Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Benchmarking Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms for Power Grid Optimization Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For AC-OPF-UC instances with 5-13 generators, a qubit-efficient hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithm does not outperform uniform random sampling, even when quantum state preparation is assumed to take zero time.

desk verdict First, honest benchmark of a hybrid VQA on full AC-OPF-UC, but the null result is largely an artifact of both methods exhaustively searching tiny instance spaces. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15543 v1 pith:7O7WILQB submitted 2026-07-17 quant-ph

Igor Gaidai , Rick Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords hybridquantum-classicalalgorithmsACoptimalpowerflowunitcommitmentvariationalquantumQAOAmixed-integernonlinearprogrammingbenchmarkinguniformsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithms can solve the full alternating-current optimal power flow with unit commitment (AC-OPF-UC) better than classical methods. It proposes two strategies: a direct QAOA encoding that needs hundreds of qubits even for tiny systems, and a qubit-efficient scheme that puts only the binary generator-commitment decisions on the quantum computer while a classical optimizer handles the continuous AC power-flow variables for each sampled bitstring. Benchmarking the second scheme on random networks with 5 to 13 generators, the paper finds that it performs no better than uniform random bitstring sampling, even when all quantum state-preparation time is counted as zero. The conclusion is that the variational hybrid decomposition offers no advantage at these sizes, and that meaningful tests would require systems of roughly 25 or more generators, or alternative routes such as quantum branch-and-bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the binary/continuous split: only the |G| binary generator-status variables are encoded on qubits, and for every sampled bitstring a classical nonlinear optimizer solves the continuous power-flow subproblem with those statuses fixed. A variational ansatz (a single layer of RZZ, RZ, and RX gates) is trained by a noisy classical optimizer to maximize the expected approximation ratio, evaluated from the classically computed costs of samples. The argument that produces the null result is the interplay between shot count and system size: with 1000 shots per iteration, all or most of the 2^|G| bitstrings are encountered within the first optimization steps for 5-13 gen

What would settle it

Run the same hybrid algorithm on AC-OPF-UC instances with realistic binding voltage limits (e.g., +/-5% of nominal) or with 25+ generators, and check whether the best bitstring found by the variational distribution at a fixed time or shot budget has higher approximation ratio than the best found by uniform sampling; if it ever does, the paper's central claim that the method 'does not outperform uniform sampling' is overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a null result: the qubit-efficient hybrid variational algorithm, which samples generator-commitment bitstrings from a one-layer variational circuit and solves the continuous AC power-flow subproblem classically for each sample, does not outperform uniform random sampling on randomly generated AC-OPF-UC instances with 5 to 13 generators. This holds under the maximally favorable assumption that quantum state-preparation time is zero. A direct QAOA encoding of the full problem would require hundreds of qubits even for small systems and was not benchmarked. The tie is explained by shot count relative to search size: with 1000 shots per iteration, nearly all bitstrings ar

Load-bearing premise

The generalizability of the null result rests on the benchmark instances being representative of AC-OPF-UC; in particular, voltage limits set to [0,100] effectively suspend voltage-magnitude constraints, and the tests use a single-layer ansatz on random geometric graphs with 5-13 generators, so the tie with uniform sampling could be an artifact of instance and ansatz choice rather than a property of the hybrid decomposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For AC-OPF-UC instances with up to 13 generators, the qubit-efficient hybrid variational method cannot be expected to beat uniform sampling; at these sizes exhaustive or random sampling is sufficient.
  • The direct QAOA encoding of AC-OPF-UC is impractical: even a 10-generator problem would require roughly 160 qubits with minimal 2-bit discretization of continuous variables.
  • If any advantage of the variational hybrid approach exists, it can only appear at much larger system sizes (25+ generators), which would require on the order of 10^7 CPU hours under the paper's benchmarking methodology.
  • The same benchmarking procedure can be extended to DC-OPF and unit-commitment variants, providing a reusable template for evaluating hybrid quantum-classical solvers.
  • The paper's negative result suggests that variational sampling of commitment variables is unlikely to be the right place to seek quantum advantage; quantum branch-and-bound or decomposition-based methods are more promising avenues.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The null result may be an artifact of the benchmark's loose voltage limits: setting node voltage bounds to [0,100] removes voltage-magnitude constraints from being binding, which could make the continuous subproblem unusually easy and tilt the comparison toward uniform sampling.
  • A sharper test of the variational layer would decouple optimization quality from sampling speed: compare the expected approximation ratio of the trained distribution against uniform at equal shot counts, independent of wall-clock time, to see whether the circuit learns anything at all.
  • The crossover size at which variational optimization could overtake uniform sampling depends on how quickly the optimized distribution concentrates on good bitstrings relative to the coupon-collector rate at which uniform sampling exhausts the search space; the paper's 25+ generator estimate is a rough guess, not a proven threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the AC-OPF-UC problem from a quantum-computing perspective. It first sketches a full QAOA encoding in which all continuous variables are discretized onto qubits, and observes that the qubit count is prohibitive even for small instances. It then proposes a qubit-efficient hybrid decomposition in which only the binary generator-commitment variables are encoded on the quantum circuit, while the continuous power-flow variables are optimized classically (via IPOPT/CasADi) for every sampled bitstring. The hybrid method is benchmarked on synthetic 5-to-13-generator instances against SCIP, SMAC, and uniform random sampling, with equal wall-clock budgets and with quantum state-preparation time assumed to be zero. The headline result is that the qubit-efficient hybrid method does not outperform uniform sampling, and the authors argue that much larger instances (25+ generators) or alternative quantum approaches would be needed to demonstrate an advantage.

Significance. A carefully executed negative result for variational quantum optimization on AC-OPF-UC would be a useful cautionary data point, and the paper has several genuine strengths: the shot-count determination is validated with Bernstein bounds and Monte-Carlo checks; the zero-quantum-time assumption is maximally favorable to the hybrid method; the comparisons use equal time budgets; and the code and data are made available. However, the central null claim is not established in a regime that can discriminate a biased variational sampler from uniform sampling, because the total classical evaluation budget exceeds the binary search-space size. The paper is therefore best viewed as a methodological study and a scalability argument, not as a definitive statement about the potential of hybrid quantum-classical optimization for AC-OPF-UC.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV C, §IV D, Fig. 7] The benchmark operates in an exhaustive-sampling regime, making the headline null result an artifact. With M=1000 shots per iteration and approximately 5000 iterations at 10 generators and 10000 at 13 generators, the total number of sampled bitstrings is about 5×10^6 to 10^7, while the search spaces are only 2^10=1024 and 2^13=8192. Both Hybrid and Uniform therefore evaluate essentially every bitstring many times, and both must converge to the same best-found solution. The text itself acknowledges this in §IV D: 'all or most of their bitstring configurations will be sampled during the first few optimization iterations.' Thus the claim that the hybrid method 'does not outperform uniform sampling' is not a meaningful test of sampler quality; it is a forced tie. The authors should add experiments in a regime where the evaluation budget is a small fraction of the search space, or else compar
  2. [§IV A, Eq. (14)] The benchmark instances remove a key source of AC-OPF-UC difficulty. Voltage limits are set to [0,100] in §IV A, which, with nominal voltage 1, makes the voltage-magnitude constraints effectively inactive. This weakens the coupling between binary commitment decisions and AC feasibility. In addition, the weight λ in the objective Eq. (14) is not reported, so the voltage-deviation penalty is underspecified. The authors should use realistic voltage limits (e.g., ±5% or ±10%) and either report λ or demonstrate that the results are insensitive to it. Without this, the representativeness of the benchmark for real AC-OPF-UC instances is questionable.
  3. [Fig. 7] Figure 7 shows only the mean difference in approximation ratio (Hybrid minus Uniform) as a function of time, without confidence intervals or a significance test. The claim that intermediate times display 'no significant differences' is not supported by the plotted means alone. Since this figure is the primary evidence for the null result, the authors should provide per-instance paired differences with error bars or a paired statistical test. This is particularly important if the paper continues to state the null result as its central finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV A] Please report the value of λ used in Eq. (14) for the generated instances, and state whether it was held fixed across all instances or sampled from a distribution.
  2. [§IV B] Clarify whether the penalty factor λ2=10^7 was chosen individually for each instance or as a single global value for all datasets. If per-instance, describe the procedure; if global, comment on sensitivity.
  3. [Fig. 7] The curves for the different generator counts would be easier to read with a legend or explicit line labels, and with the y-axis range chosen to show the early-time behavior rather than the asymptotic zero region.
  4. [§III C] The qubit-count estimate (approximately 16|G| for the example) is central to motivating the qubit-efficient approach; a short worked example with explicit counting would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central null result is an externally benchmarked empirical comparison, with acknowledged limitations rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a benchmark result, not a derivation: Section IV reports instance-averaged approximation-ratio curves for Hybrid, Uniform, SMAC, and SCIP on synthetic AC-OPF-UC instances. The comparison is against external baselines and an exhaustive-search oracle for C_opt (Section IV B: 'the value of C_opt was found by explicitly optimizing all 2^|G| bitstrings'), so the null result is not defined into existence. The penalty weight lambda_2 = 10^7 is fitted to make infeasible bitstrings rank below feasible ones, but it is applied symmetrically to all solvers and does not determine which solver finds better bitstrings. Self-citations (e.g., [36-38,44,60,69,74,75]) appear only as background for state preparation, ansatz performance, or future directions; none is load-bearing for the central comparison. The main caveat—that M=1000 shots and roughly 5000-10000 iterations cover essentially all 2^10-2^13 bitstrings, so the tie with uniform is partly an exhaustive-search artifact—is explicitly acknowledged in Section IV D ('all or most of their bitstring configurations will be sampled during the first few optimization iterations'). This is a limitation on the claim's generality, not a circular step: the paper does not fit a parameter and then announce its value as a prediction, nor does it define 'no outperformance' in terms of the sampling budget. Therefore no significant circularity; score 1 reflects minor self-citations and metric choices that do not affect the verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an empirical benchmark, not a derivation. The main 'free' inputs are calibration constants (λ, λ2, γ, β), dataset-generation choices, and the 1-layer ansatz. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The largest unstated assumptions are representativeness of the synthetic instances and IPOPT's ability to solve the nonconvex inner problem.

free parameters (6)
  • λ (voltage-deviation weight) = not specified
    Eq. (14) defines total cost with λ as 'an arbitrary weight factor' balancing voltage deviation against production cost; no value is reported, so the tested objective is not fully pinned down.
  • λ2 (penalty factor) = 10^7
    Section IV B: 'This value of λ2 was found experimentally as the smallest value that ensures that all infeasible bitstrings have higher total costs than the optimal feasible one.' It calibrates the AR metric on the generated data.
  • γ (infeasibility strictness) = 1.2
    Section IV A: γ is 'an arbitrary strictness factor controlling probability of infeasibility'; chosen as 1.2 in feasibility filters.
  • β (degree-bias parameter) = 0.3
    Section IV A: generator placement uses degree-biased probabilities with β=0.3; chosen by hand, shapes instance difficulty.
  • ansatz depth = 1 layer
    Section IV D: benchmark uses '1 layer made up of single-qubit Hadamard gates, followed by R_ZZ gates...'; the null result is specific to this expressibility.
  • voltage magnitude bounds = [0, 100] p.u.
    Section IV A sets voltage limits to [0,100], effectively unconstrained; a modeling choice that may remove AC voltage constraints from the tested instances.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Phasor-based AC network equations (Eqs. 10-25) faithfully model the problem.
    The formulation assumes balanced, sinusoidal steady-state conditions and ignores dynamics and detailed multi-phase conductor physics; Section II.
  • domain assumption Random geometric graphs with lognormal loads, impedances, and costs are representative of AC-OPF-UC instances.
    Section IV A; the null result is established only on this synthetic distribution.
  • domain assumption IPOPT returns the correct optimum of the nonconvex continuous subproblem for each fixed bitstring within the 30-second budget.
    Section IV D; no global optimality certificate is provided, so C_opt and AR are computed from local solves.
  • ad hoc to paper The penalty magnitude λ2=10^7 indeed separates all infeasible bitstrings from the optimum as required.
    Section IV B asserts this was verified experimentally; it is not proven for all generated instances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms for Power Grid Optimization Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7O7WILQB

@misc{pith2026260715543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms for Power Grid Optimization Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7O7WILQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15543}
}
read the original abstract

Alternating Current Optimal Power Flow Unit Commitment (AC-OPF-UC) is a difficult mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem that combines binary generator commitment decisions with nonconvex continuous AC power-flow constraints. In this work, we investigate whether hybrid quantum-classical variational algorithms can improve the solution of single-period AC-OPF-UC relative to classical approaches. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to directly evaluate quantum or hybrid quantum-classical algorithms for the full AC-OPF-UC problem. We consider two candidate algorithms for improving AC-OPF-UC solution quality relative to purely classical methods on ideal quantum hardware. The first applies QAOA directly to a fully discretized formulation of the problem, with equality and inequality constraints incorporated through penalty terms and slack variables. Although conceptually straightforward, this approach requires a prohibitively large number of qubits even for small instances. The second, qubit-efficient approach encodes only the binary generator status variables on a quantum computer, while optimizing the continuous power-flow variables classically for each sampled bitstring. We benchmark this method on randomly generated AC-OPF-UC instances with 5 to 13 generators and compare it against SCIP, SMAC, and uniform random sampling. Our simulations show that the qubit-efficient hybrid method does not outperform uniform sampling. These results suggest that in order to establish potential advantage of the variational hybrid strategy considered here over the best classical algorithms, if any, much larger system sizes (25+ generators) need to be tested, which is beyond our computational capacity. Alternatively, different approaches, such as quantum versions of branch-and-bound methods, may be more promising.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15543 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A section of an input graph. The nodes represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the workflow of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean and maximum number of shots necessary to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of the AC-OPF-UC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instance-averaged approximation ratio of the best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AR of Hybrid minus AR of Uniform vs time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ARs of individual instances for 10 and 13 gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Strong np- hardness of ac power flows feasibility.Operations Re- search Letters, 47(6):494–501, 2019

    Daniel Bienstock and Abhinav Verma. Strong np- hardness of ac power flows feasibility.Operations Re- search Letters, 47(6):494–501, 2019. 14

    2019

  2. [2]

    The unit commit- ment problem with ac optimal power flow constraints

    Anya Castillo, Carl Laird, C´ esar A Silva-Monroy, Jean- Paul Watson, and Richard P O’Neill. The unit commit- ment problem with ac optimal power flow constraints. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 31(6):4853–4866, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Global solution strategies for the network-constrained unit commitment problem with ac transmission constraints.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34(2):1139–1150, 2018

    Jianfeng Liu, Carl D Laird, Joseph K Scott, Jean-Paul Watson, and Anya Castillo. Global solution strategies for the network-constrained unit commitment problem with ac transmission constraints.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 34(2):1139–1150, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Solutions of dc opf are never ac feasible

    Kyri Baker. Solutions of dc opf are never ac feasible. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Confer- ence on Future Energy Systems, pages 264–268, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    An misocp-based de- composition approach for the unit commitment problem with ac power flows.IEEE Transactions on Power Sys- tems, 38(4):3388–3400, 2022

    Deniz Tuncer and Burak Kocuk. An misocp-based de- composition approach for the unit commitment problem with ac power flows.IEEE Transactions on Power Sys- tems, 38(4):3388–3400, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Convex relaxation of optimal power flow—part i: Formulations and equivalence.IEEE Trans- actions on Control of Network Systems, 1(1):15–27, 2014

    Steven H Low. Convex relaxation of optimal power flow—part i: Formulations and equivalence.IEEE Trans- actions on Control of Network Systems, 1(1):15–27, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    A survey of relax- ations and approximations of the power flow equations

    Daniel K Molzahn and Ian A Hiskens. A survey of relax- ations and approximations of the power flow equations. Foundations and Trends in Electric Energy Systems, 4(1- 2):1–221, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Ac network-constrained unit commitment via relax- ation and decomposition.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37(3):2187–2196, 2021

    Gonzalo E Constante-Flores, Antonio J Conejo, and Feng Qiu. Ac network-constrained unit commitment via relax- ation and decomposition.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37(3):2187–2196, 2021

    2021

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Sequential relaxation of unit commitment with ac transmission constraints

    Fariba Zohrizadeh, Mohsen Kheirandishfard, Adnan Nasir, and Ramtin Madani. Sequential relaxation of unit commitment with ac transmission constraints. In2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2408–2413. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Managing power balance and reserve feasibility in the ac unit commitment problem.Electric Power Systems Research, 234:110670, 2024

    Robert Parker and Carleton Coffrin. Managing power balance and reserve feasibility in the ac unit commitment problem.Electric Power Systems Research, 234:110670, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations

    Aram W Harrow, Avinatan Hassidim, and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations. Physical review letters, 103(15):150502, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Ryan LaRose, Marco Cerezo, Yigit Subasi, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Quan- tum computing solution of dc power flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02442, 2020

    Rozhin Eskandarpour, Kumar Ghosh, Amin Khodaei, Li- uxi Zhang, Aleksi Paaso, and Shay Bahramirad. Quan- tum computing solution of dc power flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02442, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum comput- ing for power flow algorithms: Testing on real quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.14028, 2022

    Brynjar Sævarsson, Spyros Chatzivasileiadis, Hj¨ ortur J´ ohannsson, and Jacob Østergaard. Quantum comput- ing for power flow algorithms: Testing on real quantum computers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.14028, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A hybrid quantum algorithm for load flow

    David Neufeld, Sajad Fathi Hafshejani, Daya Gaur, and Robert Benkoczi. A hybrid quantum algorithm for load flow. InPower, Energy and Electrical Engineering: Pro- ceedings of the 14th International Conference (CPEEE 2024), Tokyo, Japan, 24–26 February 2024, pages 589–

    2024

  8. [16]

    Quantum-enhanced dc optimal power flow

    Farshad Amani, Reza Mahroo, and Amin Kargarian. Quantum-enhanced dc optimal power flow. In2023 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Optimal power flow solution via noise-resilient quantum interior-point methods.Electric Power Systems Research, 240:111216, 2025

    Farshad Amani and Amin Kargarian. Optimal power flow solution via noise-resilient quantum interior-point methods.Electric Power Systems Research, 240:111216, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Quantum algorithms for optimal power flow

    S Fathi Hafshejani, Md Mohsin Uddin, David Neufeld, Robert Benkoczi, and Daya Gaur. Quantum algorithms for optimal power flow. In2025 15th International Con- ference on Power, Energy, and Electrical Engineering (CPEEE), pages 295–300. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

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

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum annealing: An overview.Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 381(2241), 2023

    Atanu Rajak, Sei Suzuki, Amit Dutta, and Bikas K Chakrabarti. Quantum annealing: An overview.Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 381(2241), 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Quantum computing for energy systems optimization: Challenges and oppor- tunities.Energy, 179:76–89, 2019

    Akshay Ajagekar and Fengqi You. Quantum computing for energy systems optimization: Challenges and oppor- tunities.Energy, 179:76–89, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Adapting quantum approximation optimization algorithm (qaoa) for unit commitment

    Samantha Koretsky, Pranav Gokhale, Jonathan M Baker, Joshua Viszlai, Honghao Zheng, Niroj Gurung, Ryan Burg, Esa Aleksi Paaso, Amin Khodaei, Rozhin Eskandarpour, et al. Adapting quantum approximation optimization algorithm (qaoa) for unit commitment. In 2021 IEEE International...

    2021

  15. [23]

    A hybrid classical-quantum approach to highly constrained unit commitment problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11312, 2024

    Bruna Salgado, Andr´ e Sequeira, and Luis Paulo San- tos. A hybrid classical-quantum approach to highly constrained unit commitment problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11312, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A survey on applications of quantum computing for unit commitment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01777, 2026

    Milad Hasanzadeh, Ali Rajabi, and Amin Kargarian. A survey on applications of quantum computing for unit commitment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01777, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    Hybrid quantum- classical unit commitment

    Reza Mahroo and Amin Kargarian. Hybrid quantum- classical unit commitment. In2022 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Dc optimal power flow in unit commitment using quantum computing: An admm approach

    Madan Rana Magar, Dilip Pandit, Duong Nguyen, and Nga Nguyen. Dc optimal power flow in unit commitment using quantum computing: An admm approach. In2024 56th North American Power Symposium (NAPS), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Quantum distributed unit commitment: An application in microgrids.IEEE transactions on power systems, 37(5):3592–3603, 2022

    Nima Nikmehr, Peng Zhang, and Mikhail A Bragin. Quantum distributed unit commitment: An application in microgrids.IEEE transactions on power systems, 37(5):3592–3603, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Novel resolution of unit commitment problems through quantum surrogate lagrangian relaxation.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 38(3):2460–2471, 2022

    Fei Feng, Peng Zhang, Mikhail A Bragin, and Yifan Zhou. Novel resolution of unit commitment problems through quantum surrogate lagrangian relaxation.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 38(3):2460–2471, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    A review of vari- ational quantum algorithms: Insights into fault-tolerant quantum computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07909, 2026

    Zhirao Wang, Junxiang Huang, Runyu Ye, Qingyu Li, Qi-Ming Ding, Yiming Huang, Ting Zhang, Yumeng Zeng, Jianshuo Gao, Xiao Yuan, et al. A review of vari- ational quantum algorithms: Insights into fault-tolerant quantum computing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07909, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5:479, 2021

    Daniel J Egger, Jakub Mareˇ cek, and Stefan Woerner. Warm-starting quantum optimization.Quantum, 5:479, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Warm-started qaoa with custom mixers provably converges and computationally beats goemans-williamson’s max-cut at low circuit depths

    Reuben Tate, Jai Moondra, Bryan Gard, Greg Mohler, and Swati Gupta. Warm-started qaoa with custom mixers provably converges and computationally beats goemans-williamson’s max-cut at low circuit depths. Quantum, 7:1121, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Alignment between initial state and mixer im- proves qaoa performance for constrained optimization

    Zichang He, Ruslan Shaydulin, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Dylan Herman, Changhao Li, Yue Sun, and Marco Pis- 15 toia. Alignment between initial state and mixer im- proves qaoa performance for constrained optimization. npj Quantum Information, 9(1):121, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability dis- tributions.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0208112, 2002

    Lov Grover and Terry Rudolph. Creating superpositions that correspond to efficiently integrable probability dis- tributions.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0208112, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Transformation of quantum states us- ing uniformly controlled rotations.arXiv preprint quant- ph/0407010, 2004

    Mikko Mottonen, Juha J Vartiainen, Ville Bergholm, and Martti M Salomaa. Transformation of quantum states us- ing uniformly controlled rotations.arXiv preprint quant- ph/0407010, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    Synthesis of quantum logic circuits

    Vivek V Shende, Stephen S Bullock, and Igor L Markov. Synthesis of quantum logic circuits. InProceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Confer- ence, pages 272–275, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Ef- ficient sparse state preparation via quantum walks.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):143, 2025

    Alvin Gonzales, Rebekah Herrman, Colin Campbell, Igor Gaidai, Ji Liu, Teague Tomesh, and Zain H Saleem. Ef- ficient sparse state preparation via quantum walks.npj Quantum Information, 11(1):143, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Simu- lating quantum walk hamiltonians without pauli decom- position.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11418, 2026

    Mostafa Atallah, Alvin Gonzales, Daniel Dilley, Igor Gaidai, Zain H Saleem, and Rebekah Herrman. Simu- lating quantum walk hamiltonians without pauli decom- position.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11418, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Decomposition of sparse amplitude permutation gates with application to preparation of sparse clustered quantum states.Quantum Information Processing, 25(1):31, 2026

    Igor Gaidai and Rebekah Herrman. Decomposition of sparse amplitude permutation gates with application to preparation of sparse clustered quantum states.Quantum Information Processing, 25(1):31, 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’gorman, Eleanor G Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algorithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Con- straint preserving mixers for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Algorithms, 15(6):202, 2022

    Franz Georg Fuchs, Kjetil Olsen Lye, Halvor Møll Nilsen, Alexander Johannes Stasik, and Giorgio Sartor. Con- straint preserving mixers for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Algorithms, 15(6):202, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation

    Andreas B¨ artschi and Stephan Eidenbenz. Grover mixers for qaoa: Shifting complexity from mixer design to state preparation. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), pages 72–

  34. [42]

    Learning feasi- ble quantum states for quadratic constrained binary op- timization problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02590, 2025

    Anthony Wilkie, Alexander DeLise, Andrew Del Real, Rebekah Herrman, and James Ostrowski. Learning feasi- ble quantum states for quadratic constrained binary op- timization problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02590, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wright.Numerical Opti- mization

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright.Numerical Opti- mization. Springer, New York, 2 edition, 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with random and subgraph phase operators

    Anthony Wilkie, Igor Gaidai, James Ostrowski, and Re- bekah Herrman. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm with random and subgraph phase operators. Physical Review A, 110(2):022441, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    A new hy- brid quantum-classical algorithm for solving the unit commitment problem

    Willie Aboumrad, Phani R V Marthi, Suman Debnath, Martin Roetteler, and Evgeny Epifanovsky. A new hy- brid quantum-classical algorithm for solving the unit commitment problem. In2025 IEEE International Con- ference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), volume 1, pages 19...

    1905

  38. [46]

    Predict-and- optimize robust unit commitment with statistical guar- antees via weight combination.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

    Rui Xie, Yue Chen, and Pierre Pinson. Predict-and- optimize robust unit commitment with statistical guar- antees via weight combination.IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Mixed integer programming to globally minimize the economic load dispatch problem with valve-point effect

    Michael Azzam, S Selvan, Augustin Lef` evre, and P-A Ab- sil. Mixed integer programming to globally minimize the economic load dispatch problem with valve-point effect. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.4261, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence

    St´ ephane Boucheron, G´ abor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence. Oxford University Press, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Enabling research through the SCIP optimization suite 8.0.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 49(2):1–21, 2023

    Ksenia Bestuzheva, Mathieu Besan¸ con, Wei-Kun Chen, Antonia Chmiela, Tim Donkiewicz, Jasper van Doorn- malen, Leon Eifler, et al. Enabling research through the SCIP optimization suite 8.0.ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 49(2):1–21, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Smac3: A versatile bayesian optimization package for hy- perparameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(54):1–9, 2022

    Marius Lindauer, Katharina Eggensperger, Matthias Feurer, Andr´ e Biedenkapp, Difan Deng, Carolin Ben- jamins, Tim Ruhkopf, Ren´ e Sass, and Frank Hutter. Smac3: A versatile bayesian optimization package for hy- perparameter optimization.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2...

    2022

  43. [51]

    Noisyopt: A python library for optimiz- ing noisy functions.J

    Andreas Mayer. Noisyopt: A python library for optimiz- ing noisy functions.J. Open Source Softw., 2(13):258, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Multivariate stochastic approximation us- ing a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation

    James C Spall. Multivariate stochastic approximation us- ing a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 37(3):332–341, 2002

    2002

  45. [53]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Simultaneous perturbation stochastic ap- proximation of the quantum fisher information.Quan- tum, 5:567, 2021

    Julien Gacon, Christa Zoufal, Giuseppe Carleo, and Ste- fan Woerner. Simultaneous perturbation stochastic ap- proximation of the quantum fisher information.Quan- tum, 5:567, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Casadi—a software framework for non- linear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1–36, 2018

    Joel Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, Jim Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. Casadi—a software framework for non- linear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1–36, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    On the im- plementation of an interior-point filter line-search algo- rithm for large-scale nonlinear programming.Mathemat- ical programming, 106(1):25–57, 2006

    Andreas W¨ achter and Lorenz T Biegler. On the im- plementation of an interior-point filter line-search algo- rithm for large-scale nonlinear programming.Mathemat- ical programming, 106(1):25–57, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    A quan- tum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits.Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019

    Philip Krantz, Morten Kjaergaard, Fei Yan, Terry P Or- lando, Simon Gustavsson, and William D Oliver. A quan- tum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits.Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges.Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019

    Colin D Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M Sage. Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges.Applied physics reviews, 6(2), 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    On performance and limitations of nisq hard- ware for simulations of quantum wave packet dynamics

    Tamila Kuanysheva, Jonathan Andrade-Plascencia, Jayakrushna Sahoo, Brian Kendrick, and Dmitri Babikov. On performance and limitations of nisq hard- ware for simulations of quantum wave packet dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20078, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Performance anal- ysis of multi-angle qaoa for p>1.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18911, 2024

    Igor Gaidai and Rebekah Herrman. Performance anal- ysis of multi-angle qaoa for p>1.Scientific Reports, 14(1):18911, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Training saturation in layerwise quantum approximate optimization.Physical Review A, 104(3):L030401, 2021

    Ernesto Campos, Daniil Rabinovich, Vishwanathan Ak- shay, and J Biamonte. Training saturation in layerwise quantum approximate optimization.Physical Review A, 104(3):L030401, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Parameter trans- fer for quantum approximate optimization of weighted maxcut.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4(3):1–15, 2023

    Ruslan Shaydulin, Phillip C Lotshaw, Jeffrey Larson, James Ostrowski, and Travis S Humble. Parameter trans- fer for quantum approximate optimization of weighted maxcut.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 4(3):1–15, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Similarity- 16 based parameter transferability in the quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm.Frontiers in Quantum Sci- ence and Technology, 2:1200975, 2023

    Alexey Galda, Eesh Gupta, Jose Falla, Xiaoyuan Liu, Danylo Lykov, Yuri Alexeev, and Ilya Safro. Similarity- 16 based parameter transferability in the quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm.Frontiers in Quantum Sci- ence and Technology, 2:1200975, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Data-driven quantum approximate optimization algorithm for power systems

    Hang Jing, Ye Wang, and Yan Li. Data-driven quantum approximate optimization algorithm for power systems. Communications Engineering, 2(1):12, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices.Physical Review X, 10(2):021067, 2020

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices.Physical Review X, 10(2):021067, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.quantum, 5:491, 2021

    Stefan H Sack and Maksym Serbyn. Quantum annealing initialization of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.quantum, 5:491, 2021

    2021

  59. [67]

    A depth-progressive initialization strategy for quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.Mathematics, 11(9):2176, 2023

    Xinwei Lee, Ningyi Xie, Dongsheng Cai, Yoshiyuki Saito, and Nobuyoshi Asai. A depth-progressive initialization strategy for quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm.Mathematics, 11(9):2176, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Safe ma-qaoa: Surrogate-assisted and fine-tuning enhanced multi-angle qaoa with parameter distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23377, 2026

    Hyunwoo Kim and Youngseok Lee. Safe ma-qaoa: Surrogate-assisted and fine-tuning enhanced multi-angle qaoa with parameter distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23377, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Multi-angle quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm.Scientific Re- ports, 12(1):6781, 2022

    Rebekah Herrman, Phillip C Lotshaw, James Ostrowski, Travis S Humble, and George Siopsis. Multi-angle quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm.Scientific Re- ports, 12(1):6781, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Iterative layer- wise training for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Physical Review A, 109(5):052406, 2024

    Xinwei Lee, Xinjian Yan, Ningyi Xie, Dongsheng Cai, Yoshiyuki Saito, and Nobuyoshi Asai. Iterative layer- wise training for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm.Physical Review A, 109(5):052406, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    A cyclic layerwise qaoa train- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20029, 2026

    Enhyeok Jang, Zihan Chen, Dongho Ha, Seungwoo Choi, Yongju Lee, Jaewon Kwon, Eddy Z Zhang, Yipeng Huang, and Won Woo Ro. A cyclic layerwise qaoa train- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20029, 2026

    2026

  64. [72]

    Quantum speedup of branch- and-bound algorithms.Physical Review Research, 2(1):013056, 2020

    Ashley Montanaro. Quantum speedup of branch- and-bound algorithms.Physical Review Research, 2(1):013056, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Benders’ decomposition of the unit commitment problem with semidefinite relaxation of ac power flow constraints

    M Paredes, LSA Martins, S Soares, and Hongxing Ye. Benders’ decomposition of the unit commitment problem with semidefinite relaxation of ac power flow constraints. Electric Power Systems Research, 192:106965, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Integer programming using a single atom.Quantum sci- ence and technology, 9(4):045016, 2024

    Kapil Goswami, Peter Schmelcher, and Rick Mukherjee. Integer programming using a single atom.Quantum sci- ence and technology, 9(4):045016, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Qudit-based scalable quantum algorithm for solv- ing the integer programming problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13906, 2025

    Kapil Goswami, Peter Schmelcher, and Rick Mukher- jee. Qudit-based scalable quantum algorithm for solv- ing the integer programming problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13906, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  68. [600]

    SAGE Publications 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.