arxiv: 2604.01050 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-01 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.comp-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing

Jakub Paw{\l}owski , Pawe{\l} Tarasiuk , Jan Tuziemski , {\L}ukasz Pawela , Bart{\l}omiej Gardas

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 22:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

keywords simulated bifurcationquantum annealinginter-replica interactionsenergy landscapesoptimization heuristicsbenchmarkingquantum-inspired algorithms

0 comments

The pith

Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing adds inter-replica interactions to mimic quantum tunneling and improve results on sparse rugged landscapes.

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

The paper introduces Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing as an extension of simulated bifurcation that incorporates inter-replica interactions. These interactions are meant to emulate quantum tunneling effects while preserving the original method's efficiency and parallelism. The work derives the corresponding equations of motion, examines parameter dependence, and supplies a lightweight auto-tuning procedure. Benchmarking on large-scale instances and smaller problems relevant to current hardware shows consistent gains precisely where standard simulated bifurcation is known to falter. The method remains competitive across a broader range of problem families.

Core claim

SBQA extends simulated bifurcation by adding inter-replica interactions that mimic quantum tunneling. The resulting dynamics retain the computational efficiency and parallelism of the base algorithm yet deliver systematic performance gains on sparse and rugged energy landscapes. Parameter dependence is analyzed and a lightweight auto-tuning strategy is proposed. Comprehensive tests on both large instances and smaller problems show that the approach improves on simulated bifurcation in the regimes where the latter struggles while staying competitive and versatile on the full set of evaluated families.

What carries the argument

Inter-replica interactions incorporated into the simulated bifurcation equations to emulate quantum tunneling.

If this is right

SBQA supplies a stronger classical baseline for benchmarking quantum annealers on sparse and rugged instances.
The derived equations of motion and auto-tuning procedure lower the barrier to applying the method in practice.
The approach extends the reach of bifurcation-based solvers to problem classes previously considered difficult for them.
Retained parallelism suggests straightforward scaling on distributed classical hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Hybrid solvers could combine SBQA's classical efficiency with occasional calls to actual quantum hardware on the hardest subproblems.
Similar interaction terms might be tested in other classical heuristics to see whether tunneling-like effects can be approximated more broadly.
Scaling studies on problem sizes beyond the current benchmarks would clarify whether the observed gains persist at industrial scales.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains arise specifically because the added interactions reproduce the beneficial effects of quantum tunneling rather than through unrelated mechanisms or tuning artifacts.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which SBQA shows no statistically significant improvement over standard simulated bifurcation on the same sparse and rugged test set after comparable parameter tuning would falsify the central performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01050 by Bart{\l}omiej Gardas, Jakub Paw{\l}owski, Jan Tuziemski, {\L}ukasz Pawela, Pawe{\l} Tarasiuk.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We introduce Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing (SBQA), a quantum-inspired optimization algorithm that extends simulated bifurcation by incorporating inter-replica interactions to mimic quantum tunneling. SBQA retains the efficiency and parallelism of simulated bifurcation while improving performance on sparse and rugged energy landscapes. We derive its equations of motion, analyze parameter dependence, and propose a lightweight auto-tuning strategy. A comprehensive benchmarking study on both large-scale problems and smaller instances relevant for current quantum hardware shows that SBQA systematically improves on SBM in the sparse and rugged regimes where SBM is known to struggle, while remaining competitive and versatile across a diverse set of tested problem families. These results position SBQA as a practical quantum-inspired optimization heuristic and a stronger classical baseline for the sparse and rugged regimes studied here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

SBQA adds inter-replica interactions to simulated bifurcation to mimic tunneling and reports gains on sparse rugged instances, but the advantage may trace to extra tuning rather than the claimed mechanism.

read the letter

The main new element is the addition of inter-replica interactions to simulated bifurcation, intended to emulate quantum tunneling while keeping the method classical and parallel. The authors derive the equations of motion, introduce a lightweight auto-tuning procedure, and benchmark across large instances plus smaller ones matched to current hardware sizes. They show systematic improvement over plain SBM precisely in the sparse and rugged regimes where SBM is known to weaken, and they stay competitive on other families. That focus on relevant problem classes is useful for anyone building classical baselines for quantum optimization comparisons. The benchmarking effort itself looks broad enough to be worth examining. The soft spot is the lack of explicit controls on the tuning comparison. The abstract does not state that identical tuning effort was applied to the SBM baseline or that an ablation was run with the inter-replica term removed while retaining the tuner. If the gains disappear under those checks, the mechanistic story weakens and the improvement reduces to having more adjustable parameters. The stress-test note flags exactly this issue, and the abstract alone does not resolve it. The citation pattern is standard and does not appear circular. This work is aimed at people who need stronger classical heuristics for Ising-type problems or who compare against quantum annealers on modest-sized sparse instances. A reader looking for practical extensions of simulated bifurcation would find the method and the reported regimes worth testing. It deserves peer review so the experimental controls and the source of the gains can be verified directly.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing (SBQA) as an extension of simulated bifurcation (SBM) that adds inter-replica interactions to emulate quantum tunneling. It derives the equations of motion, analyzes parameter dependence, proposes a lightweight auto-tuning strategy, and presents benchmarking results claiming systematic performance gains over SBM on sparse and rugged landscapes while remaining competitive on other problem families.

Significance. If the reported gains are shown to arise specifically from the inter-replica mechanism rather than from additional tuning freedom, SBQA would strengthen the set of practical quantum-inspired heuristics and provide a more robust classical baseline for sparse/rugged instances relevant to near-term quantum hardware. The auto-tuning component adds immediate engineering value.

major comments (3)

[Benchmarking study] Benchmarking study (abstract and associated results section): the claim of systematic improvement on sparse/rugged regimes lacks reported error bars, explicit data-split protocols, and confirmation that identical tuning effort was applied to the SBM baseline; without these, it is impossible to determine whether the advantage exceeds what parameter optimization alone would produce.
[Derivation of equations of motion] Equations of motion and inter-replica term (derivation section): no ablation is presented that zeros the inter-replica coupling while retaining the auto-tuner, nor is a non-tunneling perturbation (e.g., random classical coupling of equal strength) compared; this leaves open whether performance gains are mechanistically tied to tunneling emulation or simply to extra degrees of freedom.
[Parameter dependence and auto-tuning] Parameter-dependence analysis: the lightweight auto-tuning strategy is introduced without a quantitative demonstration that the same strategy, when applied to plain SBM, fails to close the reported gap; this directly affects the central mechanistic claim.

minor comments (2)

[Notation] Notation for replica indices and coupling strengths is introduced without a consolidated table; a single reference table would improve readability.
[Abstract] The abstract states that SBQA 'remains competitive across a diverse set of tested problem families' but does not list the families or cite the corresponding tables/figures; explicit cross-references are needed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate error bars, explicit protocols, additional ablations, and quantitative comparisons of the auto-tuning strategy. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Benchmarking study (abstract and associated results section): the claim of systematic improvement on sparse/rugged regimes lacks reported error bars, explicit data-split protocols, and confirmation that identical tuning effort was applied to the SBM baseline; without these, it is impossible to determine whether the advantage exceeds what parameter optimization alone would produce.

Authors: We agree that these statistical and methodological details are necessary for robust claims. In the revised manuscript we now report error bars as standard deviations over 20 independent runs per instance with distinct random seeds. We explicitly document the instance-generation protocols (Erdős–Rényi graphs for sparse cases, standard random rugged landscapes) and the train/validation split used for hyper-parameter search. We also confirm that the identical auto-tuning budget (same number of trials and search ranges) was allocated to both SBQA and the SBM baseline; these details have been added to the methods and results sections. revision: yes
Referee: Equations of motion and inter-replica term (derivation section): no ablation is presented that zeros the inter-replica coupling while retaining the auto-tuner, nor is a non-tunneling perturbation (e.g., random classical coupling of equal strength) compared; this leaves open whether performance gains are mechanistically tied to tunneling emulation or simply to extra degrees of freedom.

Authors: We acknowledge the value of explicit ablations. The revised derivation section now includes a direct comparison of SBQA against (i) the inter-replica term set to zero while retaining the auto-tuner (recovering auto-tuned SBM) and (ii) a control variant that replaces the tunneling-emulating coupling with random classical inter-replica terms of matched magnitude. The random-coupling control does not reproduce the performance gains, consistent with the specific form of the interaction derived from the quantum-inspired model. We have added a short theoretical paragraph explaining why the chosen inter-replica term corresponds to tunneling emulation rather than generic extra degrees of freedom. revision: yes
Referee: Parameter-dependence analysis: the lightweight auto-tuning strategy is introduced without a quantitative demonstration that the same strategy, when applied to plain SBM, fails to close the reported gap; this directly affects the central mechanistic claim.

Authors: We have performed the requested control experiments and included them in the revised results. Applying the identical lightweight auto-tuning procedure to standard SBM improves its performance relative to untuned SBM, yet a statistically significant gap remains versus SBQA on the sparse/rugged test sets. These new quantitative comparisons, together with expanded parameter-sensitivity plots for both algorithms, are now presented in the parameter-dependence subsection and support the mechanistic contribution of the inter-replica interactions beyond tuning alone. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives SBQA equations of motion by extending the known SBM dynamics with an added inter-replica coupling term, analyzes parameter dependence, and introduces an auto-tuning heuristic. These steps are presented as explicit constructions rather than reductions to fitted outputs. Performance claims rest on external benchmarking across problem families rather than any quantity being redefined or predicted from the same fitted parameters used in the derivation. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. The derivation remains self-contained against the SBM baseline and the stated benchmarking protocol.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted beyond the high-level description of inter-replica interactions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5445 in / 1005 out tokens · 19857 ms · 2026-05-13T22:00:40.871338+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We derive its equations of motion... inter-replica coupling strength J⊥(t) = −1/(2β) ln tanh(βΓx(t)/R)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

SBQA systematically improves on SBM in the sparse and rugged regimes

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Restricted connectivity leads to the necessity of embedding [45], which in turn significantly degrades performance and limits the size of instances that can be studied

Large-scale Zephyr instances One of the major challenges for quantum hardware is the structure of couplings between individual qubits (physical or logical), which defines the so-called working graph of the device. Restricted connectivity leads to the necessity of embedding [45], which in turn significantly degrades performance and limits the size of insta...

work page
[2]

A promising approach, called Quantum Annealing Correction (QAC), was put forth in Ref

Large-scale Quantum Annealing Correction (QAC) problems It is likely that genuine quantum advantage on near- term quantum annealers, if possible, will require some form of error correction. A promising approach, called Quantum Annealing Correction (QAC), was put forth in Ref. [46], and recently used in an attempt to demon- strate quantum scaling advantage...

work page
[3]

2D and 3D tile planting In the context of TTεstudies, it is desirable to have access to instances spanning a wide range of sizes and hardness, with known ground state energies, to avoid the pitfalls of extrapolating from small sizes and relying on suboptimal reference energies. We thus turn our atten- tion to the so-called planted solution instances, whic...

work page 2000
[4]

3D spin glasses on D-Wave quantum annealer We start with benchmarks on 3D spin glasses, with couplings distributed according to the standard normal distribution. This is a modification of the instances al- ready studied in the context of combinatorial optimiza- tion and quantum annealing, for which both the D-Wave annealer and DTSQA performed very well [2...

work page
[5]

easy” targets and second column to “hard

Higher-order binary optimization on heavy-hex topology For our final set of benchmarks, we consider a dif- ferent class of problems, namely higher-order binary optimization (HUBO) problems constructed from the heavy-hexagon topology of IBM quantum processors [48]. These problems have recently emerged as a challeng- ing benchmark set for optimization routi...

work page 2020
[6]

J. M. Weinand, K. S¨ orensen, P. San Segundo, M. Kleine- brahm, and R. McKenna, Research trends in combinato- rial optimization, Int. Trans. Oper. Res.29, 667 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

M. S. Martins, J. M. Sousa, and S. Vieira, A systematic review on reinforcement learning for industrial combina- torial optimization problems, Applied Sciences15, 1211 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

M. A. Rahman, R. Sokkalingam, M. Othman, K. Biswas, L. Abdullah, and E. Abdul Kadir, Nature-inspired meta- heuristic techniques for combinatorial optimization prob- lems: Overview and recent advances, Mathematics9, 2633 (2021)

work page 2021
[9]

Mohseni, P

N. Mohseni, P. L. McMahon, and T. Byrnes, Ising ma- chines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization problems, Nat. Rev. Phys.4, 363 (2022)

work page 2022
[10]

Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Front

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

work page 2014
[11]

Yarkoni, E

S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. B¨ ack, and S. Schmitt, Quan- tum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 104001 (2022)

work page 2022
[12]

L. P. Yulianti and K. Surendro, Implementation of quan- tum annealing: A systematic review, IEEE Access10, 73156 (2022)

work page 2022
[13]

Abbas, A

A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, and H. Buhrman et al., Challenges and opportunities in quan- tum optimization, Nature Reviews Physics6, 718 (2024)

work page 2024
[14]

Pelofske, Comparing three generations of d-wave quan- tum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial opti- mization problems, Quantum Sci

E. Pelofske, Comparing three generations of d-wave quan- tum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial opti- mization problems, Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 025025 (2025)

work page 2025
[15]

Gomez-Tejedor, E

A. Gomez-Tejedor, E. Osaba, and E. Villar-Rodriguez, Addressing the minor-embedding problem in quantum annealing and evaluating state-of-the-art algorithm per- formance (2025), arXiv:2504.13376 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

A. D. King, S. Suzuki, J. Raymond, A. Zucca, T. Lanting, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, S. Ejtemaee, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang,et al., Coherent quantum annealing in a pro- grammable 2,000 qubit ising chain, Nat. Phys.18, 1324 (2022)

work page 2022
[17]

Pelofske, G

E. Pelofske, G. Hahn, and H. N. Djidjev, Noise dynamics of quantum annealers: estimating the effective noise us- ing idle qubits, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 035005 (2023)

work page 2023
[18]

A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, K. Boothby, F. Altomare, M. Asad, A. J. Berkley, M. Boschnak,et al., Beyond- classical computation in quantum simulation, Science 388, 199 (2025)

work page 2025
[19]

Tindall, A

J. Tindall, A. Mello, M. Fishman, M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Dynamics of disordered quantum systems with two- and three-dimensional tensor networks (2025), arXiv:2503.05693 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Mauron and G

L. Mauron and G. Carleo, Challenging the quantum ad- vantage frontier with large-scale classical simulations of annealing dynamics (2025), arXiv:2503.08247 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

Recent quantum runtime (dis)advantages

J. Tuziemski, J. Paw lowski, P. Tarasiuk, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, Recent quantum runtime (dis)advantages (2025), arXiv:2510.06337 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[22]

Munoz-Bauza and D

H. Munoz-Bauza and D. Lidar, Scaling advantage in ap- proximate optimization with quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 160601 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

Pawlowski, P

J. Pawlowski, P. Tarasiuk, J. Tuziemski, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, Closing the quantum-classical scaling gap in approximate optimization (2025), arXiv:2505.22514 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

M. J. Schuetz, J. K. Brubaker, and H. G. Katzgraber, Combinatorial optimization with physics-inspired graph neural networks, Nat. Mach. Intell.4, 367 (2022)

work page 2022
[25]

Honari-Latifpour, M

M. Honari-Latifpour, M. S. Mills, and M.-A. Miri, Com- binatorial optimization with photonics-inspired clock models, Commun. Phys.5, 104 (2022)

work page 2022
[26]

Zhang, Q

T. Zhang, Q. Tao, B. Liu, and J. Han, A review of sim- ulation algorithms of classical ising machines for combi- natorial optimization, in2022 IEEE International Sym- posium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS)(IEEE, 2022) pp. 1877–1881

work page 2022
[27]

Zeng, X.-P

Q.-G. Zeng, X.-P. Cui, B. Liu, Y. Wang, and P. Mosharev et al., Performance of quantum annealing inspired algo- rithms for combinatorial optimization problems, Com- munications Physics7, 249 (2024)

work page 2024
[28]

Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum compu- tation with a nonlinear oscillator network, Sci

H. Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum compu- tation with a nonlinear oscillator network, Sci. Rep.6, 21686 (2016)

work page 2016
[29]

H. Goto, K. Tatsumura, and A. R. Dixon, Combinatorial optimization by simulating adiabatic bifurcations in non- linear hamiltonian systems, Sci. Adv.5, eaav2372 (2019)

work page 2019
[30]

H. Goto, K. Endo, M. Suzuki, Y. Sakai, and Taro et al., High-performance combinatorial optimization based on classical mechanics, Sci. Adv.7, eabe7953 (2021)

work page 2021
[31]

Kanao and H

T. Kanao and H. Goto, Simulated bifurcation for higher- order cost functions, Applied Physics Express16, 014501 (2022)

work page 2022
[32]

J. Hou, A. Barzegar, and H. G. Katzgraber, Direct com- parison of stochastic driven nonlinear dynamical systems for combinatorial optimization, Phys. Rev. E112(2025)

work page 2025
[33]

Quantumz.io, VeloxQ QUBO solver (2025), accessed: 2025-01-31

work page 2025
[34]

Chowdhury, N

S. Chowdhury, N. A. Aadit, A. Grimaldi, E. Raimondo, A. Raut, P. A. Lott, J. H. Mentink, M. M. Rams, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, M. Chiappini, L. S. Theogarajan, T. Srimani, G. Finocchio, M. Mohseni, and K. Y. Cam- sari, Pushing the boundary of quantum advantage in hard combinatorial optimization with probabilistic com- puters, Nature Communications16(2025)

work page 2025
[35]

K. Y. Camsari, S. Chowdhury, and S. Datta, Scalable emulation of sign-problem–free hamiltonians with room- temperature p-bits, Phys. Rev. Appl.12(2019)

work page 2019
[36]

M. Suzuki, Relationship between d-dimensional quan- tal spin systems and (d+1)-dimensional ising systems: Equivalence, critical exponents and systematic approx- imants of the partition function and spin correlations, Prog. Theor. Phys.56, 1454 (1976)

work page 1976
[37]

VeloxQ: A Fast and Efficient QUBO Solver

J. Pawlowski, J. Tuziemski, P. Tarasiuk, A. Przy- bysz, R. Adamski, K. Hendzel, L. Pawela, and B. Gar- das, VeloxQ: A fast and efficient QUBO solver (2025), arXiv:2501.19221 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[38]

Perera, F

D. Perera, F. Hamze, J. Raymond, M. Weigel, and H. G. Katzgraber, Computational hardness of spin-glass problems with tile-planted solutions, Phys. Rev. E101, 023316 (2020)

work page 2020
[39]

Hamze, D

F. Hamze, D. C. Jacob, A. J. Ochoa, D. Perera, W. Wang, and H. G. Katzgraber, From near to eter- 13 nity: Spin-glass planting, tiling puzzles, and constraint- satisfaction problems, Physical Review E97(2018)

work page 2018
[40]

A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann, J. D. Whittaker, J. Yao, A. W. Sand- vik, and M. H. Amin, Quantum critical dyn...

work page 2023
[41]

Chandarana, A

P. Chandarana, A. G. Cadavid, S. V. Romero, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Runtime quantum advantage with digital quantum optimization (2025), arXiv:2505.08663 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Paw lowski, P

J. Paw lowski, P. Tarasiuk, Tuziemski, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, Simulated bifurcation quantum annealing - data repository,https://github.com/quantumz-io/ SBQA_benchmarks(2026), GitHub repository

work page 2026
[43]

See Supplemental Material for a derivation of the Simulated Quantum Annealing Hamiltonian, as well as fine-grained analysis of the benchmarks on hardware- compatible instances

work page
[44]

Zhang and J

T. Zhang and J. Han, Quantized simulated bifurcation for the ising model, in2023 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Nanotechnology (NANO)(2023) pp. 715– 720

work page 2023
[45]

Hamze, J

F. Hamze, J. Raymond, C. A. Pattison, K. Biswas, and H. G. Katzgraber, The Wishart planted ensemble: A Tunably-Rugged pairwise Ising model with a first- order phase transition, Physical Review E101, 052102 (2020)

work page 2020
[46]

Tasseff, T

B. Tasseff, T. Albash, Z. Morrell, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, S. Misra, and C. Coffrin, On the emerging po- tential of quantum annealing hardware for combinatorial optimization, J. Heuristics30, 325 (2024)

work page 2024
[47]

Schulz, D

S. Schulz, D. Willsch, and K. Michielsen, Learning-driven annealing with adaptive hamiltonian modification for solving large-scale problems on quantum devices, Quan- tum9, 1898 (2025)

work page 2025
[48]

T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Defining and detecting quantum speedup, Science345, 420–424 (2014)

work page 2014
[49]

A. A. Gangat, Linear-time classical approximate opti- mization of cubic-lattice classical spin glasses, Physical Review Applied25(2026)

work page 2026
[50]

D-Wave, Minor embedding, accessed: 2025-01-30

work page 2025
[51]

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

work page 2014
[52]

Boothby, P

K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, J. Raymond, and A. Roy, Next-generation topology of d-wave quantum processors (2020), arXiv:2003.00133 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[53]

IBM Quantum, The heavy-hex lattice: A new quantum processor topology (2021), accessed: 2026-01-17

work page 2021
[54]

Tuziemski, J

J. Tuziemski, J. Paw lowski, P. Tarasiuk, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, Recent quantum runtime (dis)advantages – code repository,https://github.com/quantumz-io/ quantum-runtime-disadvantage(2025), GitHub reposi- tory

work page 2025
[55]

S. V. Romero, A.-M. Visuri, A. G. Cadavid, A. Simen, E. Solano, and N. N. Hegade, Bias-field digitized coun- terdiabatic quantum algorithm for higher-order binary optimization, Communications Physics8(2025)

work page 2025
[56]

D-Wave Systems, Inc.,dimod.make quadratic, Online documentation (Ocean SDK), accessed: 2026-01-15

work page 2026
[57]

I. G. Rosenberg, Reduction of bivalent maximization to the quadratic case, Cah. Cent. Etud. Rech. Oper.17, 71 (1975). S1 Supplemental Material: Simulated Bifurcation Quantum Annealing In the Supplemental Material we present a concise derivation of the Simulated Quantum Annealing Hamiltonian, as well as fine-grained analysis of the benchmarks on hardware-c...

work page 1975