Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2511.16457

Distinguishing thermal versus quantum annealing using probability-flux signatures across interaction networks

Yoshiaki Horiike, Yuki Kawaguchi

cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gasphysics.data-anquant-phSubmitted Nov 20, 2025• Announced Nov 21, 2025• 0 citations• Revised Dec 4, 2025 (v2)
v1 · Nov 20, 2025v2 · Dec 4, 2025
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Simulated annealing provides a heuristic solution to combinatorial optimization problems. The cost function of a problem is mapped onto the energy function of a physical many-body system, and, by using thermal or quantum fluctuations, the system explores the state space to find the ground state, which corresponds to the optimal solution of the problem. Studies have highlighted both the similarities and differences between thermal and quantum fluctuations. Nevertheless, fundamental understanding of thermal and quantum annealing remains incomplete, making it unclear how quantum annealing outperforms thermal annealing in which problem instances. Here, we investigate the many-body dynamics of thermal and quantum annealing by examining all possible interaction networks of $\pm J$ Ising spin systems up to seven spins. Our comprehensive investigation reveals that differences between thermal and quantum annealing emerge for particular interaction networks, indicating that the structure of the energy landscape distinguishes the two dynamics. We identify the microscopic origin of these differences through probability fluxes in state space, finding that the two dynamics are broadly similar, but that quantum tunnelling produces qualitative differences. Our results provide insight into how thermal and quantum fluctuations navigate a system toward the ground state in simulated annealing, and are experimentally verifiable in atomic, molecular, and optical systems. Furthermore, these insights may improve mappings of optimization problems to Ising spin systems, yielding more accurate solutions in faster simulated annealing and thus benefiting real-world applications in industry. Our comprehensive survey of interaction networks and visualization of probability flux can help to understand, predict, and control quantum advantage in quantum annealing.

Related papers

Quantum Annealing: Optimisation, Sampling, and Many-Body Dynamics

Steven Abel, Andrei Constantin, Luca A. Nutricati

Quantum annealing is a computational paradigm in which optimisation problems are mapped onto the energy landscape of an interacting quantum system and explored through its dynamical evolution. By continuously transforming a simple initial Hamiltonian into one whose ground state encodes the solution, the system traverses a complex landscape via a combination of quantum fluctuations, tunnelling processes, and dissipative dynamics. Unlike gate-based quantum computing, quantum annealing is a specialised and near-term approach aimed primarily at discrete optimisation and sampling tasks. While it is not expected to provide polynomial-time solutions to NP-hard problems in the worst case, it offers a physically motivated heuristic for navigating rugged energy landscapes that arise across science and engineering. Modern quantum annealers realise programmable spin systems with thousands of qubits, placing them among the largest controllable quantum devices currently available. As a result, their significance extends beyond optimisation: they also function as experimental platforms for studying non-equilibrium many-body quantum dynamics in regimes that are difficult to access using classical simulation. In this review we present an accessible introduction to the principles of quantum annealing, describe the main hardware platforms and algorithmic techniques, and analyse how tunnelling, spectral gaps, and open-system effects shape computational performance. We survey applications ranging from optimisation and machine learning to quantum simulation and many-body physics, and discuss the central challenges in benchmarking, scaling, and control. These perspectives position quantum annealing as a distinctive framework at the interface of optimisation, stochastic sampling, and programmable quantum dynamics, with a role that is complementary to both classical algorithms and gate-based quantum computing.

quant-pharXiv:2605.06857•May 11, 2026•0 citations

Quantum annealing: optimisation, sampling, and many-body dynamics

Steven Adam Abel, Andrei Constantin, Luca A. Nutricati

Quantum annealing is a computational paradigm in which optimisation problems are encoded in the energy landscape of an interacting quantum system and explored through its dynamical evolution. By continuously transforming an initial Hamiltonian into one whose ground state represents the solution, the system navigates complex energy landscapes through a combination of quantum fluctuations, tunnelling processes, and dissipative dynamics. Quantum annealing is primarily designed for discrete optimisation and sampling tasks and provides a physically motivated heuristic for exploring rugged landscapes that arise across science and engineering. Modern quantum annealers realise programmable spin systems with thousands of qubits, making them among the largest controllable quantum devices currently available. Beyond optimisation, they also serve as experimental platforms for studying non-equilibrium many-body quantum dynamics in regimes that are challenging to access classically. In this review we introduce the principles of quantum annealing, describe the main hardware platforms and algorithmic techniques, and analyse the roles of tunnelling, spectral gaps, and open-system effects in determining performance. We survey applications ranging from optimisation and machine learning to quantum simulation and many-body physics, and discuss the central challenges of benchmarking, scaling, and control. These developments position quantum annealing at the interface of optimisation, stochastic sampling, and programmable quantum dynamics.

Contemporary Physics•Jun 24, 2026•0 citations

Comparison of QAOA with Quantum and Simulated Annealing

Michael Streif, Martin Leib

We present a comparison between the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and two widely studied competing methods, Quantum Annealing (QA) and Simulated Annealing (SA). To achieve this, we define a class of optimization problems with respect to their spectral properties which are exactly solvable with QAOA. In this class, we identify instances for which QA and SA have an exponentially small probability to find the solution. Consequently, our results define a first demarcation line between QAOA, Simulated Annealing and Quantum Annealing, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively.

arXiv:1901.01903•Jan 7, 2019•35 citations

Optimizing Schedules for Quantum Annealing

Daniel Herr, Ethan Brown, Bettina Heim +3 more

Classical and quantum annealing are two heuristic optimization methods that search for an optimal solution by slowly decreasing thermal or quantum fluctuations. Optimizing annealing schedules is important both for performance and fair comparisons between classical annealing, quantum annealing, and other algorithms. Here we present a heuristic approach for the optimization of annealing schedules for quantum annealing and apply it to 3D Ising spin glass problems. We find that if both classical and quantum annealing schedules are similarly optimized, classical annealing outperforms quantum annealing for these problems when considering the residual energy obtained in slow annealing. However, when performing many repetitions of fast annealing, simulated quantum annealing is seen to outperform classical annealing for our benchmark problems.

arXiv:1705.00420•May 1, 2017•6 citations

Hybrid annealing: Coupling a quantum simulator to a classical computer

Tobias Graß, Maciej Lewenstein

Finding the global minimum in a rugged potential landscape is a computationally hard task, often equivalent to relevant optimization problems. Annealing strategies, either classical or quantum, explore the configuration space by evolving the system under the influence of thermal or quantum fluctuations. The thermal annealing dynamics can rapidly freeze the system into a low-energy configuration, and it can be simulated well on a classical computer, but it easily gets stuck in local minima. Quantum annealing, on the other hand, can be guaranteed to find the true ground state and can be implemented in modern quantum simulators; however, quantum adiabatic schemes become prohibitively slow in the presence of quasidegeneracies. Here, we propose a strategy which combines ideas from simulated annealing and quantum annealing. In such a hybrid algorithm, the outcome of a quantum simulator is processed on a classical device. While the quantum simulator explores the configuration space by repeatedly applying quantum fluctuations and performing projective measurements, the classical computer evaluates each configuration and enforces a lowering of the energy. We have simulated this algorithm for small instances of the random energy model, showing that it potentially outperforms both simulated thermal annealing and adiabatic quantum annealing. It becomes most efficient for problems involving many quasidegenerate ground states.

arXiv:1611.09729•Physical Review A•May 3, 2017•11 citations

Diabatic quantum and classical annealing of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model

Artem Rakcheev, Andreas Martin Läuchli

Quantum annealing is a contender to solve combinatorial optimization problems based on quantum dynamics. While significant efforts have been undertaken to investigate the quality of the solutions and the required run times, much less attention has been paid to understanding the dynamics of quantum annealing and the process leading to the solution during the sweep itself. In this comprehensive study, we investigate various aspects of the quantum annealing dynamics using different approaches. We perform quantum annealing, simulated quantum annealing, and classical annealing on several hundred instances of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model with intermediate system sizes up to 22 spins using numerical simulations. We observe qualitative differences between the quantum and classical methods, in particular at intermediate times, where a peak in the fidelity, also known as diabatic bump, appears for hard instances. Furthermore, we investigate the two-point correlation functions, which feature differences at intermediate times as well. At short times, however, the methods are similar again, which can be explained by relating the short-time expansion of quantum annealing to a high-temperature expansion, thus allowing one in principle to find the classical solution already at short times, albeit at prohibitive sampling cost.

arXiv:2212.08634•Physical Review A•Jun 1, 2023•3 citations
Simulated annealing provides a heuristic solution to combinatorial optimization problems. The cost function of a problem is mapped onto the energy function of a physical many-body system, and, by using thermal or quantum fluctuations, the system explores the state space to find the ground state, which corresponds to the optimal solution of the problem. Studies have highlighted both the similarities and differences between thermal and quantum fluctuations. Nevertheless, fundamental understanding of thermal and quantum annealing remains incomplete, making it unclear how quantum annealing outperforms thermal annealing in which problem instances. Here, we investigate the many-body dynamics of thermal and quantum annealing by examining all possible interaction networks of ±J\pm J±J Ising spin systems up to seven spins. Our comprehensive investigation reveals that differences between thermal and quantum annealing emerge for particular interaction networks, indicating that the structure of the energy landscape distinguishes the two dynamics. We identify the microscopic origin of these differences through probability fluxes in state space, finding that the two dynamics are broadly similar, but that quantum tunnelling produces qualitative differences. Our results provide insight into how thermal and quantum fluctuations navigate a system toward the ground state in simulated annealing, and are experimentally verifiable in atomic, molecular, and optical systems. Furthermore, these insights may improve mappings of optimization problems to Ising spin systems, yielding more accurate solutions in faster simulated annealing and thus benefiting real-world applications in industry. Our comprehensive survey of interaction networks and visualization of probability flux can help to understand, predict, and control quantum advantage in quantum annealing.
Quantum annealing is a computational paradigm in which optimisation problems are mapped onto the energy landscape of an interacting quantum system and explored through its dynamical evolution. By continuously transforming a simple initial Hamiltonian into one whose ground state encodes the solution, the system traverses a complex landscape via a combination of quantum fluctuations, tunnelling processes, and dissipative dynamics. Unlike gate-based quantum computing, quantum annealing is a specialised and near-term approach aimed primarily at discrete optimisation and sampling tasks. While it is not expected to provide polynomial-time solutions to NP-hard problems in the worst case, it offers a physically motivated heuristic for navigating rugged energy landscapes that arise across science and engineering. Modern quantum annealers realise programmable spin systems with thousands of qubits, placing them among the largest controllable quantum devices currently available. As a result, their significance extends beyond optimisation: they also function as experimental platforms for studying non-equilibrium many-body quantum dynamics in regimes that are difficult to access using classical simulation. In this review we present an accessible introduction to the principles of quantum annealing, describe the main hardware platforms and algorithmic techniques, and analyse how tunnelling, spectral gaps, and open-system effects shape computational performance. We survey applications ranging from optimisation and machine learning to quantum simulation and many-body physics, and discuss the central challenges in benchmarking, scaling, and control. These perspectives position quantum annealing as a distinctive framework at the interface of optimisation, stochastic sampling, and programmable quantum dynamics, with a role that is complementary to both classical algorithms and gate-based quantum computing.
Quantum annealing is a computational paradigm in which optimisation problems are encoded in the energy landscape of an interacting quantum system and explored through its dynamical evolution. By continuously transforming an initial Hamiltonian into one whose ground state represents the solution, the system navigates complex energy landscapes through a combination of quantum fluctuations, tunnelling processes, and dissipative dynamics. Quantum annealing is primarily designed for discrete optimisation and sampling tasks and provides a physically motivated heuristic for exploring rugged landscapes that arise across science and engineering. Modern quantum annealers realise programmable spin systems with thousands of qubits, making them among the largest controllable quantum devices currently available. Beyond optimisation, they also serve as experimental platforms for studying non-equilibrium many-body quantum dynamics in regimes that are challenging to access classically. In this review we introduce the principles of quantum annealing, describe the main hardware platforms and algorithmic techniques, and analyse the roles of tunnelling, spectral gaps, and open-system effects in determining performance. We survey applications ranging from optimisation and machine learning to quantum simulation and many-body physics, and discuss the central challenges of benchmarking, scaling, and control. These developments position quantum annealing at the interface of optimisation, stochastic sampling, and programmable quantum dynamics.
We present a comparison between the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and two widely studied competing methods, Quantum Annealing (QA) and Simulated Annealing (SA). To achieve this, we define a class of optimization problems with respect to their spectral properties which are exactly solvable with QAOA. In this class, we identify instances for which QA and SA have an exponentially small probability to find the solution. Consequently, our results define a first demarcation line between QAOA, Simulated Annealing and Quantum Annealing, and highlight the fundamental differences between an interference-based search heuristic such as QAOA and heuristics that are based on thermal and quantum fluctuations like SA and QA respectively.
Classical and quantum annealing are two heuristic optimization methods that search for an optimal solution by slowly decreasing thermal or quantum fluctuations. Optimizing annealing schedules is important both for performance and fair comparisons between classical annealing, quantum annealing, and other algorithms. Here we present a heuristic approach for the optimization of annealing schedules for quantum annealing and apply it to 3D Ising spin glass problems. We find that if both classical and quantum annealing schedules are similarly optimized, classical annealing outperforms quantum annealing for these problems when considering the residual energy obtained in slow annealing. However, when performing many repetitions of fast annealing, simulated quantum annealing is seen to outperform classical annealing for our benchmark problems.
Finding the global minimum in a rugged potential landscape is a computationally hard task, often equivalent to relevant optimization problems. Annealing strategies, either classical or quantum, explore the configuration space by evolving the system under the influence of thermal or quantum fluctuations. The thermal annealing dynamics can rapidly freeze the system into a low-energy configuration, and it can be simulated well on a classical computer, but it easily gets stuck in local minima. Quantum annealing, on the other hand, can be guaranteed to find the true ground state and can be implemented in modern quantum simulators; however, quantum adiabatic schemes become prohibitively slow in the presence of quasidegeneracies. Here, we propose a strategy which combines ideas from simulated annealing and quantum annealing. In such a hybrid algorithm, the outcome of a quantum simulator is processed on a classical device. While the quantum simulator explores the configuration space by repeatedly applying quantum fluctuations and performing projective measurements, the classical computer evaluates each configuration and enforces a lowering of the energy. We have simulated this algorithm for small instances of the random energy model, showing that it potentially outperforms both simulated thermal annealing and adiabatic quantum annealing. It becomes most efficient for problems involving many quasidegenerate ground states.
Quantum annealing is a contender to solve combinatorial optimization problems based on quantum dynamics. While significant efforts have been undertaken to investigate the quality of the solutions and the required run times, much less attention has been paid to understanding the dynamics of quantum annealing and the process leading to the solution during the sweep itself. In this comprehensive study, we investigate various aspects of the quantum annealing dynamics using different approaches. We perform quantum annealing, simulated quantum annealing, and classical annealing on several hundred instances of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model with intermediate system sizes up to 22 spins using numerical simulations. We observe qualitative differences between the quantum and classical methods, in particular at intermediate times, where a peak in the fidelity, also known as diabatic bump, appears for hard instances. Furthermore, we investigate the two-point correlation functions, which feature differences at intermediate times as well. At short times, however, the methods are similar again, which can be explained by relating the short-time expansion of quantum annealing to a high-temperature expansion, thus allowing one in principle to find the classical solution already at short times, albeit at prohibitive sampling cost.