The calibration of suspension geometry involves highly nonlinear kinematic relationships and leads to challenging optimization landscapes that are difficult to explore efficiently with classical local methods. Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) provides a unified discrete formulation that enables the use of a wide range of metaheuristic solvers, but its practical behavior in realistic engineering-inspired problems remains insufficiently benchmarked. This paper presents a computational benchmarking study of classical, parallel, and hybrid metaheuristic solvers applied to a QUBO-formulated double wishbone suspension geometry problem. A symbolic multi-body kinematic model is constructed and discretized into a large-scale QUBO instance capturing camber and caster tracking objectives across multiple roll conditions. Using a fixed low-resolution binary encoding, we systematically evaluate solver performance in terms of objective value, runtime, and time-to-solution trade-offs. The benchmark includes standard simulated annealing and tabu search, parallel simulated annealing, population-based annealing, bandit-controlled hybrid heuristics, and continuous-relaxation-based ADMM methods with and without annealing refinement. Extensive experiments conducted on a Euro-HPC pre-exascale system demonstrate that parallel and hybrid solvers can achieve substantial reductions in wall-clock time—often exceeding two orders of magnitude—while attaining objective values comparable to classical simulated annealing. The results reveal clear trade-offs between solution quality and computational efficiency, and highlight how solver structure influences performance on large QUBO instances derived from symbolic engineering models. Rather than focusing on final design optimality, this study provides a reproducible reference benchmark and practical insights into solver behavior for QUBO-based engineering optimization problems.
The calibration of suspension geometry involves highly nonlinear kinematic relationships and leads to challenging optimization landscapes that are difficult to explore efficiently with classical local methods. Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) provides a unified discrete formulation that enables the use of a wide range of metaheuristic solvers, but its practical behavior in realistic engineering-inspired problems remains insufficiently benchmarked. This paper presents a computational benchmarking study of classical, parallel, and hybrid metaheuristic solvers applied to a QUBO-formulated double wishbone suspension geometry problem. A symbolic multi-body kinematic model is constructed and discretized into a large-scale QUBO instance capturing camber and caster tracking objectives across multiple roll conditions. Using a fixed low-resolution binary encoding, we systematically evaluate solver performance in terms of objective value, runtime, and time-to-solution trade-offs. The benchmark includes standard simulated annealing and tabu search, parallel simulated annealing, population-based annealing, bandit-controlled hybrid heuristics, and continuous-relaxation-based ADMM methods with and without annealing refinement. Extensive experiments conducted on a Euro-HPC pre-exascale system demonstrate that parallel and hybrid solvers can achieve substantial reductions in wall-clock time—often exceeding two orders of magnitude—while attaining objective values comparable to classical simulated annealing. The results reveal clear trade-offs between solution quality and computational efficiency, and highlight how solver structure influences performance on large QUBO instances derived from symbolic engineering models. Rather than focusing on final design optimality, this study provides a reproducible reference benchmark and practical insights into solver behavior for QUBO-based engineering optimization problems.
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.
Abstract As interest in quantum and related optimization paradigms continues to grow, fairly and systematically comparing their performance across practical problem settings remains challenging. This challenge arises because these approaches often target different problem classes, use different mathematical representations, and are affected differently by modeling choices. As a result, observed performance depends not only on the solver itself, but also on how a problem is formulated, reformulated, and translated into a solver-specific input language. This work presents a publicly available and extensible benchmarking framework that unifies advances in quantum, quantum-hybrid, quantum-inspired, and classical optimization by enabling consistent comparison across use cases, solvers, and models. We address the diversity of solver “languages”—from mixed-integer programming (MIP) formulations for branch-and-bound methods over quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) models for quantum annealers to constrained quadratic models (CQM) for hybrid approaches — as well as the influence of modeling choices, such as binary encodings and penalty formulations, on both performance and solution fidelity. By supporting systematic variation across the three dimensions of use case, solver, and model, the framework reveals trade-offs that single-dimension benchmarks overlook, clarifies when native formulations are preferable, and enables rigorous evaluation of practical combinatorial optimization problems. The two case studies, vehicle routing and maximum cut, illustrate this principle: their contrasting outcomes show that the effectiveness of a solver depends strongly on how well the chosen model representation matches the solver backend and the use case.
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.
Heterogeneous HPC workflow scheduling under multiple hard constraints poses a challenging combinatorial optimization problem. Classical exact solvers guarantee optimality but face scalability limits, motivating interest in quantum-inspired Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) as an alternative optimization paradigm. This work presents a systematic empirical evaluation of QUBO-based scheduling methods against 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, with hybrid enhancement strategies on validation workflows (3-4 tasks) and synthetic scaling instances (5-20 tasks). All solvers are assessed through a unified pipeline tracking feasibility, makespan, and resource utilization under progressive constraint activation and controlled penalty sweeps. 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 analysis reveals a sharp feasibility threshold for QUBO-SA, where insufficient penalties consistently fail and moderate-to-strong penalties restore feasibility. Scaling experiments show that classical solvers remain robust across all tested sizes, while QUBO-SA loses feasibility beyond 15 tasks and the QAOA-inspired variant beyond 10 tasks. The study provides a clear empirical characterization of the reliability boundaries of quantum-inspired QUBO formulations for HPC scheduling and identifies regimes where classical approaches remain preferable under current solver capabilities.
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
We perform an end-to-end benchmark of a hybrid sequential quantum computing (HSQC) solver for higher-order unconstrained binary optimization (HUBO), executed on IBM Heron r3 quantum processors to evaluate the potential of current quantum hardware for combinatorial optimization with sub-second end-to-end runtimes. All reported runtimes include the complete pipeline--from preprocessing to QPU execution and postprocessing--under strict wall-clock accounting. Across 20 benchmark instances, a single hybrid attempt produces high-quality solutions in less than one second, matching the ground-state energy in 14 cases. At the same runtime, CPU-based solvers, including simulated annealing, memetic tabu search, and EasySolve, do not reach the value obtained by HSQC, whereas an enhanced parallel tempering method and the GPU-accelerated solver ABS3 reach or surpass it. These results show that HSQC, executed on a single QPU, can achieve performance competitive with strong classical solvers running on 128 vCPUs or 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs, while also providing a reproducible system-level benchmark for tracking progress as quantum hardware and hybrid sequential workflows improve.