guo, Portfolio selection problems with markowitz’s mean–variance framework: a review of literature, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 17, 125 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    G. A. Pogue, An extension of the markowitz portfolio selection model to include variable transactions’ costs, short sales, leverage policies and taxes, The Journal of Finance 25, 1005 (1970)

    1970

  75. [83]

    Huang, Mean–variance models for portfolio selection subject to experts’ estimations, Expert Systems with Ap- plications 39, 5887 (2012)

    X. Huang, Mean–variance models for portfolio selection subject to experts’ estimations, Expert Systems with Ap- plications 39, 5887 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    Martin, What is the expected return on the market?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, 367 (2017)

    I. Martin, What is the expected return on the market?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132, 367 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Farhi, J

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

    2000 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Herman, C

    D. Herman, C. Googin, X. Liu, Y. Sun, A. Galda, I. Safro, M. Pistoia, and Y. Alexeev, Quantum computing for fi- nance, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 450 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Cohen, A

    J. Cohen, A. Khan, and C. Alexander, Portfolio opti- mization of 40 stocks using the dwave quantum annealer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01430 (2020)

    2007 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Polak, Optimization: algorithms and consistent ap- proximations, Vol

    E. Polak, Optimization: algorithms and consistent ap- proximations, Vol. 124 (Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Here, the coefficients ai are randomly sampled from a uniform distribution within [0, 1], and |ψi⟩ range over the compu- tational basis states

    These random states are not produced by random cir- cuits; instead, we generate them numerically as |ψ⟩ =P i ai |ψi⟩ /|| P i ai |ψi⟩ ||, which are normalized. Here, the coefficients ai are randomly sampled from a uniform distribution within [0, 1], and |ψi⟩ range over the comp...

  82. [90]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  83. [91]

    K. P. Kalinin and N. G. Berloff, Computational complex- ity continuum within ising formulation of np problems, Communications Physics 5, 20 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    B. A. Cipra, The ising model is np-complete, SIAM News 33, 1 (2000)

    2000

  85. [93]

    K. P. Kalinin and N. G. Berloff, Complexity continuum within ising formulation of np problems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.00466 (2020)

    2008 arXiv

  86. [94]

    N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science 372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Marzec, Portfolio optimization: Applications in quan- tum computing, Handbook of High-Frequency Trading and Modeling in Finance , 73 (2016)

    M. Marzec, Portfolio optimization: Applications in quan- tum computing, Handbook of High-Frequency Trading and Modeling in Finance , 73 (2016). 12

    2016

  88. [96]

    A. R. Carvalho, H. Ball, M. J. Biercuk, M. R. Hush, and F. Thomsen, Error-robust quantum logic optimiza- tion using a cloud quantum computer interface, Physical Review Applied 15, 064054 (2021)

    2021

  89. [97]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, F. Qin, Y. Zhong, and C. H. Lee, Pro- posal for observing yang-lee criticality in rydberg atomic arrays, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06662 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    J. S. Kottmann, M. Krenn, T. H. Kyaw, S. Alperin-Lea, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum computer-aided design of quantum optics hardware, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 6, 035010 (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    https://zenodo.org/records/16788658,

  92. [100]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    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), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Poll- mann, Real- and imaginary-time evolution with com- pressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Yarkoni, E

    S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quan- tum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 104001 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  96. [104]

    G. E. Santoro and E. Tosatti, Optimization using quan- tum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral 39, R393 (2006). S13 Appendix S1: Correspondence between the Markowitz Portfolio model and the Ising Hamiltonia...

    2006

  97. [105]

    Each asset is represented using w = 3 binary bits (slices), with pw = 1/2w−1

    Input parameters: The number of assets is m = 3, with each asset having Nf = 100 price points. Each asset is represented using w = 3 binary bits (slices), with pw = 1/2w−1. A total of 100 problem instances are generated, with a total budget b = 10. Additional parameters are se...

  98. [106]

    Generate historical prices using au,l = (1 + α)au,0, where α is a random variable uniformly sampled from [−0.25, 0.25]

    Price generation: For each asset u, randomly initialize the price generator au,0 within the range [ b/10, b]. Generate historical prices using au,l = (1 + α)au,0, where α is a random variable uniformly sampled from [−0.25, 0.25]

  99. [107]

    3 of the main text: cu,v = b2p2 w au,Nf av,Nf · PNf l=1(au,l−¯au)(av,l−¯av) Nf −1 , where ¯a denotes the mean price of the assets and pw = 21−w

    Covariance matrix and expected return: For each instance: • Compute the covariance matrix cuv as defined in Eq. 3 of the main text: cu,v = b2p2 w au,Nf av,Nf · PNf l=1(au,l−¯au)(av,l−¯av) Nf −1 , where ¯a denotes the mean price of the assets and pw = 21−w. • Compute daily retu...

  100. [108]

    S6 and Eq

    Rescaling: Rescale cuv and ru to Qi,j and qi (parameters for QUBO problems) according to Eq. S6 and Eq. S8

  101. [109]

    Brisbane

    Ising coupling and field parameters: The total number of binary variables is m · w = 9. For binary indices i, j∈ {1, . . . ,9}, the corresponding Ising coupling Jij and Ising field hi are computed based on Eq. S10: Ji,j = 1 4 Qi,j, hi = 1 2 qi + 1 2 P j Qi,j. In this work, for...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.