An algorithm for a particular problem may find some instances of the problem easier and others harder to solve, even for a fixed input size. We numerically analyze the relative hardness of MAX 2-SAT problem instances for various continuous-time quantum algorithms and a comparable classical algorithm. This has two motivations: To investigate whether small-sized problem instances, which are commonly used in numerical simulations of quantum algorithms for benchmarking purposes, are a good representation of larger instances in terms of their hardness to solve, and to determine the applicability of continuous-time quantum algorithms in a portfolio approach, where we take advantage of the variation in the hardness of instances between different algorithms by running them in parallel. We find that, while there are correlations in instance hardness between all of the algorithms considered, they appear weak enough that a portfolio approach would likely be desirable in practice. Our results also show a widening range of hardness of randomly generated instances as the problem size is increased, which demonstrates both the difference in the distribution of hardness at small sizes and the value of a portfolio approach that can reduce the number of extremely hard instances. We identify specific weaknesses of these quantum algorithms that can be overcome with a portfolio approach, such their inability to efficiently solve satisfiable instances (which is easy classically).
An algorithm for a particular problem may find some instances of the problem easier and others harder to solve, even for a fixed input size. We numerically analyze the relative hardness of MAX 2-SAT problem instances for various continuous-time quantum algorithms and a comparable classical algorithm. This has two motivations: To investigate whether small-sized problem instances, which are commonly used in numerical simulations of quantum algorithms for benchmarking purposes, are a good representation of larger instances in terms of their hardness to solve, and to determine the applicability of continuous-time quantum algorithms in a portfolio approach, where we take advantage of the variation in the hardness of instances between different algorithms by running them in parallel. We find that, while there are correlations in instance hardness between all of the algorithms considered, they appear weak enough that a portfolio approach would likely be desirable in practice. Our results also show a widening range of hardness of randomly generated instances as the problem size is increased, which demonstrates both the difference in the distribution of hardness at small sizes and the value of a portfolio approach that can reduce the number of extremely hard instances. We identify specific weaknesses of these quantum algorithms that can be overcome with a portfolio approach, such their inability to efficiently solve satisfiable instances (which is easy classically).
Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, as described in quant-ph/0001106, will solve satisfiability problems if the running time is long enough. In certain special cases (that are classically easy) we know that the quantum algorithm requires a running time that grows as a polynomial in the number of bits. In this paper we present numerical results on randomly generated instances of an NP-complete problem and of a problem that can be solved classically in polynomial time. We simulate a quantum computer (of up to 16 qubits) by integrating the Schrodinger equation on a conventional computer. For both problems considered, for the set of instances studied, the required running time appears to grow slowly as a function of the number of bits.
Quantum algorithms can deliver asymptotic speedups over their classical counterparts. However, there are few cases where a substantial quantum speedup has been worked out in detail for reasonably-sized problems, when compared with the best classical algorithms and taking into account realistic hardware parameters and overheads for fault-tolerance. All known examples of such speedups correspond to problems related to simulation of quantum systems and cryptography. Here we apply general-purpose quantum algorithms for solving constraint satisfaction problems to two families of prototypical NP-complete problems: boolean satisfiability and graph colouring. We consider two quantum approaches: Grover's algorithm and a quantum algorithm for accelerating backtracking algorithms. We compare the performance of optimised versions of these algorithms, when applied to random problem instances, against leading classical algorithms. Even when considering only problem instances that can be solved within one day, we find that there are potentially large quantum speedups available. In the most optimistic parameter regime we consider, this could be a factor of over 105 relative to a classical desktop computer; in the least optimistic regime, the speedup is reduced to a factor of over 103 . However, the number of physical qubits used is extremely large, and improved fault-tolerance methods will likely be needed to make these results practical. In particular, the quantum advantage disappears if one includes the cost of the classical processing power required to perform decoding of the surface code using current techniques.
We study a variant of the quantum approximate optimization algorithm [E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, arXiv:1411.4028] with a slightly different parametrization and a different objective: rather than looking for a state which approximately solves an optimization problem, our goal is to find a quantum algorithm that, given an instance of the maximum 2-satisfiability problem (MAX-2-SAT), will produce a state with high overlap with the optimal state. Using a machine learning approach, we chose a ``training set'' of instances and optimized the parameters to produce a large overlap for the training set. We then tested these optimized parameters on a larger instance set. As a training set, we used a subset of the hard instances studied by Crosson, Farhi, C. Y.-Y. Lin, H.-H. Lin, and P. Shor (CFLLS) (arXiv:1401.7320). When tested, on the full set, the parameters that we find produce a significantly larger overlap than the optimized annealing times of CFLLS. Testing on other random instances from 20 to 28 bits continues to show improvement over annealing, with the improvement being most notable on the hardest instances. Further tests on instances of MAX-3-SAT also showed improvement on the hardest instances. This algorithm may be a possible application for near-term quantum computers with limited coherence times.
Claims of quantum advantage for combinatorial optimisation require rigorous comparison against state-of-the-art classical algorithms under controlled experimental conditions -- yet the quantum computing literature frequently benchmarks quantum methods against weak classical baselines such as greedy heuristics or random search, inflating apparent quantum advantage. This paper presents the Quantum-Classical Combinatorial Benchmark (QCCB), a rigorous comparative study of quantum optimisation algorithms (QAOA, VQE-QUBO, hybrid QA) against nine state-of-the-art classical algorithms (Goemans-Williamson SDP, simulated annealing, tabu search, CPLEX branch-and-bound, OR-Tools CP-SAT, Gurobi MIP, Benders decomposition, extremal optimisation, and population-based iterated local search) across six canonical combinatorial problem classes (MaxCut, Vertex Cover, Graph Colouring, Knapsack, Set Cover, and Weighted Max-SAT) at problem sizes n = 12 to n = 256. QCCB finds that no quantum algorithm consistently outperforms all classical baselines across all problem classes at current NISQ scale. QAOA with QOAS adaptive depth (Bianchi, 2024) outperforms all nine classical algorithms on MaxCut at n = 48 (approximation ratio 0.924 vs. GW 0.878). However, classical Gurobi MIP and CPLEX solve MaxCut exactly for n up to n = 84 within the same time budget, eliminating the QAOA advantage at moderate scale. QCCB provides nuanced guidance on problem classes, instance sizes, and time budgets where quantum algorithms offer genuine near-term advantage.
Recently, several researchers proposed portfolio optimization as a potential use case for quantum optimization. However, the literature is lacking an extensive benchmark quantifying the potential of quantum computers for portfolio optimization. In this work, we contribute to closing this gap. We provide a computational study, comparing quantum approaches against state-of-the-art classical methods on a meaningful, real-world instance set. In particular, we compare quantum annealing and the quantum approximate optimization algorithm against classical mixed-integer programming, simulated annealing, steepest descent local search, tabu search and a problem-tailored heuristic. We consider a variance-minimizing variant of portfolio optimization which we show to be more difficult to solve for classical optimizers than return-maximizing or multi-objective formulations. Our benchmark data set comprises 270 instances with up to 1,000 assets from actual stock data. Due to hardware limitation, quantum methods could only be tested for instances with at most 30 assets. The results show that all instances can be solved to proven optimality by mixed-integer programming in the order of seconds. Moreover, the problem-tailored heuristic consistently outperforms quantum approaches in terms of solution quality for fixed runtime. Thus, we conclude that there is only very limited room for a potential quantum advantage for the considered variant of portfolio optimization.