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

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Role of Classical Hardness for Quantum Annealers

Itay Hen, Víctor Martín-Mayor

Published Mar 4, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Quantum Annealing : Quantum Statistical Physics applied to Classical Computational Hardness

高橋, 惇

•Mar 22, 2018•0 citations

Applications on quantum annealers

Dennis Willsch

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Quantum annealing correction for random Ising problems

Kristen L. Pudenz, Tameem Albash, Daniel A. Lidar

We demonstrate that the performance of a quantum annealer on hard random Ising optimization problems can be substantially improved using quantum annealing correction (QAC). Our error correction strategy is tailored to the D-Wave Two device. We find that QAC provides a statistically significant enhancement in the performance of the device over a classical repetition code, improving as a function of problem size as well as hardness. Moreover, QAC provides a mechanism for overcoming the precision limit of the device, in addition to correcting calibration errors. Performance is robust even to missing qubits. We present evidence for a constructive role played by quantum effects in our experiments by contrasting the experimental results with the predictions of a classical model of the device. Our work demonstrates the importance of error correction in appropriately determining the performance of quantum annealers.

arXiv:1408.4382•Physical Review A•Apr 2, 2015•101 citations

Progress Towards Quantum Annealer v2.0 II: Theory

Dvir Kafri, Chris Quintana, Yu Chen +2 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 5, 2018•0 citations

Nonstoquastic Hamiltonians and quantum annealing of an Ising spin glass

Layla Hormozi, Ethan Brown, Giuseppe Carleo +1 more

Quantum annealers are computing machines that utilize quantum effects to solve hard optimization problems. Understanding the circumstances under which quantum annealers are more efficient than other optimization methods is a challenging open problem. A clue to this conundrum comes from studying the complexity of quantum annealers. In general, the complexity of a physical system relates to how efficiently the system can be simulated by classical algorithms. One then asks: if some class of quantum annealers are hard to simulate classically, are they also more powerful optimization machines? Here, the authors study quantum annealers belonging to two different complexity classes: the so-called ``stoquastic'' systems, which can be efficiently simulated with classical algorithms, and ``nonstoquastic'' systems, currently with no efficient classical treatment. Applied to a prototypical optimization problem, the authors observe that, on average, the stoquastic systems perform better on easier instances of the problem, while the more complex nonstoquastic annealers show significant advantage when applied to the hardest instances. The authors conjecture that the performance of the nonstoquastic Hamiltonians is closely related to their internal structure during the annealing process and elucidate how properties such as magnetic frustration can play a key role in devising more powerful quantum annealers.

arXiv:1609.06558•Physical review. B./Physical review. B•May 15, 2017•97 citations

2. Quantum Annealer, its Potential and Perspective

Masayuki Ohzeki

The Journal of The Institute of Image Information and Television Engineers•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations
We demonstrate that the performance of a quantum annealer on hard random Ising optimization problems can be substantially improved using quantum annealing correction (QAC). Our error correction strategy is tailored to the D-Wave Two device. We find that QAC provides a statistically significant enhancement in the performance of the device over a classical repetition code, improving as a function of problem size as well as hardness. Moreover, QAC provides a mechanism for overcoming the precision limit of the device, in addition to correcting calibration errors. Performance is robust even to missing qubits. We present evidence for a constructive role played by quantum effects in our experiments by contrasting the experimental results with the predictions of a classical model of the device. Our work demonstrates the importance of error correction in appropriately determining the performance of quantum annealers.
Quantum annealers are computing machines that utilize quantum effects to solve hard optimization problems. Understanding the circumstances under which quantum annealers are more efficient than other optimization methods is a challenging open problem. A clue to this conundrum comes from studying the complexity of quantum annealers. In general, the complexity of a physical system relates to how efficiently the system can be simulated by classical algorithms. One then asks: if some class of quantum annealers are hard to simulate classically, are they also more powerful optimization machines? Here, the authors study quantum annealers belonging to two different complexity classes: the so-called ``stoquastic'' systems, which can be efficiently simulated with classical algorithms, and ``nonstoquastic'' systems, currently with no efficient classical treatment. Applied to a prototypical optimization problem, the authors observe that, on average, the stoquastic systems perform better on easier instances of the problem, while the more complex nonstoquastic annealers show significant advantage when applied to the hardest instances. The authors conjecture that the performance of the nonstoquastic Hamiltonians is closely related to their internal structure during the annealing process and elucidate how properties such as magnetic frustration can play a key role in devising more powerful quantum annealers.