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

Embedding parameters for Quantum Annealing

Davide Venturelli

Published Mar 15, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Optimizing Embedding-Related Quantum Annealing Parameters for Reducing Hardware Bias

Aaron Barbosa, Elijah Pelofske, Georg Hahn +1 more

arXiv:2011.00719•Communications in computer and information science•Jan 1, 2021•15 citations

Embedding Inequality Constraints for Quantum Annealing Optimization

Tomáš Vyskočil, Scott Pakin, Hristo N. Djidjev

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2019•35 citations

Quantum Error Correction for Minor Embedded Quantum Annealing

Walter Vinci, Gerardo A. Paz-Silva, Anurag Mishra +2 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 2, 2015•0 citations

Performance of quantum annealing under different Ising mappings and graph embeddings

Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel, Davide Venturelli +1 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 4, 2014•0 citations

Benchmarking quantum annealing with maximum cardinality matching problems

Daniel Vert, Madita Willsch, Berat Yenilen +3 more

We benchmark Quantum Annealing (QA) vs. Simulated Annealing (SA) with a focus on the impact of the embedding of problems onto the different topologies of the D-Wave quantum annealers. The series of problems we study are especially designed instances of the maximum cardinality matching problem that are easy to solve classically but difficult for SA and, as found experimentally, not easy for QA either. In addition to using several D-Wave processors, we simulate the QA process by numerically solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. We find that the embedded problems can be significantly more difficult than the unembedded problems, and some parameters, such as the chain strength, can be very impactful for finding the optimal solution. Thus, finding a good embedding and optimal parameter values can improve the results considerably. Interestingly, we find that although SA succeeds for the unembedded problems, the SA results obtained for the embedded version scale quite poorly in comparison with what we can achieve on the D-Wave quantum annealers.

Frontiers in Computer Science•Jun 5, 2024•7 citations

Parameter setting for quantum annealing

Andrea Di Gioacchino, Salvatore Mandrà, Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 7, 2019•0 citations
We benchmark Quantum Annealing (QA) vs. Simulated Annealing (SA) with a focus on the impact of the embedding of problems onto the different topologies of the D-Wave quantum annealers. The series of problems we study are especially designed instances of the maximum cardinality matching problem that are easy to solve classically but difficult for SA and, as found experimentally, not easy for QA either. In addition to using several D-Wave processors, we simulate the QA process by numerically solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. We find that the embedded problems can be significantly more difficult than the unembedded problems, and some parameters, such as the chain strength, can be very impactful for finding the optimal solution. Thus, finding a good embedding and optimal parameter values can improve the results considerably. Interestingly, we find that although SA succeeds for the unembedded problems, the SA results obtained for the embedded version scale quite poorly in comparison with what we can achieve on the D-Wave quantum annealers.