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

Lecture notes in networks and systems

Comparison of Computing Performance of D-Wave Quantum Annealers and IBM Quantum Computers for 0-1 Knapsack Problem

Damian Choptiany

Published Jan 1, 2026• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-032-14163-7_6

Related papers

A comment on comparing optimization on D-Wave and IBM quantum processors

Catherine C. McGeoch, Kevin T. Chern, Pau Farré +1 more

Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we show success probabilities multiple orders of magnitude higher than those reported by [Sachdeva et al.]. These results, which can be reproduced using open-source code and free trial access to a D-Wave quantum annealer, contradict Q-CTRL's claims of superior performance. We also provide a direct comparison between quantum annealing and a recent demonstration of digitized quantum annealing on an IBM processor, showing that analog quantum annealing on a D-Wave QPU reaches far lower energies than digitized quantum annealing on an IBM QPU.

arXiv:2406.19351•Jun 27, 2024•2 citations

Quantum Computing Techniques for Multi-knapsack Problems

Abhishek Awasthi, Francesco Bär, Joseph A. Doetsch +16 more

arXiv:2301.05750•Lecture notes in networks and systems•Jan 1, 2023•31 citations

Quantum algorithm analysis of knapsack problem

Lü Xin, Feng Denggu

Beijing Hangkong Hangtian Daxue xuebao•Nov 30, 2004•0 citations

Quantum Annealing: Research and Applications

Mayar Mohamed

This thesis studies several aspects of the quantum annealing (QA) computing approach. Quantum annealers' primary objective is to solve hard computational optimization problems. Because these optimization problems are in the NP-Hard complexity class, they are of great interest in several fields. One of the leading open questions concerning quantum annealers asks whether they will outperform other classical methods for solving these problems; Some aspects of this question are addressed in this thesis. The first part of the thesis investigates whether quantum annealing provides improved performance for solving a particular family of NP problems, called the Quadratic Knapsack Problem (QKP), using the D-Wave Quantum Annealer. The performance metrics used to assess QKP solving are the solution quality and the total runtime, and are benchmarked against other classical solvers. \n \nFurthermore, we extend our research on quantum annealers to propose two use cases for such systems. One is for Blockchain technology, and the second is in the area of quantum chaos. For the first use case of QA, an application for Blockchain's Proof of Work (PoW) is proposed, based on having hard optimization problems as an alternative to PoW hashing challenge, and using quantum annealers as solvers. For the second use case of QA, we propose simulating quantum chaos on the D-Wave Quantum Annealer to study the transition between the deep quantum realm and the classical limit in a chaotic system, and obtain insights into the “quantumness" of quantum annealers.

•Sep 28, 2021•0 citations

Adiabatic Quantum Optimization Fails to Solve the Knapsack Problem

Lauren Pusey-Nazzaro, Prasanna Date

In this work, we attempt to solve the integer-weight knapsack problem using the D-Wave 2000Q adiabatic quantum computer. The knapsack problem is a well-known NP-complete problem in computer science, with applications in economics, business, finance, etc. We attempt to solve a number of small knapsack problems whose optimal solutions are known; we find that adiabatic quantum optimization fails to produce solutions corresponding to optimal filling of the knapsack in all problem instances. We compare results obtained on the quantum hardware to the classical simulated annealing algorithm and two solvers employing a hybrid branch-and-bound algorithm. The simulated annealing algorithm also fails to produce the optimal filling of the knapsack, though solutions obtained by simulated and quantum annealing are no more similar to each other than to the correct solution. We discuss potential causes for this observed failure of adiabatic quantum optimization.

arXiv:2008.07456•Aug 17, 2020•14 citations

Performance Analysis of Support Vector Machine Implementations on the D-Wave Quantum Annealer

Harshil Singh Bhatia, Frank Phillipson

Lecture notes in computer science•Jan 1, 2021•9 citations
Recent work [Sachdeva et al.] presented an iterative hybrid quantum variational optimization algorithm designed by Q-CTRL and executed on IBM gate-based quantum processing units (QPUs), claiming a significant performance advantage against a D-Wave quantum annealer. Here we point out major methodological problems with this comparison. Using a simple unoptimized workflow for quantum annealing, we show success probabilities multiple orders of magnitude higher than those reported by [Sachdeva et al.]. These results, which can be reproduced using open-source code and free trial access to a D-Wave quantum annealer, contradict Q-CTRL's claims of superior performance. We also provide a direct comparison between quantum annealing and a recent demonstration of digitized quantum annealing on an IBM processor, showing that analog quantum annealing on a D-Wave QPU reaches far lower energies than digitized quantum annealing on an IBM QPU.
This thesis studies several aspects of the quantum annealing (QA) computing approach. Quantum annealers' primary objective is to solve hard computational optimization problems. Because these optimization problems are in the NP-Hard complexity class, they are of great interest in several fields. One of the leading open questions concerning quantum annealers asks whether they will outperform other classical methods for solving these problems; Some aspects of this question are addressed in this thesis. The first part of the thesis investigates whether quantum annealing provides improved performance for solving a particular family of NP problems, called the Quadratic Knapsack Problem (QKP), using the D-Wave Quantum Annealer. The performance metrics used to assess QKP solving are the solution quality and the total runtime, and are benchmarked against other classical solvers. \n \nFurthermore, we extend our research on quantum annealers to propose two use cases for such systems. One is for Blockchain technology, and the second is in the area of quantum chaos. For the first use case of QA, an application for Blockchain's Proof of Work (PoW) is proposed, based on having hard optimization problems as an alternative to PoW hashing challenge, and using quantum annealers as solvers. For the second use case of QA, we propose simulating quantum chaos on the D-Wave Quantum Annealer to study the transition between the deep quantum realm and the classical limit in a chaotic system, and obtain insights into the “quantumness" of quantum annealers.
In this work, we attempt to solve the integer-weight knapsack problem using the D-Wave 2000Q adiabatic quantum computer. The knapsack problem is a well-known NP-complete problem in computer science, with applications in economics, business, finance, etc. We attempt to solve a number of small knapsack problems whose optimal solutions are known; we find that adiabatic quantum optimization fails to produce solutions corresponding to optimal filling of the knapsack in all problem instances. We compare results obtained on the quantum hardware to the classical simulated annealing algorithm and two solvers employing a hybrid branch-and-bound algorithm. The simulated annealing algorithm also fails to produce the optimal filling of the knapsack, though solutions obtained by simulated and quantum annealing are no more similar to each other than to the correct solution. We discuss potential causes for this observed failure of adiabatic quantum optimization.