arXiv:2610.37040
Quantum Annealing for Gamma-ray Source Detection and Localization with AGILE Data
Alessandro Rizzo, Nicolò Parmiggiani, Andrea Bulgarelli, Gabriele Panebianco, Carlo Burigana, Vincenzo Fabrizio Cardone, Farida Farsian, Massimo Meneghetti, Giuseppe Murante, Giuseppe Sarracino, Roberto Scaramella, Francesco Schillirò, Vincenzo Testa, Tiziana Trombetti, Fabio Roberto Vitello
Abstract
The detection and localization of gamma-ray sources via maximum-likelihood analysis is a complex parameter optimization problem. We address this challenge using quantum annealing, a computational approach that solves optimization tasks by encoding them into the ground state of an Ising Hamiltonian. Specifically, we apply this method to observations from AGILE's Gamma-Ray Imaging Detector (GRID) in the 30 MeV-50 GeV band. We reformulated the standard analysis as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem. We tested this method on a set of AGILE observations generated with AGILEpy, solving the QUBO with simulated quantum annealing. The method reproduces the classical flux and position estimates within their statistical uncertainty and identifies the correct grid node among the candidate positions in 97% of the maps. These promising results demonstrate that quantum annealing could be used in this optimization problem, laying the ground for its deployment on actual quantum annealers.
AI Summary
The paper investigates whether gamma-ray source detection and localization can be encoded for quantum annealing, using simulated AGILE-GRID observations. It replaces the Poisson log-likelihood with unweighted least squares and encodes the background and source amplitudes with 12-bit fixed-point variables. Localization selects among 81 candidate positions using binary indicators and a one-hot penalty. Optimization uses OpenJij simulated quantum annealing, not quantum hardware, with 100 reads and 1,000 sweeps per run. Tests use 500 simulated maps containing one bright point source at high Galactic latitude, with negligible Galactic diffuse emission. The method selects the true grid node in 97% of maps; remaining selections are displaced by one $0.5^\circ$ grid step. Recovered flux has mean bias $-1.9\%$ and standard deviation $8.3\%$, versus $3.0\%$ and $5.0\%$ for the classical pipeline. Background normalization is biased by approximately $-20\%$. Annealing energies agree with closed-form least-squares minima to within about $0.5\%$ of the test statistic for the source model. Reported $\sqrt{TS}$ values correlate strongly with classical results ($r=0.997$), but are systematically higher: mean 65 versus 43, reflecting the different objectives. Stated limitations include testing only bright, isolated sources; finite encoding ranges; unresolved background bias; and an approximate significance calibration for discrete position selection. Fainter and multiple-source cases remain untested. The roughly 1,000-variable, densely connected formulation is estimated to exceed current annealer capacity after embedding; hardware execution and computational-cost comparisons remain future work.
Central claim may not hold: The implemented unweighted least-squares objective is not an exact reformulation or generally valid Gaussian approximation of the stated Poisson maximum-likelihood objective. The reported errors relative to simulated truth do not establish the abstract's claim that classical flux and position estimates are reproduced within statistical uncertainty. Validation on isolated, extremely bright sources with negligible Galactic diffuse emission supports only a restricted proof of concept, not general source-detection performance. The joint-localization model produces higher-than-quadratic binary terms, and the paper supplies neither a quadratization nor an equivalent constrained-activation QUBO construction. The unweighted least-squares energy difference lacks the likelihood-ratio and null-distribution justification needed to report its square root as detection significance.
Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the paper's full text. Automated: it can be wrong.
- Comments
- 9 Pages, 5 Figures, presented at AIQxQIA workshop for the AIxIA conference in Perugia, October 2026. To be published as conference proceeding for CEUR-WS Proceedings