Realistic Runtime Analysis for Quantum Simplex Computation
Sabrina C. L. Ammann, Maximilian Hess, Debora Ramacciotti, Sándor P. Fekete, Paulina L. A. Goedicke, Gross, David, Andreea-Iulia Lefterovici, Tobias J. Osborne, Michael Perk, Antonio F. Rotundo, Skelton, S. E., Sebastian Stiller, Timo de Wolff
In recent years, strong expectations have been raised for the possible power of quantum computing for solving difficult optimization problems, based on theoretical, asymptotic worst-case bounds. Can we expect this to have consequences for Linear and Integer Programming when solving instances of practically relevant size, a fundamental goal of Mathematical Programming, Operations Research and Algorithm Engineering? Answering this question faces a crucial impediment: The lack of sufficiently large quantum platforms prevents performing real-world tests for comparison with classical methods. In this paper, we present a quantum analog for classical runtime analysis when solving real-world instances of important optimization problems. To this end, we measure the expected practical performance of quantum computers by analyzing the expected gate complexity of a quantum algorithm. The lack of practical quantum platforms for experimental comparison is addressed by hybrid benchmarking, in which the algorithm is performed on a classical system, logging the expected cost of the various subroutines that are employed by the quantum versions. In particular, we provide an analysis of quantum methods for Linear Programming, for which recent work has provided asymptotic speedup through quantum subroutines for the Simplex method. We show that a practical quantum advantage for realistic problem sizes would require quantum gate operation times that are considerably below current physical limitations.
In recent years, strong expectations have been raised for the possible power of quantum computing for solving difficult optimization problems, based on theoretical, asymptotic worst-case bounds. Can we expect this to have consequences for Linear and Integer Programming when solving instances of practically relevant size, a fundamental goal of Mathematical Programming, Operations Research and Algorithm Engineering? Answering this question faces a crucial impediment: The lack of sufficiently large quantum platforms prevents performing real-world tests for comparison with classical methods. In this paper, we present a quantum analog for classical runtime analysis when solving real-world instances of important optimization problems. To this end, we measure the expected practical performance of quantum computers by analyzing the expected gate complexity of a quantum algorithm. The lack of practical quantum platforms for experimental comparison is addressed by hybrid benchmarking, in which the algorithm is performed on a classical system, logging the expected cost of the various subroutines that are employed by the quantum versions. In particular, we provide an analysis of quantum methods for Linear Programming, for which recent work has provided asymptotic speedup through quantum subroutines for the Simplex method. We show that a practical quantum advantage for realistic problem sizes would require quantum gate operation times that are considerably below current physical limitations.
Combinatorial optimisation is a main topic for real-world applications, where fast solutions are required. Optimisation algorithms are incredibly powerful, but still face bottlenecks for certain problems. In recent years, quantum algorithms have been proposed as a potential candidate for solving such problems. The question that naturally arises is whether they could provide meaningful speed-ups over classical approaches. The study of asymptotic complexity has become central in the development of quantum algorithms. Nevertheless, having a promising asymptotic improvement does not directly translate into good practical performance. This is already well known for classical algorithms, which can be executed and evaluated directly. When it comes to quantum algorithms, the situation is more nuanced, as solving practically relevant instances would require a fully fault-tolerant quantum computer. In this thesis, we address the challenge of assessing the practical performance of a quantum algorithm without access to quantum hardware. Our strategy is to evaluate how these algorithms would perform under idealised fault-tolerant assumptions and to identify parameter regimes in which quantum approaches could potentially become useful. Our goal is to guide algorithmic development long before implementation becomes possible. We first give a general overview of the quantum (sub)routines that serve as building blocks for more advanced algorithms, as well as of the three hybrid benchmarking techniques used throughout this thesis. Then, we elaborate on each method: we start with the algorithmic descriptions, proceed to the methodology, and conclude with their hybrid evaluation on practically relevant datasets. Within the hybrid benchmarking method 1 (gate count analysis), we analytically derive the minimum number of gates that a quantum version of the classical simplex algorithm would require to solve realistic instances. By executing classical counterparts of the quantum subroutines, we infer the execution speed required per gate for the quantum simplex to outperform its classical counterpart. Within the hybrid benchmarking method 2 (query count analysis), we benchmark functional quantum linear solvers by analytically deriving a precise number of query calls made to the same oracles as a function of problem parameters. This provides insight into which algorithm might be more suitable in a given parameter regime. It allows for a direct comparison only between different quantum algorithms and is independent of classical runtime measurements. Within the hybrid benchmarking method 3 (cycle count analysis), we develop a runtime estimation framework tailored to the quantum tree generator–based search for solving 0-1-knapsack problems. We evaluate its performance on large scale instances beyond the reach of general simulation. We compare it with state-of-the-art classical linear programming solvers in terms of processor cycle counts. Hybrid benchmarking provides a fair, systematic benchmarking methodology, ensuring reproducible and relevant comparisons not only between classical and quantum approaches, but also among different quantum algorithms.
Run-times of quantum algorithms are often studied via an asymptotic, worst-case analysis. Whilst useful, such a comparison can often fall short: it is not uncommon for algorithms with a large worst-case run-time to end up performing well on instances of practical interest. To remedy this it is necessary to resort to run-time analyses of a more empirical nature, which for sufficiently small input sizes can be performed on a quantum device or a simulation thereof. For larger input sizes, alternative approaches are required.In this paper we consider an approach that combines classical emulation with detailed complexity bounds that include all constants. We simulate quantum algorithms by running classical versions of the sub-routines, whilst simultaneously collecting information about what the run-time of the quantum routine would have been if it were run instead. To do this accurately and efficiently for very large input sizes, we describe an estimation procedure and prove that it obtains upper bounds on the true expected complexity of the quantum algorithms.We apply our method to some simple quantum speedups of classical heuristic algorithms for solving the well-studied MAX- k -SAT optimization problem. This requires rigorous bounds (including all constants) on the expected- and worst-case complexities of two important quantum sub-routines: Grover search with an unknown number of marked items, and quantum maximum-finding. These improve upon existing results and might be of broader interest.Amongst other results, we found that the classical heuristic algorithms we studied did not offer significant quantum speedups despite the existence of a theoretical per-step speedup. This suggests that an empirical analysis such as the one we implement in this paper already yields insights beyond those that can be seen by an asymptotic analysis alone.
Quantum interior point methods (QIPMs) promise polynomial speed-ups over classical solvers for linear programming by outsourcing the solution of Newton linear systems to quantum linear solvers (QLSAs). However, asymptotic speed-ups do not necessarily translate to practical advantages on realistic problem instances. In this work, I evaluate whether practical advantage of a standard hybrid QIPM pipeline can already be excluded relative to the classical open-source solver HiGHS on a broad and diverse collection of LP instances spanning eight problem families, including public benchmark libraries, such as MIPlib, and relaxations of combinatorial optimisation problems. Following the hybrid benchmarking paradigm initiated by Cade et al., I derive rigorous lower bounds on the quantum runtime under a series of highly benevolent assumptions and compare them against classical runtimes. I equip the QIPMs with the best-performing functional QLSA, the Chebyshev-based method, as identified by Lefterovici et al., and evaluate two Newton system formulations proposed by Mohammadisiahroudi et al.: the modified normal equation system and the orthogonal subspace system. The exclusion analysis yields a consistent negative picture: across all instances and for any realistic quantum cycle duration, the quantum runtime lower bounds already exceed the classical runtimes, establishing that these hybrid QIPMs will offer no practical advantage over good classical solvers for realistic linear programming instances.
A robust definition of quantum runtime is essential for assessing the performance of quantum algorithms and claims of quantum advantage. While for most classical hardware the total runtime is well approximated by computation plus a weakly varying constant, on current quantum hardware a clean experimental separation between "pure computation" and "overhead" is often not justified. Consequently, conventional quantum runtime analyses excluding substantial system-level overheads can lead to biased performance assessments. In this work we introduce experimentally grounded, end-to-end definitions of quantum runtime for digital and analogue quantum computers, together with a methodology for selecting strong classical baselines for quantum-classical runtime comparisons. Within this framework, we evaluate recent claims of quantum advantage in annealing and gate-based algorithms. We examine three representative case studies. First, we revisit annealing for approximate QUBO problems PRL 134, 160601 (2025), which employs a well-motivated time-to-ε metric but effectively uses annealing time as a proxy for runtime. Second, we analyze a restricted implementation of Simon's problem PRX 15, 021082 (2025), where the favorable scaling in oracle calls is undisputed; however, we show that the estimated runtime of the quantum experiment is approximately two orders of magnitude slower than a tuned classical baseline at the tested sizes. Finally, we find that the runtime advantage of the BF-DCQO hybrid algorithm arXiv:2505.08663 is not observed under more comprehensive benchmarking. Therefore, on current NISQ hardware, runtime-based quantum advantage has not yet been demonstrated under experimentally grounded performance metrics, and credible claims require careful time accounting, appropriate performance measures, and properly chosen classical reference implementations, as discussed in this work.
Combinatorial optimization problems play a vital role in computer science and engineering, with applications in logistics, network design, finance, and resource allocation. However, many of these problems are NP-hard, making them computationally expensive to solve using classical optimization techniques, especially for large-scale instances. In recent years, quantum computing has emerged as a promising paradigm capable of addressing these limitations by leveraging quantum mechanical principles such as superposition and entanglement. This study investigates the application of quantum computing for solving combinatorial optimization problems, with a focus on algorithm design, complexity analysis, and real-world applicability. The research primarily employs the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and Grover's search algorithm to solve representative problems such as Max-Cut and the Knapsack problem. The performance of these algorithms is evaluated using key metrics including accuracy, execution time, and approximation ratio, and is compared with classical optimization techniques. The results demonstrate that QAOA is capable of generating near-optimal solutions, achieving accuracy levels of up to 93% for small problem instances. However, the study also highlights the challenges associated with current quantum systems, including noise, limited qubit availability, and increased execution time. Comparative analysis reveals that while classical methods remain more efficient for small-scale problems, quantum algorithms show significant potential for scalability and handling complex optimization tasks. The findings suggest that hybrid quantum-classical approaches offer a practical solution in the current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era. The study concludes that although quantum computing is still evolving, it holds strong potential for transforming combinatorial optimization in the future.
Solving systems of linear equations is a key subroutine in many quantum algorithms. In the last 15 years, many quantum linear solvers (QLS) have been developed, competing to achieve the best asymptotic worst-case complexity. Most QLS assume fault-tolerant quantum computers, so they cannot yet be benchmarked on real hardware. Because an algorithm with better asymptotic scaling can underperform on instances of practical interest, the question of which of these algorithms is the most promising remains open. In this work, we implement a method to partially address this question. We consider four well-known QLS algorithms which directly implement an approximate matrix inversion function: the Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd algorithm, two algorithms utilizing a linear combination of unitaries, and one utilizing the quantum singular value transformation (QSVT). These methods, known as functional QLS, share nearly identical assumptions about the problem setup and oracle access. Their computational cost is dominated by query calls to a matrix oracle encoding the problem one wants to solve. We provide formulas to count the number of queries needed to solve specific problem instances; these can be used to benchmark the algorithms on real-life instances, under benevolent, idealized assumptions, without requiring access to quantum hardware to implement the procedure. We select three data sets: random generated instances that obey the assumptions of functional QLS, linear systems from simplex iterations on MIPLIB, and Poisson equations. Our methods can be easily extended to other data sets and provide a high-level guide to evaluate the performance of a QLS algorithm. In particular, our work shows that HHL underperforms in comparison to the other methods across all data sets, often by orders of magnitude, while the Chebyshev-approximation based methods typically have the best performance.