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:2511.16735

Adiabatic reverse annealing is robust to low-temperature decoherence

An Le, Christopher L. Baldwin

quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechSubmitted Nov 20, 2025• Announced Nov 24, 2025• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) is an improvement to conventional quantum annealing (QA) that uses an initial guess at the desired ground state to circumvent problematic phase transitions. Despite encouraging results in the closed-system setting, Ref. [1] has suggested on the basis of numerical simulations that ARA may lose its advantage in the presence of decoherence. Here, we revisit this problem from a more analytical perspective. Using the $p$-spin model as a solvable example, together with the adiabatic master equation to describe the effects of the environment (valid at weak coupling), we show that ARA can in fact succeed in open systems but that the temperature of the environment plays a key role. We first demonstrate that, in the adiabatic limit, the system will follow the instantaneous equilibrium state as long as the protocol does not pass through any (finite-temperature) phase transitions. Given this, there are two distinct mechanisms by which ARA can break down at high temperature: either there are no paths that avoid transitions, or the equilibrium state itself is disordered. When the temperature is sufficiently low that neither of these occur, then ARA succeeds. Remarkably, there are even situations in which the environment benefits ARA: we find parameter values for which no transition-avoiding paths exist at zero temperature but such paths appear at non-zero temperature.

Comments
13 pages, 5 figures. Comments welcome!

Related papers

Simulated outperforms quantum reverse annealing in mean-field models

Christopher L. Baldwin

Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) has been proposed as an improvement to conventional quantum annealing for solving optimization problems, in which one takes advantage of an initial guess at the solution to suppress problematic phase transitions. Here we interpret the performance of ARA through its effects on the free energy landscape, and use the intuition gained to introduce a classical analogue to ARA termed ``simulated reverse annealing'' (SRA). This makes it more difficult to claim that ARA provides a quantum advantage in solving a given problem, as not only must ARA succeed but the corresponding SRA must fail. As a solvable example, we analyze how both protocols behave in the infinite-range (non-disordered) $p$-spin model. Through both the thermodynamic phase diagrams and explicit dynamical behavior, we establish that the quantum algorithm has no advantage over its classical counterpart: SRA succeeds not only in every case where ARA does but even in a narrow range of parameters where ARA fails.

arXiv:2511.00150•Oct 31, 2025•0 citations

Standard quantum annealing outperforms adiabatic reverse annealing with decoherence

Gianluca Passarelli, Ka-Wa Yip, Daniel A. Lidar +1 more

We study adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) in an open system. In the closed system (unitary) setting, this annealing protocol allows avoidance of first-order quantum phase transitions of selected models, resulting in an exponential speedup compared with standard quantum annealing, provided that the initial state of the algorithm is close in Hamming distance to the target one. Here, we show that decoherence can significantly modify this conclusion: by resorting to the adiabatic master equation approach, we simulate the dynamics of the ferromagnetic $p$-spin model with $p=3$ under independent and collective dephasing. For both models of decoherence, we show that the performance of open system ARA is far less sensitive to the choice of the initial state than its unitary counterpart, and, most significantly, that open system ARA by and large loses its time to solution advantage compared to standard quantum annealing. These results suggest that as a stand-alone strategy ARA is unlikely to experimentally outperform standard ``forward'' quantum annealing, and that error mitigation strategies will likely be required in order to realize the benefits of ARA in realistic, noisy settings.

arXiv:2201.11997•Physical Review A•Mar 18, 2022•14 citations

Dynamics of reverse annealing for the fully connected p-spin model

悠 山城, Yu Yamashiro, 秀稔 西森 +2 more

Reverse annealing is a relatively new variant of quantum annealing in which one starts from a classical state and increases and then decreases the amplitude of the transverse field, in the hope of finding a better classical state than the initial state for a given optimization problem.We numerically study the unitary quantum dynamics of reverse annealing for the mean-field-type p-spin model and show that the results are consistent with the predictions of equilibrium statistical mechanics.In particular, we corroborate the equilibrium analysis prediction that reverse annealing provides an exponential speedup over conventional quantum annealing in terms of solving the p-spin model.This lends support to the expectation that equilibrium analyses are effective at revealing essential aspects of the dynamics of quantum annealing.We also compare the results of quantum dynamics with the corresponding classical dynamics to reveal their similarities and differences.We distinguish between two reverse annealing protocols we call adiabatic and iterated reverse annealing.We further show that iterated reverse annealing, as has been realized in the D-Wave device, is ineffective in the case of the p-spin model but note that a recently introduced protocol ("h-gain"), which implements adiabatic reverse annealing, may lead to improved performance.

•Nov 1, 2019•0 citations

Decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation

Tameem Albash, Daniel A. Lidar

Recent experiments with increasingly larger numbers of qubits have sparked renewed interest in adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular quantum annealing. A central question that is repeatedly asked is whether quantum features of the evolution can survive over the long time scales used for quantum annealing relative to standard measures of the decoherence time. We reconsider the role of decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing using the adiabatic quantum master-equation formalism. We restrict ourselves to the weak-coupling and singular-coupling limits, which correspond to decoherence in the energy eigenbasis and in the computational basis, respectively. We demonstrate that decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis does not necessarily detrimentally affect adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular that a short single-qubit ${T}_{2}$ time need not imply adverse consequences for the success of the quantum adiabatic algorithm. We further demonstrate that boundary cancellation methods, designed to improve the fidelity of adiabatic quantum computing in the closed-system setting, remain beneficial in the open-system setting. To address the high computational cost of master-equation simulations, we also demonstrate that a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm that explicitly accounts for a thermal bosonic bath can be used to interpolate between classical and quantum annealing. Our study highlights and clarifies the significantly different role played by decoherence in the adiabatic and circuit models of quantum computing.

arXiv:1503.08767•Physical Review A•Jun 17, 2015•151 citations

How detrimental is decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation

Tameem Albash, Daniel A. Lidar

Recent experiments with increasingly larger numbers of qubits have sparked renewed interest in adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular quantum annealing. A central question that is repeatedly asked is whether quantum features of the evolution can survive over the long time-scales used for quantum annealing relative to standard measures of the decoherence time. We reconsider the role of decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing using the adiabatic quantum master equation formalism. We restrict ourselves to the weak-coupling and singular-coupling limits, which correspond to decoherence in the energy eigenbasis and in the computational basis, respectively. We demonstrate that decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis does not necessarily detrimentally affect adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular that a short single-qubit $T_2$ time need not imply adverse consequences for the success of the quantum adiabatic algorithm. We further demonstrate that boundary cancellation methods, designed to improve the fidelity of adiabatic quantum computing in the closed system setting, remain beneficial in the open system setting. To address the high computational cost of master equation simulations, we also demonstrate that a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm that explicitly accounts for a thermal bosonic bath can be used to interpolate between classical and quantum annealing. Our study highlights and clarifies the significantly different role played by decoherence in the adiabatic and circuit models of quantum computing.

•Mar 30, 2015•0 citations

Breakdown of the weak coupling limit in experimental quantum annealing.

Yuki Bando, Ka-Wa Yip, Huo Chen +2 more

Reverse annealing is a variant of quantum annealing, in which the system is prepared in a classical state, reverse-annealed to an inversion point, and then forward-annealed. We report on reverse annealing experiments using the D-Wave 2000Q device, with a focus on the $p=2$ $p$-spin problem, which undergoes a second order quantum phase transition with a gap that closes polynomially in the number of spins. We concentrate on the total and partial success probabilities, the latter being the probabilities of finding each of two degenerate ground states of all spins up or all spins down, the former being their sum. The empirical partial success probabilities exhibit a strong asymmetry between the two degenerate ground states, depending on the initial state of the reverse anneal. To explain these results, we perform open-system simulations using master equations in the limits of weak and strong coupling to the bath. The former, known as the adiabatic master equation (AME), with decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis, predicts perfect symmetry between the two degenerate ground states, thus failing to agree with the experiment. In contrast, the latter, known as the polaron transformed Redfield equation (PTRE), is in close agreement with experiment. The same is true for a purely classical model known as spin-vector Monte Carlo with transverse-field-dependent updates (SVMC-TF). Thus our results present a strong challenge to the sufficiency of the weak system-bath coupling limit in describing the dynamics of current experimental quantum annealers, at least for annealing on timescales of a $\mu$sec or longer.

•Nov 15, 2021•0 citations
Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) is an improvement to conventional quantum annealing (QA) that uses an initial guess at the desired ground state to circumvent problematic phase transitions. Despite encouraging results in the closed-system setting, Ref. [1] has suggested on the basis of numerical simulations that ARA may lose its advantage in the presence of decoherence. Here, we revisit this problem from a more analytical perspective. Using the ppp-spin model as a solvable example, together with the adiabatic master equation to describe the effects of the environment (valid at weak coupling), we show that ARA can in fact succeed in open systems but that the temperature of the environment plays a key role. We first demonstrate that, in the adiabatic limit, the system will follow the instantaneous equilibrium state as long as the protocol does not pass through any (finite-temperature) phase transitions. Given this, there are two distinct mechanisms by which ARA can break down at high temperature: either there are no paths that avoid transitions, or the equilibrium state itself is disordered. When the temperature is sufficiently low that neither of these occur, then ARA succeeds. Remarkably, there are even situations in which the environment benefits ARA: we find parameter values for which no transition-avoiding paths exist at zero temperature but such paths appear at non-zero temperature.
Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) has been proposed as an improvement to conventional quantum annealing for solving optimization problems, in which one takes advantage of an initial guess at the solution to suppress problematic phase transitions. Here we interpret the performance of ARA through its effects on the free energy landscape, and use the intuition gained to introduce a classical analogue to ARA termed ``simulated reverse annealing'' (SRA). This makes it more difficult to claim that ARA provides a quantum advantage in solving a given problem, as not only must ARA succeed but the corresponding SRA must fail. As a solvable example, we analyze how both protocols behave in the infinite-range (non-disordered) ppp-spin model. Through both the thermodynamic phase diagrams and explicit dynamical behavior, we establish that the quantum algorithm has no advantage over its classical counterpart: SRA succeeds not only in every case where ARA does but even in a narrow range of parameters where ARA fails.
We study adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) in an open system. In the closed system (unitary) setting, this annealing protocol allows avoidance of first-order quantum phase transitions of selected models, resulting in an exponential speedup compared with standard quantum annealing, provided that the initial state of the algorithm is close in Hamming distance to the target one. Here, we show that decoherence can significantly modify this conclusion: by resorting to the adiabatic master equation approach, we simulate the dynamics of the ferromagnetic ppp-spin model with p=3p=3p=3 under independent and collective dephasing. For both models of decoherence, we show that the performance of open system ARA is far less sensitive to the choice of the initial state than its unitary counterpart, and, most significantly, that open system ARA by and large loses its time to solution advantage compared to standard quantum annealing. These results suggest that as a stand-alone strategy ARA is unlikely to experimentally outperform standard ``forward'' quantum annealing, and that error mitigation strategies will likely be required in order to realize the benefits of ARA in realistic, noisy settings.
Reverse annealing is a relatively new variant of quantum annealing in which one starts from a classical state and increases and then decreases the amplitude of the transverse field, in the hope of finding a better classical state than the initial state for a given optimization problem.We numerically study the unitary quantum dynamics of reverse annealing for the mean-field-type p-spin model and show that the results are consistent with the predictions of equilibrium statistical mechanics.In particular, we corroborate the equilibrium analysis prediction that reverse annealing provides an exponential speedup over conventional quantum annealing in terms of solving the p-spin model.This lends support to the expectation that equilibrium analyses are effective at revealing essential aspects of the dynamics of quantum annealing.We also compare the results of quantum dynamics with the corresponding classical dynamics to reveal their similarities and differences.We distinguish between two reverse annealing protocols we call adiabatic and iterated reverse annealing.We further show that iterated reverse annealing, as has been realized in the D-Wave device, is ineffective in the case of the p-spin model but note that a recently introduced protocol ("h-gain"), which implements adiabatic reverse annealing, may lead to improved performance.
Recent experiments with increasingly larger numbers of qubits have sparked renewed interest in adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular quantum annealing. A central question that is repeatedly asked is whether quantum features of the evolution can survive over the long time scales used for quantum annealing relative to standard measures of the decoherence time. We reconsider the role of decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing using the adiabatic quantum master-equation formalism. We restrict ourselves to the weak-coupling and singular-coupling limits, which correspond to decoherence in the energy eigenbasis and in the computational basis, respectively. We demonstrate that decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis does not necessarily detrimentally affect adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular that a short single-qubit T2{T}_{2}T2​ time need not imply adverse consequences for the success of the quantum adiabatic algorithm. We further demonstrate that boundary cancellation methods, designed to improve the fidelity of adiabatic quantum computing in the closed-system setting, remain beneficial in the open-system setting. To address the high computational cost of master-equation simulations, we also demonstrate that a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm that explicitly accounts for a thermal bosonic bath can be used to interpolate between classical and quantum annealing. Our study highlights and clarifies the significantly different role played by decoherence in the adiabatic and circuit models of quantum computing.
Recent experiments with increasingly larger numbers of qubits have sparked renewed interest in adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular quantum annealing. A central question that is repeatedly asked is whether quantum features of the evolution can survive over the long time-scales used for quantum annealing relative to standard measures of the decoherence time. We reconsider the role of decoherence in adiabatic quantum computation and quantum annealing using the adiabatic quantum master equation formalism. We restrict ourselves to the weak-coupling and singular-coupling limits, which correspond to decoherence in the energy eigenbasis and in the computational basis, respectively. We demonstrate that decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis does not necessarily detrimentally affect adiabatic quantum computation, and in particular that a short single-qubit T2T_2T2​ time need not imply adverse consequences for the success of the quantum adiabatic algorithm. We further demonstrate that boundary cancellation methods, designed to improve the fidelity of adiabatic quantum computing in the closed system setting, remain beneficial in the open system setting. To address the high computational cost of master equation simulations, we also demonstrate that a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm that explicitly accounts for a thermal bosonic bath can be used to interpolate between classical and quantum annealing. Our study highlights and clarifies the significantly different role played by decoherence in the adiabatic and circuit models of quantum computing.
Reverse annealing is a variant of quantum annealing, in which the system is prepared in a classical state, reverse-annealed to an inversion point, and then forward-annealed. We report on reverse annealing experiments using the D-Wave 2000Q device, with a focus on the p=2p=2p=2 ppp-spin problem, which undergoes a second order quantum phase transition with a gap that closes polynomially in the number of spins. We concentrate on the total and partial success probabilities, the latter being the probabilities of finding each of two degenerate ground states of all spins up or all spins down, the former being their sum. The empirical partial success probabilities exhibit a strong asymmetry between the two degenerate ground states, depending on the initial state of the reverse anneal. To explain these results, we perform open-system simulations using master equations in the limits of weak and strong coupling to the bath. The former, known as the adiabatic master equation (AME), with decoherence in the instantaneous energy eigenbasis, predicts perfect symmetry between the two degenerate ground states, thus failing to agree with the experiment. In contrast, the latter, known as the polaron transformed Redfield equation (PTRE), is in close agreement with experiment. The same is true for a purely classical model known as spin-vector Monte Carlo with transverse-field-dependent updates (SVMC-TF). Thus our results present a strong challenge to the sufficiency of the weak system-bath coupling limit in describing the dynamics of current experimental quantum annealers, at least for annealing on timescales of a μ\muμsec or longer.