Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Quantum Annealing Enhanced Markov-Chain Monte Carlo

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

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum annealing sweep can serve as a proposal generator inside Markov-chain Monte Carlo, and on the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass it accelerates convergence by more than twelvefold while preserving the exact target distribution.

desk verdict The M-H construction is sound and the QA proposal idea is a real incremental twist, but per-instance tuning of annealing time against the exact spectral gap makes the reported speedup an envelope, not a practical algorithm, and Table 2 is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08060 v1 pith:VBOTNVVL submitted 2025-02-12 quant-ph

Shunta Arai , Tadashi Kadowaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 05.10.Ln03.67.Ac
keywords quantumannealingMarkovchainMonteCarloMetropolis-HastingsSherrington-KirkpatrickmodelspectralgapmixingtimespinglassBoltzmannsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a quantum annealer can be used not as a final sampler, but as a proposal generator inside a classical Markov-chain Monte Carlo loop. The authors insert the state produced by a short quantum annealing run into a Metropolis-Hastings acceptance test, which guarantees that the chain still converges to the exact Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution. On the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin-glass model at small sizes, they find that this QA-enhanced proposal gives a Markov chain with a much larger spectral gap than local or uniform spin updates, corresponding to dramatically faster mixing. The central quantitative claim is that the QA-update chain reaches a fixed accuracy in the energy estimator in about 618 Monte Carlo steps, more than twelve times faster than the best classical update tested. If this holds, quantum hardware could be used to accelerate sampling in spin-glass-like problems without changing the target distribution.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the QA proposal distribution Q_QA(σ)=|⟨σ|ψ(τ)⟩|^2, obtained by evolving the uniform superposition under the transverse-field Hamiltonian H(s)=s H0 - (1-s) Σ σ^x for a time τ and measuring in the computational basis. The paper feeds this into the Metropolis-Hastings acceptance probability A(σ'|σ)=min(1, μ(σ')/μ(σ) · Q(σ|σ')/Q(σ'|σ)), so the detailed-balance condition is preserved and the stationary distribution is the target Boltzmann distribution. The absolute spectral gap δ of the resulting transition matrix carries the argument: the mixing time is bounded by the inverse gap, so a larger gap directly implies faster convergence. The paper computes δ as a function of temperature, system size, and annealing time τ, with τ tuned per instance to maximize δ.

What would settle it

Run QAEMCMC on Sherrington-Kirkpatrick instances at sizes around N=16 to 20 with a fixed or adaptively estimated annealing time (no spectral-gap oracle), and compare the convergence of the energy estimator and total variation distance against local and uniform updates; if the QA chain is not faster under such a schedule, the central claim fails. A second check: monitor the acceptance probability of QA proposals as N grows, since a decay toward zero would neutralize the gap advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that taking the output of a quantum annealing sweep, specifically the probability distribution over spin configurations at the end of a Schrodinger evolution under a transverse field that is slowly turned off, as the proposal distribution in a Metropolis-Hastings update yields a Markov chain whose spectral gap can be much larger than that of local or uniform updates on the SK model. Because the chain uses the standard acceptance probability, the stationary distribution remains exactly the Gibbs-Boltzmann target; the QA solver only biases which moves are proposed. The authors report that at temperature T=1, the spectral gap of the QA-update chain decays with system size N as roughly $2^{{-0.254 N}}$, versus $2^{{-0.939 N}}$ for uniform updates and $2^{{-0.855 N}}$ for local updates. On a hard instance, the QA chain reaches an energy error of 0.1 in about 618 Monte Carlo steps, while the local update needs about 7,920 and the uniform update about 21,232, an improvement of more than twelvefold.

Load-bearing premise

The advantage depends on choosing the annealing time individually for each instance by maximizing the exactly computed spectral gap, a procedure that cannot be carried out for the large systems where the speed-up would matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any MCMC code that uses Metropolis-Hastings can incorporate a QA proposal without changing its target distribution, so the speed-up is portable to other Boltzmann samplers.
  • On the SK model at T=1, reaching an energy error of 0.1 takes about 618 Monte Carlo steps with the QA update versus 7,920 with the local update and 21,232 with the uniform update, a speed-up of more than twelvefold.
  • The spectral-gap decay exponent at T=1 is 0.254 for QA versus 0.939 for uniform and 0.855 for local updates, so the gap advantage widens with system size within the small sizes simulated.
  • QA proposals combine large Hamming distance from the current state with small energy difference, which explains the high acceptance probability and the ability to move between local minima.
  • The empirical distribution from the QA chain approaches the target Gibbs distribution faster in total variation distance, as shown by the earlier convergence visible in the dynamics simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper tunes the annealing time per instance by maximizing the exact spectral gap; whether the speed-up survives with a fixed or self-adapting schedule is the key open question, and it can be tested by re-running the dynamics with a single schedule chosen from the reported optimized-τ histograms.
  • Because the QA proposal here is independent of the current state, QAEMCMC is effectively a Metropolized independent sampler; this suggests the essential ingredient is a proposal distribution that is both close to the target and broad, which might also be approximated classically.
  • The paper's own caveat about unequal weights for degenerate ground states means the low-temperature fairness of the empirical distribution is not guaranteed by the large spectral gap alone and should be checked in practice.
  • A natural extension is to condition the QA proposal on the current state via reverse annealing; the paper notes this alternative but does not test it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QAEMCMC, in which a quantum annealer generates proposal states inside a Metropolis-Hastings chain, with the acceptance step enforcing detailed balance so that the target Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution is preserved. The method is benchmarked on small Sherrington-Kirkpatrick instances (N = 10 and a few larger sizes) against classical local and uniform updates. The authors report larger absolute spectral gaps, faster convergence of the energy estimator, and smaller total variation distance to the target distribution, and they extract scaling exponents for the spectral gap and TV distance as functions of system size.

Significance. If the reported advantage survives a non-oracle choice of the annealing schedule, QAEMCMC would be a conceptually interesting way to accelerate MCMC in frustrated spin systems, and it connects naturally to the existing quantum-enhanced MCMC literature. The paper correctly identifies the M-H correction as the mechanism that preserves the target distribution, and the use of QA's diabatic outputs as proposals is worth exploring. However, as presented, the evidence is not yet convincing: the central spectral-gap comparison optimizes the annealing time per instance against the very quantity being reported, the dynamical evidence rests on a single selected instance, and Table 2 contains an internal inconsistency. Because these issues directly affect the main claims, the current significance is limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, Fig. 2] The reported QA spectral gap is obtained by per-instance optimization of the annealing time: 'In the QA update, τ is tuned to maximize the absolute spectral gap by Optuna for T < 10.' This makes the comparison an oracle comparison: the QA proposal is selected after seeing the exact spectral gap, while the classical proposals are fixed. For large systems, the spectral gap cannot be computed, so the reported advantage (including the exponent α=0.254 in Table 1) does not correspond to a practical algorithm. To support the central claim, the authors should report results under a fixed, a priori annealing schedule, or under an adaptive choice of τ that uses only quantities available to a running sampler. Without such a test, the paper only demonstrates that a favorable τ exists for each instance.
  2. [Results, Fig. 3 and Table 1] The system-size scaling in Fig. 3 does not state how τ is chosen for each N. If the same Optuna-based maximization is used, the fitted exponent inherits the oracle-selection problem. The caption and text should specify the τ-selection protocol for the scaling data; if τ is optimized per instance, the reported α is an envelope over optimized schedules, not the exponent of a definite algorithm.
  3. [Results, Table 2] The first numerical column of Table 2 reports α = 0.939, 0.855, 0.254 for uniform, local, and QA updates. These values are identical to the spectral-gap exponents in Table 1. For the claimed scaling TV(P_ex, Q_emp) ~ τ_MCS^{-α}, the QA value is the smallest, which means the slowest decay, contradicting the statement in the text that 'The QA update gives larger exponents than the local updates.' This internal inconsistency must be resolved: either the fits are wrong, or the text/table labels are wrong. The TV-scaling claim cannot be evaluated until this is corrected.
  4. [Results, Figs. 4 and 5] The dynamical simulations are performed on a single, deliberately selected instance ('we select a challenging problem instance used in Fig. 2'). The 'twelve times faster' energy convergence and the TV distance behavior are thus anecdotal. The authors should average over many instances and report the distribution of convergence times, especially given the strong instance-to-instance variation in the optimized τ shown in Fig. 2(b)-(c). As written, the dynamical evidence is not representative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) appears to have typographical errors: the mixing-time bounds '(1 − δ −1)ln2 ε' and '−δ −1 ln (εminσσσ µ(σσσ ))' are not correctly typeset, and the second inequality should be checked against the standard bound in Levin and Peres. Please clarify.
  2. [Methods, 'QA-enhanced MCMC'] There is a typo 'QA-ehnhanced' in the section heading; also, the text refers to 'Metoplized independent sampling' where the intended term is 'Metropolized.'
  3. [Results, Fig. 5] The notation for the target distribution is inconsistent: Eq. (8) uses μ(σ), while the results use P_ex for the exact distribution and Q_emp for the empirical distribution. Please define these symbols explicitly at first use.
  4. [Data Availability] The data availability statement mentions datasets, but not code. Given that the numerical claims rely on a specific Optuna protocol, the authors should release the code or at least specify the search range, number of trials, and seeding for the τ optimization.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported spectral-gap advantage is generated by per-instance optimization of τ against the very spectral gap being reported; the central acceleration claim is partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, Fig. 2, with Methods Eq. (6) and surrounding text]
    "In the QA update, τ is tuned to maximize the absolute spectral gap by Optuna for T < 10."

    The paper's headline quantity is δ = 1 − max_{λ≠1} λ (Eq. 6), the mixing-time figure of merit. For every instance and for T < 10, the annealing time τ of the QA proposal distribution is selected by maximizing that same δ. The reported ⟨δ⟩ for QA is therefore max_τ δ(τ) per instance, an optimized envelope, rather than the spectral gap of a fixed or prespecified proposal algorithm. The subsequent claims that 'QAEMCMC yields significant spectral gaps' and that 'mixing time obtained by the QA update becomes smaller' are thus not independent predictions; they are partly restatements of the objective used to tune τ. The energy and TV simulations inherit this per-instance tuned schedule, since the instance used in Figs. 4–5 is taken from Fig. 2.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation of the 'uniqueness theorem' type; citations to Kadowaki & Nishimori (1998) and to previous QEMCMC work are contextual and are not used to forbid alternatives. The Metropolis-Hastings acceptance correction is a genuine, non-circular device: it enforces detailed balance regardless of the proposal distribution, so the target-distribution property of QAEMCMC is self-contained. However, the central numerical evidence for faster mixing is partially circular: the QA annealing time is tuned per instance and per temperature to maximize the absolute spectral gap itself (Results, Fig. 2), so the reported spectral-gap advantage is an optimized upper envelope of the very quantity used to claim acceleration. The energy/TV convergence demonstrations use a single instance selected from that same tuned experiment, so they inherit the favorable schedule rather than testing a fixed a priori proposal. The paper itself notes the small-size limitation and the unfair-sampling issue, but those are scope caveats, not circularity. Table 2 contains an apparent internal inconsistency (QA is reported with the smallest α = 0.254 while the text says the QA update gives larger exponents), but that is a correctness/consistency risk rather than circularity. Overall, the advantage claim is not fully vacuous—a tuned τ could still fail to beat classical updates—but a substantial part of the reported acceleration reduces by construction to optimizing the reported criterion.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's mathematical core (M-H correction) is standard, but the reported advantage relies on an oracle-fitted annealing time and an ideal noiseless QA model. No free hyperparameters besides tau are fit, and no new physical entities are introduced. The model couplings and temperature are problem inputs, not fitted parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • annealing time tau = per-instance and per-T values; histograms in Fig. 2, e.g., near 10^3 at low T and 0.01 at high T
    tau is chosen by Optuna to maximize the reported absolute spectral gap (Results, Fig. 2), so the performance advantage is conditional on this oracle tuning.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The Metropolis-Hastings acceptance probability with proposal Q_QA and target Boltzmann distribution satisfies detailed balance, so the stationary distribution is exactly the target.
    Eqs. (1)-(2) and (5) of Methods; this is the standard M-H theorem the scheme rests on.
  • domain assumption The QA proposal distribution is generated by noiseless closed-system Schrodinger evolution under the linear schedule Hamiltonian (Eq. 7), with no decoherence or thermal noise.
    QuTiP simulation of an ideal annealer; hardware quantum annealers are open systems with noise, so real proposal distributions will differ.
  • ad hoc to paper The Markov chain with QA proposals is irreducible for the chosen annealing schedules, so the stationary distribution is unique and mixing is well-defined.
    The paper notes QA samples degenerate ground states unfairly (Discussion, refs 54-55), and for large tau the proposal concentrates on few states, yet irreducibility is never checked or proved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Annealing Enhanced Markov-Chain Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBOTNVVL

@misc{pith2026250208060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Annealing Enhanced Markov-Chain Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBOTNVVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08060}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we propose quantum annealing-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo (QAEMCMC), where QA is integrated into the MCMC subroutine. QA efficiently explores low-energy configurations and overcomes local minima, enabling the generation of proposal states with a high acceptance probability. We benchmark QAEMCMC for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model and demonstrate its superior performance over the classical MCMC method. Our results reveal larger spectral gaps, faster convergence of energy observables, and reduced total variation distance between the empirical and target distributions. QAEMCMC accelerates MCMC and provides an efficient method for complex systems, paving the way for scalable quantum-assisted sampling strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08060 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of the QAEMCMC protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): The absolute spectral gap as a function of temperature for the fixed N = 10. Each marker represents different update schemes. The histogram of the optimized annealing time for (b): intermediate temperature and (c): low temperature regions. Results In this section, we show the results of the SK model as Hˆ 0(σˆ z ) = ∑ i<j Ji jσˆ z i σˆ z j + N ∑ i=1 hiσˆ z i (10) where Ji j and hi are sampled from the Gaussian … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The system size dependence of the absolute spectral gap for the fixed T = 1 with different update schemes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a): The dynamics of the averaged energy obtained at T = 1 from MCMC. The horizontal axes represent the number of MCS. The horizontal line denotes the exact equilibrium energy. (b): The absolute error between the exact equilibrium energy and the empirical averages. The…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a): The Monte Carlo step dependence of the total variation distance between the Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution and the empirical probability distribution with fixed T = 1 and N = 10. (b): the system size dependence of the total variation distance with fixed T = 1 and τM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dependence of the cumulative probability distribution on (a): the Hamming distance and (b): the difference of the absolute energy between the current configurations and the proposed ones for the fixed N = 10 and T = 1. Each symbols represent the different update sc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D. & Vecchi, M. P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220, 671–680, DOI: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671 (1983)

    doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 1983

  2. [2]

    & Scheraga, H

    Li, Z. & Scheraga, H. A. Monte carlo-minimization approach to the multiple-minima problem in protein folding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 84, 6611–6615, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.84.19.6611 (1987)

    doi:10.1073/pnas.84.19.6611 1987

  3. [3]

    & Jordan, M

    Andrieu, C., de Freitas, N., Doucet, A. & Jordan, M. I. An introduction to mcmc for machine learning. Mach. Learn. 50, 5–43, DOI: 10.1023/A:1020281327116 (2003)

    doi:10.1023/a:1020281327116 2003

  4. [4]

    & Peres, Y .Markov Chains and Mixing Times

    Levin, D. & Peres, Y .Markov Chains and Mixing Times . MBK (American Mathematical Society, 2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H. & Teller, E. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines. The J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1092, DOI: 10.1063/1.1699114 (1953)

    doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  6. [6]

    & Young, A

    Binder, K. & Young, A. P. Spin glasses: Experimental facts, theoretical concepts, and open questions. Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801–976, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.58.801 (1986)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.801 1986

  7. [7]

    Swendsen, R. H. & Wang, J.-S. Nonuniversal critical dynamics in monte carlo simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 86–88, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.86 (1987)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.86 1987

  8. [8]

    Collective monte carlo updating for spin systems.Phys

    Wolff, U. Collective monte carlo updating for spin systems.Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 361–364, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.361 (1989)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.361 1989

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    A cluster monte carlo algorithm for 2-dimensional spin glasses

    Houdayer, J. A cluster monte carlo algorithm for 2-dimensional spin glasses. The Eur. Phys. J. B - Condens. Matter Complex Syst. 22, 479–484, DOI: 10.1007/PL00011151 (2001)

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    & Nemoto, K

    Hukushima, K. & Nemoto, K. Exchange monte carlo method and application to spin glass simulations. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 1604–1608, DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.65.1604 (1996)

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Earl, D. J. & Deem, M. W. Parallel tempering: Theory, applications, and new perspectives. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 3910–3916, DOI: 10.1039/B509983H (2005)

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    & Iba, Y

    Hukushima, K. & Iba, Y . Population Annealing and Its Application to a Spin Glass. AIP Conf. Proc. 690, 200–206, DOI: 10.1063/1.1632130 (2003)

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Liu, J., Qi, Y ., Meng, Z. Y . & Fu, L. Self-learning monte carlo method.Phys. Rev. B 95, 041101, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB. 95.041101 (2017)

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    & Wang, L

    Huang, L. & Wang, L. Accelerated monte carlo simulations with restricted boltzmann machines. Phys. Rev. B 95, 035105, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.035105 (2017)

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    & Zhang, P

    Wu, D., Wang, L. & Zhang, P. Solving statistical mechanics using variational autoregressive networks.Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080602, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.080602 (2019)

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    V ., Perali, A

    McNaughton, B., Miloševi ´c, M. V ., Perali, A. & Pilati, S. Boosting monte carlo simulations of spin glasses using autoregressive neural networks. Phys. Rev. E 101, 053312, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.053312 (2020)

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Nicoli, K. A. et al. Asymptotically unbiased estimation of physical observables with neural samplers. Phys. Rev. E 101, 023304, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.101.023304 (2020)

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    & Carleo, G

    Wu, D., Rossi, R. & Carleo, G. Unbiased monte carlo cluster updates with autoregressive neural networks. Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L042024, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.L042024 (2021)

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    & Stebel, T

    Białas, P., Korcyl, P. & Stebel, T. Analysis of autocorrelation times in neural markov chain monte carlo simulations. Phys. Rev. E 107, 015303, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.107.015303 (2023)

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    & Zamponi, F

    Ciarella, S., Trinquier, J., Weigt, M. & Zamponi, F. Machine-learning-assisted monte carlo fails at sampling computationally hard problems. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 4, 010501, DOI: 10.1088/2632-2153/acbe91 (2023)

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Layden, D. et al. Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo. Nature 619, 282–287, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06095-4 (2023)

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    & Wallden, P

    Ferguson, S. & Wallden, P. Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo for systems larger than your quantum computer (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04247. 2405.04247. 8/10

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    & Fujii, K

    Nakano, Y ., Hakoshima, H., Mitarai, K. & Fujii, K. Markov-chain monte carlo method enhanced by a quantum alternating operator ansatz. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033105, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033105 (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    & Verdon, G

    Lockwood, O., Weiss, P., Aronshtein, F. & Verdon, G. Quantum dynamical hamiltonian monte carlo.Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033142, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033142 (2024)

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    & Sels, D

    Orfi, A. & Sels, D. Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm. Phys. Rev. A 110, 052414, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052414 (2024)

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    & Sels, D

    Orfi, A. & Sels, D. Barriers to efficient mixing of quantum-enhanced markov chains. Phys. Rev. A 110, 052434, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.052434 (2024)

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Johnson, M. W.et al. A scalable control system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization processor.Supercond. Sci. Technol. 23, 065004, DOI: 10.1088/0953-2048/23/6/065004 (2010)

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    Berkley, A. J. et al. A scalable readout system for a superconducting adiabatic quantum optimization system. Supercond. Sci. Technol. 23, 105014, DOI: 10.1088/0953-2048/23/10/105014 (2010)

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Harris, R. et al. Experimental investigation of an eight-qubit unit cell in a superconducting optimization processor. Phys. Rev. B 82, 024511, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.024511 (2010)

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    Dickson, N. G. et al. Thermally assisted quantum annealing of a 16-qubit problem. Nat. Commun. 4, 1903, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2920 (2013)

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Lanting, T. et al. Entanglement in a quantum annealing processor. Phys. Rev. X 4, 021041, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.4. 021041 (2014)

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    & Nishimori, H

    Kadowaki, T. & Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355–5363, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.5355 (1998)

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    Farhi, E. et al. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem. Science 292, 472–475, DOI: 10.1126/science.1057726 (2001)

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    & Chakrabarti, B

    Das, A. & Chakrabarti, B. K. Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061–1081, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1061 (2008)

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    & Lidar, D

    Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Adiabatic quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90. 015002 (2018)

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H

    Hauke, P., Katzgraber, H. G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H. & Oliver, W. D. Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations. Reports on Prog. Phys. 83, 054401, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ab85b8 (2020)

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Crosson, E. J. & Lidar, D. A. Prospects for quantum enhancement with diabatic quantum annealing. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 466–489, DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00313-6 (2021)

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    & Ohzeki, M

    Oshiyama, H. & Ohzeki, M. Benchmark of quantum-inspired heuristic solvers for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization. Sci. Reports 12, 2146, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06070-5 (2022)

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    & Schmitt, S

    Yarkoni, S., Raponi, E., Bäck, T. & Schmitt, S. Quantum annealing for industry applications: introduction and review. Reports on Prog. Phys. 85, 104001, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac8c54 (2022)

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Amin, M. H. Searching for quantum speedup in quasistatic quantum annealers. Phys. Rev. A 92, 052323, DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.92.052323 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Vuffray, M., Coffrin, C., Kharkov, Y . A. & Lokhov, A. Y . Programmable quantum annealers as noisy gibbs samplers.PRX Quantum 3, 020317, DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020317 (2022)

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Y ., Albash, T

    Nelson, J., Vuffray, M., Lokhov, A. Y ., Albash, T. & Coffrin, C. High-quality thermal gibbs sampling with quantum annealing hardware. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044046, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.044046 (2022)

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Harris, R. et al. Phase transitions in a programmable quantum spin glass simulator. Science 361, 162–165 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    King, A. D. et al. Observation of topological phenomena in a programmable lattice of 1,800 qubits. Nature 560, 456–460, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0410-x (2018)

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Nisoli, C., Dahl, E

    King, A. D., Nisoli, C., Dahl, E. D., Poulin-Lamarre, G. & Lopez-Bezanilla, A. Qubit spin ice. Science 373, 576–580, DOI: 10.1126/science.abe2824 (2021)

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    King, A. D. et al. Coherent quantum annealing in a programmable 2,000 qubit ising chain. Nat. Phys. 18, 1324–1328, DOI: 10.1038/s41567-022-01741-6 (2022). 9/10

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    King, A. D. et al. Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000-qubit programmable spin glass. Nature 617, 61–66, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-05867-2 (2023)

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    & Pilati, S

    Scriva, G., Costa, E., McNaughton, B. & Pilati, S. Accelerating equilibrium spin-glass simulations using quantum annealers via generative deep learning. SciPost Phys. 15, 018, DOI: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.1.018 (2023)

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    & Kirkpatrick, S

    Sherrington, D. & Kirkpatrick, S. Solvable model of a spin-glass. Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1792–1796, DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.35.1792 (1975)

    1975

  42. [50]

    Liu, J. S. Metropolized independent sampling with comparisons to rejection sampling and importance sampling. Stat. Comput. 6, 113–119, DOI: 10.1007/BF00162521 (1996)

    1996 doi

  43. [51]

    & Nori, F

    Johansson, J., Nation, P. & Nori, F. Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760–1772, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021 (2012)

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    & Nori, F

    Johansson, J., Nation, P. & Nori, F. Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234–1240, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.11.019 (2013)

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    & Koyama, M

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T. & Koyama, M. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , KDD ’19, 2623–2631, DOI: 10.1145/3292500.3330701 (Assoc...

  46. [54]

    & Katzgraber, H

    Matsuda, Y ., Nishimori, H. & Katzgraber, H. G. Ground-state statistics from annealing algorithms: quantum versus classical approaches. New J. Phys. 11, 073021, DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/7/073021 (2009)

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Mazzola, G., Ochoa, A

    Könz, M. S., Mazzola, G., Ochoa, A. J., Katzgraber, H. G. & Troyer, M. Uncertain fate of fair sampling in quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. A 100, 030303, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.030303 (2019)

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    & Mazzola, G

    Christmann, J., Ivashkov, P., Chiurco, M. & Mazzola, G. From quantum enhanced to quantum inspired monte carlo (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.17821. 2411.17821

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Promoting the application of advanced quantum technology platforms to social issues

    Yamashiro, Y ., Ohkuwa, M., Nishimori, H. & Lidar, D. A. Dynamics of reverse annealing for the fully connectedp-spin model. Phys. Rev. A 100, 052321, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.052321 (2019). Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Hidetoshi Nishimori for many fruitful dis...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.