Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

ProvideQ: A Quantum Optimization Toolbox

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ProvideQ shows that hybrid quantum-classical solver orchestration is feasible today, with no performance advantage over classical solvers yet.

desk verdict ProvideQ is a genuine, openly documented hybrid optimization toolbox whose proof of concept only exercises a local simulator, so the 'seamless multi-backend' claim is ahead of the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07649 v2 pith:I4DG6QRU submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph cs.SE

Domenik Eichhorn , Nick Poser , Maximilian Schweikart , Ina Schaefer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.SE
keywords hybridquantum-classicaloptimizationMeta-SolverstrategiescombinatorialvehicleroutingproblemQUBOtransformationquantumannealingsoftwaretoolboxQAOA
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 introduces ProvideQ, a software toolbox that lets users assemble hybrid quantum-classical solvers from interchangeable classical and quantum subroutines. It claims that this 'Meta-Solver strategy' approach already makes quantum subroutines usable in practice for combinatorial optimization, even though the underlying hardware is not yet competitive. A proof of concept on ten small vehicle-routing instances shows a purely classical configuration always matches the best reachable solution, while a hybrid configuration that encodes routing problems as QUBOs and runs them on a quantum annealing simulator produces valid but scattered solutions. The authors conclude that the software stack has matured to the point where hybrid solving can be orchestrated today, and that further progress depends on the hardware.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Meta-Solver strategy, realized as a graph of Problem and ProblemSolver objects in which any solver may spawn subproblems that must be solved before the parent is complete. The running example is the Two-Phase TSP Clustering decomposition of the vehicle routing problem: a clustering phase, modeled as a knapsack problem, produces TSP instances, and each TSP is routed either classically with LKH-3 or by a QUBO transformation solved on a quantum annealing simulator. The Process component wraps circuit optimization techniques and backend selection so the user only manipulates problem and solver objects through the API; the same object model treats circuit processing as just another problem type, so quantum execution details are hidden behind the same interface.

What would settle it

For each QOPTLib instance, compare the true VRP optimum with the best solution reachable after applying Two-Phase TSP Clustering; any instance where these two values differ proves the decomposition loses the global optimum, and every solver built on it — classical or hybrid — inherits that loss.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Meta-Solver strategies — modular decompositions that split a problem into classical and quantum subproblems — form a viable software foundation for hybrid optimization in the NISQ era. The paper implements this claim in the ProvideQ toolbox and demonstrates it on vehicle routing: the Two-Phase TSP Clustering splits a VRP into a clustering phase and TSP routing problems, and each TSP can be solved either by the classical LKH-3 solver or by a Lucas-style QUBO encoding executed on a quantum annealing simulator. On the QOPTLib benchmark the classical configuration always found the best clustered solution, whereas the hybrid configuration found valid solutions whose quality scattered and required more runtime. The authors read these results as proof that the enabling technology works — users can configure, execute, and compose hybrid solvers through a GUI or API — while the quantum hardware itself is the current bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes the Two-Phase TSP Clustering is a valid decomposition of the VRP; the paper's own Figure 7 shows that clustering can exclude the global optimum, so the hybrid solver's ceiling is set by the decomposition, not by the quantum subroutine.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user without quantum expertise can configure a hybrid solver through the graphical interface or API and get valid solutions without writing a circuit.
  • The subproblem graph is general: the same Meta-Solver architecture can express other decompositions and other quantum subroutines, not just VRP with clustering.
  • Because solvers are interchangeable modules, the same instance can be run under different strategies and compared directly, giving a testbed for decomposition and encoding research.
  • The proof of concept implies performance gains must come from hardware or encoding improvements, not from better orchestration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own data suggest a practical caveat: before attributing a solution gap to the quantum subroutine, one should check the loss introduced by the clustering step, which Figure 7 shows can be nonzero.
  • A natural extension the paper does not develop is to use the bound endpoints to certify the decomposition loss up front, letting users know whether a chosen clustering can reach the global optimum at all.
  • Interpreting 'enables the application' strictly, the claim is about workflow feasibility; a competitive test would need instances hard enough that LKH-3 is not trivially optimal, where simulator-based hybrid solvers are likely infeasible and real-device noise becomes the binding constraint.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ProvideQ, an open-source software toolbox for hybrid quantum-classical combinatorial optimization. The central idea is 'Meta-Solver strategies': user-configurable decomposition workflows that split an optimization problem into classical and quantum subroutines, orchestrate their execution, and compose the results. The paper describes the client-server architecture (Problem, Solver, Process components), a graphical frontend, an HTTPS API with a Python wrapper, and a set of supported problems (VRP, TSP, knapsack, max-cut, SAT, QUBO) and methods (QAOA, Grover, LKH-3, Horowitz-Sahni, QUBO transformations). The proof of concept in Section V configures two VRP solvers via the API: a classical solver (2-Phase TSP Clustering plus LKH-3) and a hybrid solver (same clustering, TSP-to-QUBO transformation, solved with the D-Wave state vector simulator). Both are run on ten QOPTLib VRP instances with ten trials each. The classical solver always finds the clustering-constrained optimum, while the hybrid solver finds it in only some trials and is slower. The authors conclude that the toolbox makes hybrid solvers usable today but that quantum hardware is not yet competitive with classical solvers. The paper explicitly disclaims any general performance conclusion from this small case study.

Significance. If the implementation claims hold, ProvideQ is a useful and timely open-source contribution: it provides a modular, extensible platform for experimenting with decomposition-based hybrid solvers, and the proof-of-concept code is publicly available on GitHub, which is a concrete reproducibility strength. The paper is appropriately modest about performance: it does not claim a quantum advantage, and it openly notes that the clustering decomposition can exclude global optima and that runtime comparisons are not meaningful because a simulator was used. However, the headline claims that quantum circuits are 'seamlessly executable on multiple backends' and that Meta-Solver strategies already 'enable the application of quantum subroutines today' outrun the evidence, since the only exercised backend is a local simulator and no gate-based circuit or vendor API is tested. Those claims need either additional experimentation or explicit narrowing.

major comments (3)
  1. [V.A–V.B and Abstract] The proof of concept exercises only the D-Wave state vector simulator (Section V.A) and never executes a gate-based quantum circuit or contacts any of the advertised vendor backends (IBM via Qiskit, Rigetti/IonQ via PlanQK, Section IV.C). Consequently, the abstract's claim that ProvideQ provides 'quantum circuits that are seamlessly executable on multiple backends' and the conclusion that Meta-Solver strategies 'already enable the application of quantum subroutines today' are not supported by the reported experiments. The paper should either add an experiment running a QAOA or Grover circuit on at least one additional backend or simulator, or explicitly restrict the claim to simulated quantum annealing backends.
  2. [V.B, Figure 7] Figure 7 shows that the 2-Phase TSP Clustering decomposition itself can exclude the global optimum: the 'Optimal solution (without clustering)' lies below 'Optimal solution (with clustering)' on several instances. Because both solvers in the case study operate only on the clustered instances, their reported solution quality is measured against a decomposition-constrained ceiling, not against the original VRP optimum. The paper should report the per-instance gap between the two optimal markers and state explicitly that the hybrid solver inherits any suboptimality of the selected decomposition; otherwise the 'reasonable results' conclusion in Section V.B is difficult to interpret.
  3. [IV.C] The description of the execution workflow says that when a circuit does not match backend requirements 'an error message is returned and the user has to select another backend or recompile the circuit.' This directly qualifies the abstract's 'seamlessly executable' promise and suggests that the backend abstraction is not yet fully automatic. The authors should either demonstrate automatic transpilation/selection in the proof of concept or rephrase 'seamless' to something like 'transparently executable through a uniform API with explicit backend selection and manual fallback.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV.B] The heading 'Implemementing Meta-Solver Strategies' contains a typo; it should read 'Implementing Meta-Solver Strategies.'
  2. [IV.C] There are several typos in this section: 'tanspiled' should be 'transpiled' and 'Qiksit' should be 'Qiskit'.
  3. [II.A] The phrase 'have a efficient orchestration' should be 'have an efficient orchestration.'
  4. [V.A] There are typos in the experiment description: 'intial VRP' should be 'initial VRP,' 'citites' should be 'cities,' and 'concluding a total of 100 runs' should be 'for a total of 100 runs' or 'resulting in a total of 100 runs.'
  5. [IV.D] The API endpoint paths are written with spaces, e.g., '/problems/ {problemType}'; these should be '/problems/{problemType}' to match the running text and actual URL conventions.
  6. [Abstract and Section III] The abstract's claim that users can 'easily adapt and configure' hybrid solvers is not supported by any usability study or user evaluation; consider softening the wording or adding a brief usability assessment of the frontend and API.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper implements a cited framework with external solvers and benchmarks, and makes no fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is that the ProvideQ toolbox implements Meta-Solver strategies for hybrid quantum-classical optimization and that a proof of concept demonstrates such subroutines can be applied today. The Meta-Solving concept is indeed introduced in the authors' prior work [9], but that self-citation defines the framework being implemented; it is not used as evidence for any empirical result, and the paper's proof of concept stands independently of whether [9] is accepted. No parameters are fitted and no derived quantity is predicted from data: the experiment directly runs LKH-3 and the D-Wave state vector simulator on VRP instances from the external QOPTLib benchmark, with the TSP-to-QUBO encoding taken from Lucas [26] and the clustering method from Laporte et al. [24]. None of these ingredients reduces by construction to the paper's own conclusions. The admitted limitation that clustering can exclude the global optimum (Figure 7) and the fact that the quantum execution was only simulated on a local simulator are legitimate evidence gaps about generality and hardware readiness, not circularity. Consequently, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The paper relies on standard mathematical formulations (Lucas Ising mapping), domain assumptions about NISQ-era quantum subroutines, and the representativeness of the small benchmark set. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quantum subroutines such as QAOA and Grover can be treated as interchangeable building blocks in a software abstraction.
    The entire Meta-Solver architecture in Section IV.B models quantum solvers as ProblemSolver wrappers, assuming this abstraction faithfully represents the behavior of quantum algorithms.
  • standard math The Lucas Ising formulation correctly maps TSP to QUBO.
    Section V.A states the QUBO transformation uses the encoding from Lucas [26]; the correctness of the hybrid solver depends on this mapping being valid.
  • domain assumption The QOPTLib benchmark instances are representative of the intended use cases.
    The proof of concept in Section V uses all ten VRP instances from QOPTLib, ranging from 4 to 8 cities; the paper does not test larger or more varied instances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ProvideQ: A Quantum Optimization Toolbox." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4DG6QRU

@misc{pith2026250707649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ProvideQ: A Quantum Optimization Toolbox},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4DG6QRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07649}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid solvers for combinatorial optimization problems combine the advantages of classical and quantum computing to overcome difficult computational challenges. Although their theoretical performance seems promising, their practical applicability is challenging due to the lack of a technological stack that can seamlessly integrate quantum solutions with existing classical optimization frameworks. We tackle this challenge by introducing the ProvideQ toolbox, a software tool that enables users to easily adapt and configure hybrid solvers via Meta-Solver strategies. A Meta-Solver strategy implements decomposition techniques, which splits problems into classical and quantum subroutines. The ProvideQ toolbox enables the interactive creation of such decompositions via a Meta-Solver configuration tool. It combines well-established classical optimization techniques with quantum circuits that are seamlessly executable on multiple backends. This paper introduces the technical details of the ProvideQ toolbox, explains its architecture, and demonstrates possible applications for several real-world use cases. Our proof of concept shows that Meta-Solver strategies already enable the application of quantum subroutines today, however, more sophisticated hardware is required to make their performance competitive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07649 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Running Example for a Vehicle Routing Meta-Solver Strategy [9]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the ProvideQ Toolbox. A. Solver Configuration with a Graphical User Interface The ProvideQ Frontend provides an easy-to-use interface that allows users to explore different solution strategies with￾out having to understand the technical details. As visualized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , a user is welcomed on a landing page (1) on which a Problem Mask can be selected. These include, for instance, the VRP, TSP, and knapsack problem. Each Problem Mask provides a description of the problem, a standardized input field, and basic utilities, such as the ability to load example problems. In our example, the user selects the Vehicle Routing Problem Mask (2). The user inserts a VRP instance and then clicks… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Client-Server software architecture of the ProvideQ toolbox. All [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Class Diagram visualizing the architecture of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Workflow of the Process component. D. Detailed API Specification This section describes the ProvideQ API in detail by ex￾plaining all exposed endpoints. Following the Meta-Solver strategy architecture, the API is structured around the concepts of Problem Types, Problem…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results from the VRP Solving case study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing: Progress and innovation,

    G. T. Byrd and Y . Ding, “Quantum computing: Progress and innovation,” Computer, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 , 2014

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,”Nature communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

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

    R. Shaydulin, C. Li, S. Chakrabarti, M. DeCross, D. Herman, N. Kumar, J. Larson, D. Lykov, P. Minssen, Y . Sun et al. , “Evidence of scaling advantage for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm on a classically intractable problem,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 22, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing for lo- gistics and supply chain optimization,

    C. P ´erez, A. Rodr´ıguez, and L. Hern ´andez, “Quantum computing for lo- gistics and supply chain optimization,” Journal of Tecnologia Quantica, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 322–331, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Middleware for quantum: An orchestration of hybrid quantum- classical systems,

    I. Faro, I. Sitdikov, D. G. Vali ˜nas, F. J. M. Fernandez, C. Codella, and J. Glick, “Middleware for quantum: An orchestration of hybrid quantum- classical systems,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Software (QSW), 2023, pp. 1–8

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

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

    2024

  8. [8]

    Qrisp: A framework for compilable high- level programming of gate-based quantum computers,

    R. Seidel, S. Bock, R. Zander, M. Petri ˇc, N. Steinmann, N. Tcholtchev, and M. Hauswirth, “Qrisp: A framework for compilable high- level programming of gate-based quantum computers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14792, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Hybrid meta-solving for practical quantum computing,

    D. Eichhorn, M. Schweikart, N. Poser, F. Fiand, B. Poggel, and J. M. Lorenz, “Hybrid meta-solving for practical quantum computing,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01, 2024, pp. 421–431

    2024

  2. [10]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

    L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , 1996, pp. 212–219

    1996

  3. [11]

    An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,

    K. Helsgaun, “An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,” Roskilde: Roskilde University, vol. 12, pp. 966–980, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Computing partitions with applications to the knapsack problem,

    E. Horowitz and S. Sahni, “Computing partitions with applications to the knapsack problem,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 277–292, 1974

    1974

  5. [13]

    Approximation algorithms for np-hard problems,

    D. S. Hochba, “Approximation algorithms for np-hard problems,” ACM Sigact News, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 40–52, 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    Experimental evaluation of heuristic optimization algorithms: A tutorial,

    R. L. Rardin and R. Uzsoy, “Experimental evaluation of heuristic optimization algorithms: A tutorial,” Journal of Heuristics , vol. 7, pp. 261–304, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

    P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization,

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B ¨artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V . Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen et al., “Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization,”Nature Reviews Physics, pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bridging classical and quantum with sdp initialized warm-starts for qaoa,

    R. Tate, M. Farhadi, C. Herold, G. Mohler, and S. Gupta, “Bridging classical and quantum with sdp initialized warm-starts for qaoa,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–39, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

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

    R. Tate, J. Moondra, B. Gard, G. Mohler, and S. Gupta, “Warm-started qaoa with custom mixers provably converges and computationally beats goemans-williamson’s max-cut at low circuit depths,” Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1121, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    The optimization landscape of hybrid quantum–classical algorithms: From quantum control to nisq applications,

    X. Ge, R.-B. Wu, and H. Rabitz, “The optimization landscape of hybrid quantum–classical algorithms: From quantum control to nisq applications,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 54, pp. 314–323, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,

    D. Layden, G. Mazzola, R. V . Mishmash, M. Motta, P. Wocjan, J.-S. Kim, and S. Sheldon, “Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo,” Nature, vol. 619, no. 7969, pp. 282–287, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Polylithic modeling and solution approaches using algebraic modeling systems,

    J. Kallrath, “Polylithic modeling and solution approaches using algebraic modeling systems,” Optimization Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 453–466, Aug

  14. [22]

    Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems,

    J. F. Benders, “Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems,” Computational Management Science , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–19, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    The decomposition algorithm for linear programs,

    G. B. Dantzig and P. Wolfe, “The decomposition algorithm for linear programs,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pp. 767– 778, 1961

    1961

  16. [24]

    Classical heuristics for the capacitated vrp,

    G. Laporte and F. Semet, “Classical heuristics for the capacitated vrp,” in The vehicle routing problem . SIAM, 2002, pp. 109–128

    2002

  17. [25]

    A hybrid solution method for the capacitated vehicle routing problem using a quantum annealer,

    S. Feld, C. Roch, T. Gabor, C. Seidel, F. Neukart, I. Galter, W. Mauerer, and C. Linnhoff-Popien, “A hybrid solution method for the capacitated vehicle routing problem using a quantum annealer,” Frontiers in ICT , vol. 6, p. 13, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Ising formulations of many np problems,

    A. Lucas, “Ising formulations of many np problems,” Frontiers in physics, vol. 2, p. 5, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Reducing t-count with the zx- calculus,

    A. Kissinger and J. van de Wetering, “Reducing t-count with the zx- calculus,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10477 , 2019

    1903 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Resource efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions,

    A. He, B. Nachman, W. A. de Jong, and C. W. Bauer, “Resource efficient zero noise extrapolation with identity insertions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04941, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Planqk—platform and ecosystem for quantum applications,

    M. Falkenthal, C. Krieger, F. Paul, S. Wagner, and M. Wurster, “Planqk—platform and ecosystem for quantum applications,” KI- K¨unstliche Intelligenz, pp. 1–7, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    The nisq analyzer: automating the selection of quantum computers for quantum algorithms,

    M. Salm, J. Barzen, U. Breitenb ¨ucher, F. Leymann, B. Weder, and K. Wild, “The nisq analyzer: automating the selection of quantum computers for quantum algorithms,” in Symposium and summer school on service-oriented computing . Springer, 2020, pp. 66–85

    2020

  23. [31]

    Mqt predictor: Automatic device selection with device-specific circuit compilation for quantum computing,

    N. Quetschlich, L. Burgholzer, and R. Wille, “Mqt predictor: Automatic device selection with device-specific circuit compilation for quantum computing,” ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Qoptlib: a quantum comput- ing oriented benchmark for combinatorial optimization problems,

    E. Osaba and E. Villar-Rodriguez, “Qoptlib: a quantum comput- ing oriented benchmark for combinatorial optimization problems,” in Benchmarks and Hybrid Algorithms in Optimization and Applications . Springer, 2023, pp. 49–63

    2023

  25. [33]

    A Predictive Approach for Selecting the Best Quantum Solver for an Optimization Problem,

    D. V olpe, N. Quetschlich, M. Graziano, G. Turvani, and R. Wille, “A Predictive Approach for Selecting the Best Quantum Solver for an Optimization Problem,” in IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Quafu-qcover: Explore combinatorial optimization problems on cloud-based quantum computers,

    H.-Z. Xu, W.-F. Zhuang, Z.-A. Wang, K.-X. Huang, Y .-H. Shi, W.-G. Ma, T.-M. Li, C.-T. Chen, K. Xu, Y .-L. Feng et al. , “Quafu-qcover: Explore combinatorial optimization problems on cloud-based quantum computers,” Chinese Physics B , vol. 33, no. 5, p. 050302, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Qplex: Realizing the integration of quantum computing into combinatorial optimization software,

    J. Giraldo, J. Ossorio, N. M. Villegas, G. Tamura, and U. Stege, “Qplex: Realizing the integration of quantum computing into combinatorial optimization software,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1044–1049

    2023

  28. [36]

    Pyqubo: Python library for mapping combinatorial optimization problems to qubo form,

    M. Zaman, K. Tanahashi, and S. Tanaka, “Pyqubo: Python library for mapping combinatorial optimization problems to qubo form,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 838–850, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Quokka: a service ecosystem for workflow-based execu- tion of variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Beisel, J. Barzen, S. Garhofer, F. Leymann, F. Truger, B. Weder, and V . Yussupov, “Quokka: a service ecosystem for workflow-based execu- tion of variational quantum algorithms,” in International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 2022, pp. 369–373

    2022

  30. [38]

    Utilizing a standards-based toolchain to model and execute quantum workflows,

    M. Beisel, J. Alvarado-Valiente, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, J. Romero- ´Alvarez, L. Stiliadou, and B. Weder, “Utilizing a standards-based toolchain to model and execute quantum workflows,” in International Conference on Web Engineering . Springer, 2024, pp. 401–405

    2024

  31. [39]

    Creating au- tomated quantum-assisted solutions for optimization problems,

    B. Poggel, X. Runge, A. B ¨arligea, and J. M. Lorenz, “Creating au- tomated quantum-assisted solutions for optimization problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20496, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [2011]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-011-0320-4

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-011-0320-4

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.