pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.02635 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.SI

Recognition: unknown

Quantum Hypergraph Partitioning

Hans-Arno Jacobsen, Michael Silver, Y. Batuhan Yilmaz, Yiran Li, Zachary Vernec

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI
keywords hypergraph partitioningquantum optimizationQUBOQAOAbalanced partitioninghyperedge cutsbinary optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Balanced hypergraph partitioning admits direct binary optimization encodings for quantum solvers.

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

The paper formalizes balanced k-way hypergraph partitioning using general hyperedge cut functions and converts these into binary optimization problems that quantum methods can address. It distinguishes cut functions that produce standard QUBO forms from those requiring higher-order or rational objectives. For the concrete case of all-or-nothing cuts on small 3-uniform hypergraphs, both simulated QAOA and simulated annealing recover good partitions when the balance penalty is chosen appropriately. A reader would care because hypergraph partitioning underlies data management and network tasks, and quantum hardware might eventually handle instances too large for classical exact solvers if the encodings prove workable.

Core claim

Balanced k-way hypergraph partitioning with arbitrary hyperedge cut functions can be expressed as binary optimization problems suitable for quantum optimization algorithms in both two-way and multi-way settings, with some cut functions directly yielding QUBO instances while others produce higher-order objectives.

What carries the argument

Binary optimization formulations (including QUBO encodings) derived from hyperedge cut functions and balance penalties for hypergraph partitioning.

If this is right

  • Quantum approximate optimization and annealing can be applied directly to two-way hypergraph partitioning with all-or-nothing cuts.
  • The balance-penalty weight controls the trade-off between cut quality and partition balance in the resulting objective.
  • Cut functions that admit QUBO encodings avoid the need for higher-order penalty terms or post-processing.
  • The same derivation extends in principle to multi-way partitioning and other cut functions, though the resulting objective complexity increases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the encodings remain efficient at scale, they could open quantum approaches to hypergraph problems in data management that exceed classical exact methods.
  • Real-device noise or embedding overhead may require additional penalty tuning or reformulation not tested in the small-instance simulations.
  • Testing the multi-way formulations on simulated larger instances would clarify whether the two-way success pattern generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

That results on small simulated instances with a manually chosen balance penalty will carry over to larger problems or real quantum hardware without new reformulations.

What would settle it

Finding that no value of the balance-penalty weight simultaneously achieves low cut value and acceptable partition balance on a modestly larger hypergraph or on actual quantum hardware would disprove practical utility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02635 by Hans-Arno Jacobsen, Michael Silver, Y. Batuhan Yilmaz, Yiran Li, Zachary Vernec.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of balanced hypergraph partitioning. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the partition induced on hyperedge view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Preliminary results on 3-uniform hypergraphs with view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hypergraph partitioning is a fundamental optimization problem with applications in data management and other domains involving higher-order relations. In this paper, we study balanced hypergraph partitioning from the perspective of quantum optimization. We formalize balanced $k$-way hypergraph partitioning with general hyperedge cut functions, and derive corresponding binary optimization formulations targeted at quantum optimization methods in both the two-way and multi-way settings. Our discussion highlights which cut functions admit Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) encodings and which instead lead to higher-order binary objectives or rational forms. As a preliminary empirical validation, we focus on balanced two-way partitioning with the all-or-nothing cut on 3-uniform hypergraphs, where a direct QUBO is available, and evaluate simulated Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and Simulated Annealing (SA) on small instances against exact solutions. The results show that the formulation is effective on small hypergraphs and that the balance-penalty weight plays a critical role in trading off cut quality and balance.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formalizes balanced k-way hypergraph partitioning with general hyperedge cut functions and derives corresponding binary optimization formulations (QUBO for some cases, higher-order or rational for others) targeted at quantum methods such as QAOA in both two-way and multi-way settings. As preliminary validation, it evaluates simulated QAOA and SA on small 3-uniform hypergraphs for the all-or-nothing cut, reporting that the formulation is effective and that the balance-penalty weight is critical for trading off cut quality versus balance.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work provides a useful bridge between hypergraph partitioning and quantum optimization, with explicit discussion of which cut functions admit direct QUBO encodings. The preliminary simulations on small instances and the scoping of claims to those instances are appropriately cautious; the explicit treatment of the balance penalty as a tunable parameter is a strength. The manuscript does not claim scalability or hardware results, which aligns with the limited empirical scope.

major comments (1)
  1. [Empirical validation section] Empirical validation section: the reported match between QAOA/SA and exact solutions on small instances does not specify the number of test hypergraphs, whether the balance-penalty weight was tuned per instance or held fixed across instances, or whether error bars or multiple runs are reported; this detail is load-bearing for assessing whether the formulation is 'effective' beyond the specific small cases shown.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the largest hypergraph size tested (e.g., number of vertices or hyperedges) to make the 'small hypergraphs' claim concrete.
  2. [Section 2] Notation for the general cut function and the balance constraint could be introduced earlier with an explicit example to aid readers unfamiliar with hypergraph partitioning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive overall assessment. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical validation section] Empirical validation section: the reported match between QAOA/SA and exact solutions on small instances does not specify the number of test hypergraphs, whether the balance-penalty weight was tuned per instance or held fixed across instances, or whether error bars or multiple runs are reported; this detail is load-bearing for assessing whether the formulation is 'effective' beyond the specific small cases shown.

    Authors: We agree that these experimental details are necessary for a rigorous evaluation of the preliminary results. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state the number of 3-uniform hypergraphs tested, confirm that the balance-penalty weight was held fixed (after a single preliminary choice) across all instances, and report averages together with standard deviations or error bars obtained from multiple independent runs of QAOA and SA. These additions will be placed in the empirical validation section and reflected in the accompanying figures and captions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper formalizes balanced k-way hypergraph partitioning with general cut functions and derives binary optimization encodings (QUBO for some cases, higher-order or rational for others) as direct translations of the problem definition into target forms for quantum solvers. These steps are definitional mappings rather than reductions to fitted quantities or self-referential inputs. The empirical section evaluates the all-or-nothing 3-uniform case on small instances against exact solutions, explicitly treating the balance-penalty weight as an external tuning parameter whose role in the cut-balance tradeoff is observed rather than derived from the same data. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the derivation chain. The overall argument remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard binary encoding techniques for partitioning problems plus the empirical observation that a tunable penalty controls the quality-balance trade-off on small instances; no new physical entities or unstated mathematical axioms are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • balance-penalty weight
    The abstract states that this weight plays a critical role in trading off cut quality and balance, indicating it is a tunable parameter whose value affects reported performance.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard QUBO and higher-order binary optimization encodings for combinatorial problems are valid and implementable on quantum hardware or simulators.
    The derivations target quantum optimization methods without re-proving the underlying encoding machinery.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 1381 out tokens · 59223 ms · 2026-05-08T02:33:02.860912+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature638, 8052 (2025), 920–926

    2025. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature638, 8052 (2025), 920–926

    2025

  2. [2]

    Egger, Bruce G

    Amira Abbas, Andris Ambainis, Brandon Augustino, Andreas Bärtschi, Harry Buhrman, Carleton Coffrin, Giorgio Cortiana, Vedran Dunjko, Daniel J. Egger, Bruce G. Elmegreen, Nicola Franco, Filippo Fratini, Bryce Fuller, Julien Gacon, Constantin Gonciulea, Sander Gribling, Swati Gupta, Stuart Hadfield, Raoul Heese, Gerhard Kircher, Thomas Kleinert, Thorsten Ko...

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00770-9 2024

  3. [3]

    Ali Abbassi, Yann Dujardin, Eric Gourdin, Philippe Lacomme, and Caroline Prodhon. 2026. Quantum Approaches to the Minimum Edge Multiway Cut Problem. InQuantum Engineering Sciences and Technologies for Industry and Services, Frédéric Barbaresco and François Gerin (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 284–293

    2026

  4. [4]

    Pablo Andrés-Martínez and Chris Heunen. 2019. Automated Distribution of Quantum Circuits via Hypergraph Partitioning.Physical Review A100, 3 (Sept. 2019), 032308

    2019

  5. [5]

    Belal Ehsan Baaquie and Leong-Chuan Kwek. 2023. Quantum-classical hybrid algorithms. InQuantum Computers: Theory and Algorithms. Springer, 249–256

    2023

  6. [6]

    Joao Basso, David Gamarnik, Song Mei, and Leo Zhou. 2022. Performance and Limitations of the QAOA at Constant Levels on Large Sparse Hypergraphs and Spin Glass Models. In2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 335–343

    2022

  7. [7]

    Dimitris Bertsimas and John Tsitsiklis. 1993. Simulated annealing.Statistical science8, 1 (1993), 10–15

    1993

  8. [8]

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. 2022. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics94, 1 (2022), 015004

    2022

  9. [9]

    Dolev Bluvstein, Simon J Evered, Alexandra A Geim, Sophie H Li, Hengyun Zhou, Tom Manovitz, Sepehr Ebadi, Madelyn Cain, Marcin Kalinowski, Dominik Hangleiter, et al. 2024. Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays.Nature626, 7997 (2024), 58–65

    2024

  10. [10]

    Sami Boulebnane, James Sud, Ruslan Shaydulin, and Marco Pistoia. 2025. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm in finite size and large depth and equivalence to quantum annealing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09563(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Ryan LaRose, Marco Cerezo, Yigit Subasi, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. 2023. Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum7 (2023), 1188

    2023

  12. [12]

    Umit V Catalyurek and Cevdet Aykanat. 2002. Hypergraph-partitioning-based decomposition for parallel sparse-matrix vector multiplication.IEEE Transactions on parallel and distributed systems10, 7 (2002), 673–693

    2002

  13. [13]

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al

  14. [14]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (2021), 625–644

    2021

  15. [15]

    Karthekeyan Chandrasekaran and Chandra Chekuri. 2020. Hypergraph K-Cut for Fixed k in Deterministic Polynomial Time. In2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 810–821

    2020

  16. [16]

    Gavin E Crooks. 2018. Performance of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on the maximum cut problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08419(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    William Cruz-Santos, Salvador E Venegas-Andraca, and Marco Lanzagorta. 2019. A QUBO formulation of minimum multicut problem instances in trees for D-Wave quantum annealers.Scientific reports9, 1 (2019), 17216

    2019

  18. [18]

    Venegas-Andraca, and Marco Lanzagorta

    William Cruz-Santos, Salvador E. Venegas-Andraca, and Marco Lanzagorta

  19. [19]

    2019), 17216

    A QUBO Formulation of Minimum Multicut Problem Instances in Trees for D-Wave Quantum Annealers.Scientific Reports9, 1 (Nov. 2019), 17216

    2019

  20. [20]

    D-Wave Quantum Inc. 2026. Ocean SDK Documentation. https: //docs.dwavequantum.com/en/latest/ocean/index.html. Version 9.3.0, accessed 2026-03-30

    2026

  21. [21]

    Arnab Das and Bikas K Chakrabarti. 2008. Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation.Reviews of Modern Physics80, 3 (2008), 1061–1081

    2008

  22. [22]

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. 2014. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028(2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Song Feng, Emily Heath, Brett Jefferson, Cliff Joslyn, Henry Kvinge, Hugh D Mitchell, Brenda Praggastis, Amie J Eisfeld, Amy C Sims, Larissa B Thackray, et al. 2021. Hypergraph models of biological networks to identify genes critical to pathogenic viral response.BMC bioinformatics22, 1 (2021), 287

    2021

  24. [24]

    Zijin Feng, Miao Qiao, and Hong Cheng. 2023. Modularity-Based Hypergraph Clustering: Random Hypergraph Model, Hyperedge-cluster Relation, and Computation.Proc. ACM Manag. Data1, 3 (Nov. 2023), 215:1–215:25

    2023

  25. [25]

    Zijin Feng, Miao Qiao, Chengzhi Piao, and Hong Cheng. 2025. On Graph Representation for Attributed Hypergraph Clustering.Proc. ACM Manag. Data 3, 1 (Feb. 2025), 59:1–59:26

    2025

  26. [26]

    M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and L. Stockmeyer. 1974. Some Simplified NP-complete Problems. InProceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Comput- ing (STOC ’74). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 47–63

    1974

  27. [27]

    Lov K Grover. 1998. The advantages of superposition.Science280, 5361 (1998), 228–228

    1998

  28. [28]

    Philipp Hauke, Helmut G Katzgraber, Wolfgang Lechner, Hidetoshi Nishimori, and William D Oliver. 2020. Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations.Reports on Progress in Physics83, 5 (2020), 054401

    2020

  29. [29]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, Julien Gacon, Simon Martiel, Paul D. Nation, Lev S. Bishop, Andrew W. Cross, Blake R. Johnson, and Jay M. Gambetta. 2024. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  30. [30]

    Zhang Jiang, Eleanor G Rieffel, and Zhihui Wang. 2017. Near-optimal quantum circuit for Grover’s unstructured search using a transverse field.Physical Review A95, 6 (2017), 062317

    2017

  31. [31]

    Richard Jozsa and Noah Linden. 2003. On the role of entanglement in quantum- computational speed-up.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences459, 2036 (2003), 2011–2032

    2003

  32. [32]

    Igor Kabiljo, Brian Karrer, Mayank Pundir, Sergey Pupyrev, and Alon Shalita

  33. [33]

    Social Hash Partitioner: A Scalable Distributed Hypergraph Partitioner. Proc. VLDB Endow.10, 11 (Aug. 2017), 1418–1429

    2017

  34. [34]

    Raj Kamal and Amitabha Bagchi. 2024. A Lovász-Simonovits Theorem for Hypergraphs with Application to Local Clustering.Proc. ACM Manag. Data2, 4 (Sept. 2024), 190:1–190:27

    2024

  35. [35]

    Karypis, R

    G. Karypis, R. Aggarwal, V. Kumar, and S. Shekhar. 1999. Multilevel Hypergraph Partitioning: Applications in VLSI Domain.IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems7, 1 (March 1999), 69–79

    1999

  36. [36]

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout Van Den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, et al. 2023. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature618, 7965 (2023), 500–505

    2023

  37. [37]

    Scott Kirkpatrick, C Daniel Gelatt Jr, and Mario P Vecchi. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing.science220, 4598 (1983), 671–680

    1983

  38. [38]

    Thomas Krauss, Joey McCollum, Chapman Pendery, Sierra Litwin, and Alan J Michaels. 2020. Solving the max-flow problem on a quantum annealing computer. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering1 (2020), 1–10

    2020

  39. [39]

    Yiran Li, Renchi Yang, and Jieming Shi. 2023. Efficient and Effective Attributed Hypergraph Clustering via K-Nearest Neighbor Augmentation.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data1, 2 (June 2023), 116:1–116:23

    2023

  40. [40]

    Chenghua Liu, Minbo Gao, Zhengfeng Ji, and Mingsheng Ying. 2025. Quantum Speedup for Hypergraph Sparsification. arXiv:2505.01763 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Andrew Lucas. 2014. Ising formulations of many NP problems.Frontiers in physics 2 (2014), 74887

    2014

  42. [42]

    Avradip Mandal, Arnab Roy, Sarvagya Upadhyay, and Hayato Ushijima-Mwesigwa

  43. [43]

    InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF ’20)

    Compressed Quadratization of Higher Order Binary Optimization Problems. InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 126–131

  44. [44]

    Roman Martoňák, Giuseppe E Santoro, and Erio Tosatti. 2004. Quantum annealing of the traveling-salesman problem.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics70, 5 (2004), 057701

    2004

  45. [45]

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

  46. [46]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics18, 2 (2016), 023023

    2016

  47. [47]

    2022.Adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing: Theory and practice

    Catherine C McGeoch. 2022.Adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing: Theory and practice. Springer Nature. Q-Data ’26, May 31-June 05, 2026, Bengaluru, India Li et al

    2022

  48. [48]

    Satoshi Morita and Hidetoshi Nishimori. 2008. Mathematical foundation of quantum annealing.J. Math. Phys.49, 12 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. 2014. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications5, 1 (2014), 4213

    2014

  50. [51]

    Girish Chandra

    Sayantan Pramanik and M. Girish Chandra. 2021. Quantum-Assisted Graph Clus- tering and Quadratic Unconstrained D-ary Optimisation. arXiv:2004.02608 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [52]

    John Preskill. 2018. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum 2 (2018), 79

    2018

  52. [53]

    Atanu Rajak, Sei Suzuki, Amit Dutta, and Bikas K Chakrabarti. 2023. Quantum annealing: An overview.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences381, 2241 (2023)

    2023

  53. [54]

    Rodriguez

    J. Rodriguez. 2022. Quantum Algorithms for Hypergraph Bi-Partitioning. 23ème congrès annuel de la Société Française de Recherche Opérationnelle et d’Aide à la Décision. INSA Lyon, Villeurbanne-Lyon, France (Feb 2022), https://hal. archives-ouvertes. fr/hal-03595234(2022)

    2022

  54. [55]

    Renáta Rusnáková, Martin Chovanec, and Juraj Gazda. 2025. Quantum Annealing for Minimum Bisection Problem: A Machine Learning-based Approach for Penalty Parameter Tuning. arXiv:2509.19005 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Özlem Salehi, Adam Glos, and Jarosław Adam Miszczak. 2022. Unconstrained binary models of the travelling salesman problem variants for quantum optimization: Ö. Salehi et al.Quantum Information Processing21, 2 (2022), 67

    2022

  56. [57]

    Sebastian Schlag, Tobias Heuer, Lars Gottesbüren, Yaroslav Akhremtsev, Christian Schulz, and Peter Sanders. 2023. High-Quality Hypergraph Partitioning.ACM J. Exp. Algorithmics27 (Feb. 2023), 1.9:1–1.9:39

    2023

  57. [58]

    Peter W Shor. 1999. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer.SIAM review41, 2 (1999), 303–332

    1999

  58. [59]

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. 2022. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports986 (2022), 1–128

    2022

  59. [61]

    Lisa Tse, Peter Mountney, Paul Klein, and Simone Severini. 2019. Graph Cut Seg- mentation Methods Revisited with a Quantum Algorithm. arXiv:1812.03050 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2019

  60. [62]

    Hayato Ushijima-Mwesigwa, Christian F. A. Negre, and Susan M. Mniszewski

  61. [63]

    InProceedings of the Second International Workshop on Post Moores Era Supercomputing

    Graph Partitioning Using Quantum Annealing on the D-Wave Sys- tem. InProceedings of the Second International Workshop on Post Moores Era Supercomputing. ACM, Denver CO USA, 22–29

  62. [64]

    Hayato Ushijima-Mwesigwa, Ruslan Shaydulin, Christian F. A. Negre, Susan M. Mniszewski, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. 2021. Multilevel Combinatorial Optimization across Quantum Architectures.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing2, 1 (Feb. 2021), 1:1–1:29

    2021

  63. [65]

    Peter JM Van Laarhoven and Emile HL Aarts. 1987. Simulated annealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications. Springer, 7–15

    1987

  64. [66]

    Benson, and Jon Kleinberg

    Nate Veldt, Austin R. Benson, and Jon Kleinberg. 2022. Hypergraph Cuts with General Splitting Functions.SIAM Rev.64, 3 (Aug. 2022), 650–685

    2022

  65. [67]

    Joyce Jiyoung Whang, Rundong Du, Sangwon Jung, Geon Lee, Barry Drake, Qingqing Liu, Seonggoo Kang, and Haesun Park. 2020. MEGA: Multi-View Semi-Supervised Clustering of Hypergraphs.Proc. VLDB Endow.13, 5 (Jan. 2020), 698–711

    2020

  66. [68]

    Yifan Wu, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, Dawei Jiang, Huan Li, and Lidan Shou. 2025. Hy- perMR: Efficient Hypergraph-enhanced Matrix Storage on Compute-in-Memory Architecture.Proc. ACM Manag. Data3, 1 (Feb. 2025), 45:1–45:27

    2025

  67. [69]

    Dengyong Zhou, Jiayuan Huang, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2007. Learning with Hypergraphs: Clustering, Classification, and Embedding. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 19. MIT Press

    2007