We benchmark current annealing-based optimization workflows on a greenhouse-inspired quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for binary heater scheduling, where the horizon H denotes the number of hourly control decisions. For the main one-day instance (H=24), all solver outputs are decoded back into heater schedules and evaluated in the original greenhouse simulator using the same physical objective and feasibility criterion. Classical simulated annealing and path-integral simulated quantum annealing produce feasible near-optimal solutions in all repetitions, with best objectives close to the exact optimum. In contrast, the tested D-Wave Leap Hybrid BQM workflow is less reliable and does not outperform the classical baselines under 15--60~s requested time limits. Direct D-Wave QPU execution on reduced instances remains feasible in all runs and recovers the exact optimum for H=10 and H=12, but the exact-hit rate drops from 5/10 to 2/10 and then to 0/10 at H=14, with substantially higher variance than the classical baselines. The results do not indicate quantum advantage, but provide a reproducible, physically decoded benchmark that exposes the current strengths and limitations of classical, hybrid, and direct quantum annealing workflows on structured control QUBOs.
We benchmark current annealing-based optimization workflows on a greenhouse-inspired quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem for binary heater scheduling, where the horizon H denotes the number of hourly control decisions. For the main one-day instance (H=24), all solver outputs are decoded back into heater schedules and evaluated in the original greenhouse simulator using the same physical objective and feasibility criterion. Classical simulated annealing and path-integral simulated quantum annealing produce feasible near-optimal solutions in all repetitions, with best objectives close to the exact optimum. In contrast, the tested D-Wave Leap Hybrid BQM workflow is less reliable and does not outperform the classical baselines under 15--60~s requested time limits. Direct D-Wave QPU execution on reduced instances remains feasible in all runs and recovers the exact optimum for H=10 and H=12, but the exact-hit rate drops from 5/10 to 2/10 and then to 0/10 at H=14, with substantially higher variance than the classical baselines. The results do not indicate quantum advantage, but provide a reproducible, physically decoded benchmark that exposes the current strengths and limitations of classical, hybrid, and direct quantum annealing workflows on structured control QUBOs.
Abstract We benchmark classical, simulated-quantum, hybrid, and direct quantum-annealing workflows on a structured binary control problem formulated as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) model. The benchmark is motivated by greenhouse heater scheduling, where the horizon (H) denotes the number of hourly binary control decisions, but the focus is on solver behavior for a physically decoded control-QUBO formulation. For the main one-day instance ((H=24)), all solver outputs are decoded back into heater schedules and evaluated using the same simulator-side objective and feasibility criterion. Classical simulated annealing and path-integral simulated quantum annealing produce feasible near-optimal solutions in all repetitions, with best objectives close to the exact optimum. In contrast, the tested D-Wave Leap Hybrid binary quadratic model workflow is less reliable and does not outperform the classical baselines under 15--60 s requested time limits. Direct D-Wave quantum processing unit execution on reduced instances remains feasible in all runs and recovers the exact optimum for (H=10) and (H=12), but the exact-hit rate decreases with increasing horizon. The results do not indicate quantum advantage, but provide a reproducible benchmark for evaluating annealing-based natural and quantum computing workflows on structured control QUBOs. MSC Classification: 90C27 , 90C59 , 81P68 , 93C55
Quantum annealing (QA) offers a physics-inspired approach for such subproblems by mapping them onto an Ising Hamiltonian, which is algebraically equivalent to a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model executable on quantum annealers or hybrid solvers. However, their practical employment in wireless systems critically depends on the specific problem formulation, on the particular variable encoding, constraint handling, solver selection, hardware embedding, and fair benchmarking. This paper develops wireless-oriented QUBO modeling guidelines for QA-assisted resource allocation. We first present a beginner-friendly toy example in which a terrestrial-aerial resource-allocation problem with a fractional signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) maximization objective is reformulated into a two-bit QUBO via Boolean interpolation, converted into an Ising representation, and decoded back into a wireless scheduling decision. The same scheduling is applicable to UAV, aircraft, satellite, and terrestrial links in SAGIN systems. We then review the QA foundations and solver ecosystems, including binary quadratic, discrete quadratic, constrained quadratic, and hybrid models from the perspective of NG wireless optimization. Furthermore, we discuss both binary and discrete encoding, penalty-based constraint conversion, embedding overhead, solution decoding, and feasibility verification. A QUBO Compatibility Index is introduced as a lightweight diagnostic metric for assessing the associated QUBO formulation readiness, rather than a predictor of runtime or solution quality. Finally, a case study on max-min uplink power control in cell-free massive MIMO illustrates how a fairness-oriented wireless problem can be discretized, constrained, converted into the concept of a QUBO, and evaluated against classical baselines. A host of key challenges and future directions are also discussed.
Recent advances in quantum computing have shown great potential for solving combinatorial optimization problems. A notable example is the quadratic knapsack problem, a constrained binary optimization problem. However, current quantum-inspired algorithms require Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) formulations. Transforming constrained optimization into QUBO impacts the algorithms' speed and efficiency. In this study, we evaluate five existing transformation methods and propose four novel approaches. We assess them by using Simulated Annealing (SA), and find that three of our approaches outperform existing methods in terms of execution time as well as quality and quantity of feasible solutions found. Also, we tested these transformations on a quantum annealer, which was unable to solve even small instances, due to limitations in connectivity and error rates. In general, our results highlight the advantages of the new approaches, which reduce the number of variables in the QUBO representation.
Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) provides a versatile framework for representing NP-hard combinatorial problems, yet existing solvers often face trade-offs among speed, accuracy, and scalability. In this work, we introduce a quantum-inspired solver (QIS) that unites branch-and-bound pruning, continuous gradient-descent refinement, and quantum-inspired heuristics within a fully adaptive control architecture. We benchmark QIS3 against eight state-of-the-art solvers, including genetic algorithms, coherent Ising machines, simulated bifurcation, parallel tempering, simulated annealing, our prior QIS2 version, D-Wave's simulated-annealing (Neal), and Gurobi on three canonical QUBO problem classes: Max-Cut, NAE-3SAT, and Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin glass problems. Under a uniform runtime budget, QIS3 attains the best solution on nearly all instances, achieving optimality in 94% of max-cut instances. These results establish QIS3 as a robust, high-performance solver that bridges classical exact strategies and quantum-inspired heuristics for scalable QUBO optimization.
We propose a practical, physics-inspired benchmarking suite to challenge both quantum and classical computers by mapping real-time quantum dynamics to a common optimization format. Using a parallel-in-time encoding, we convert the real-time propagator of an n -qubit, possibly non-Hermitian, Hamiltonian into quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) instances that are executable in a solver-agnostic manner on quantum annealers and classical optimizers alike. This enables direct, like-for-like performance comparisons across fundamentally different computational paradigms. To stress-test the framework, we consider eight representative dynamical models spanning single-qubit rotations, multiqubit entangling gates (Bell, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger, cluster), and P T -symmetric and other non-Hermitian generators, and evaluate success probability and time to solution as standard benchmarking metrics. Applying this method to two generations of D-Wave quantum annealers and to state-of-the-art classical solvers (simulated annealing and the graphics-processing unit–accelerated VeloxQ), we find that Advantage2 consistently outperforms its predecessor, while VeloxQ retains the shortest absolute run-times, reflecting the maturity of classical heuristics. We further extend the benchmarks to large-scale instances ( N ≈ 10 5 ), establishing a demanding classical baseline for future hardware. Together, these results position the parallel-in-time QUBO framework as a versatile and physically motivated test bed for quantitatively tracking progress toward quantum-competitive simulation of dynamical systems.
Heterogeneous HPC workflow scheduling under multiple hard constraints poses a challenging combinatorial optimization problem. Classical exact solvers provide optimal solutions but often face scalability limitations, motivating interest in quantum-inspired Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) formulations as alternative optimization paradigms. This work presents a systematic and reproducible empirical evaluation of QUBO-based scheduling methods against established classical baselines, including MILP, CP-SAT, GA, and HEFT. We evaluate three QUBO variants, single-run simulated annealing, multi-attempt annealing, and a layered QAOA-inspired schedule, together with hybrid enhancement strategies on both ground-truth validation workflows (3–4 tasks) and synthetic scaling instances (5–20 tasks). All solvers are assessed through a unified evaluation pipeline that explicitly tracks feasibility, makespan, and resource utilization under progressive constraint activation and controlled penalty sweeps. Results show that all approaches recover the expected optimal makespan on validation instances, confirming formulation correctness. However, feasibility degradation emerges for specific QUBO variants as constraint interactions intensify, particularly when communication costs are introduced. Penalty sensitivity analysis reveals a sharp feasibility threshold for QUBO-SA, where insufficient penalties consistently fail and moderate-to-strong penalties restore feasibility. Scaling experiments delineate the regimes in which classical solvers and heuristics remain robust across all tested sizes, while QUBO-SA loses feasibility beyond 15 tasks and the QAOA-inspired variant beyond 10 tasks. Overall, the study provides a clear empirical characterization of the reliability boundaries of quantum-inspired QUBO formulations for heterogeneous HPC scheduling and identifies the regimes where classical approaches remain preferable under current formulations and solver capabilities.