Permutation problems, such as the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) and the Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP), form a well-established class of combinatorial optimisation problems with broad applications in routing, assignment, and scheduling. Metaheuristics, particularly Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), have been widely demonstrated to yield high-quality solutions for these problems. In parallel, classical commercial solvers based on Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP), including CPLEX and Gurobi, have also been extensively applied. In recent years, there has been growing interest in quantum, quantum-inspired, and quantum-hybrid approaches for solving combinatorial optimisation problems. This paper presents a comparative analysis of six optimisation solvers: Genetic Algorithm (GA), Estimation of Distribution Algorithm (EDA), CPLEX, Gurobi, Digital Annealer (DA), and a quantum-hybrid Nonlinear solver (NL), applied to permutation problems. We evaluate solver performance in terms of runtime, solution quality relative to optimality, and scalability across instances of TSP and QAP. Our results highlight the promising performance of the quantum-hybrid Nonlinear solver across all evaluation metrics.
Permutation problems, such as the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) and the Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP), form a well-established class of combinatorial optimisation problems with broad applications in routing, assignment, and scheduling. Metaheuristics, particularly Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), have been widely demonstrated to yield high-quality solutions for these problems. In parallel, classical commercial solvers based on Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP), including CPLEX and Gurobi, have also been extensively applied. In recent years, there has been growing interest in quantum, quantum-inspired, and quantum-hybrid approaches for solving combinatorial optimisation problems. This paper presents a comparative analysis of six optimisation solvers: Genetic Algorithm (GA), Estimation of Distribution Algorithm (EDA), CPLEX, Gurobi, Digital Annealer (DA), and a quantum-hybrid Nonlinear solver (NL), applied to permutation problems. We evaluate solver performance in terms of runtime, solution quality relative to optimality, and scalability across instances of TSP and QAP. Our results highlight the promising performance of the quantum-hybrid Nonlinear solver across all evaluation metrics.
In more recent years, there has been increasing research interest in exploiting the use of application specific hardware for solving optimisation problems. Examples of solvers that use specialised hardware are IBM's Quantum System One and D-wave's Quantum Annealer (QA) and Fujitsu's Digital Annealer (DA). These solvers have been developed to optimise problems faster than traditional meta-heuristics implemented on general purpose machines. Previous research has shown that these solvers (can optimise many problems much quicker than exact solvers such as GUROBI and CPLEX. Such conclusions have not been made when comparing hardware solvers with classical evolutionary algorithms. Making a fair comparison between traditional evolutionary algorithms, such as Genetic Algorithm (GA), and the DA (or other similar solvers) is challenging because the later benefits from the use of application specific hardware while evolutionary algorithms are often implemented on general-purpose machines. Moreover, quantum or quantum-inspired solvers are limited to solving problems in a specific format. A common formulation used is Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimisation (QUBO). Many optimisation problems are however constrained and have natural representations that are non-binary. Converting such problems to QUBO can lead to more problem difficulty and/or larger search space. The question addressed in this paper is whether quantum or quantum-inspired solvers can optimise QUBO transformations of combinatorial optimisation problems faster than classical evolutionary algorithms applied to the same problems in their natural representations. We show that the DA often present better average objective function values than GA on Travelling Salesman, Quadratic Assignment and Multi-dimensional Knapsack Problem instances.
Optimization algorithms for combinatorial problems play a critical role in a wide range of applications, from logistics and scheduling to cryptography and artificial intelligence. Traditional classical methods, such as simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, and branch-and-bound techniques, have been widely employed to solve these problems, but they often face limitations in terms of computational efficiency and scalability as problem complexity grows. In recent years, quantum computing has emerged as a promising alternative, with quantum annealing offering a novel approach to solving combinatorial optimization problems. This study provides a comparative analysis of quantum annealing and classical optimization methods, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. We explore how quantum annealing, through leveraging quantum tunnelling and superposition, has the potential to outperform classical algorithms in specific problem domains and Noisy Mean Field Annealing (NMFA) is used to comparisons of all algorithms. Benchmarking various combinatorial problems, such as the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), Max-Cut, Knapsack, and Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP), this paper discusses performance metrics, computational time, and scalability. The findings suggest that while classical methods remain robust and practical for many real-world problems, quantum annealing holds significant promise, especially as quantum hardware continues to mature. However, there remain challenges in terms of noise, coherence, and problem mapping, which currently limit the full realization of quantum annealing's potential. This study offers insights into the future directions of optimization techniques and the evolving role of quantum computing in solving complex combinatorial problems.
For various optimization problems, the classical time to solution is super-polynomial and intractable to solve with classical bit-based computing hardware to date. Digital and quantum annealers have the potential to identify near-optimal solutions for such optimization problems using a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem formulation. This work benchmarks two use cases to evaluate the utility of QUBO solvers for combinatorial optimization problems, in order to determine if a QUBO formulation and annealing-based algorithms have an advantage over classical mixed-integer programming (MIP) and constraint programming (CP) solvers. Various QUBO and solver metrics such as problem mapping, quantitative interconnectivity, penalty structure, solver minimum cost (obtained optimal value) and solver time to solution have been applied to evaluate different QUBO problems. Constrained and unconstrained QUBO solvers are compared including the Fujitsu digital annealer (DA), various D-Wave hybrid quantum annealing solvers (QA, HQA), and the classical MIP/CP solvers HiGHS, Gurobi, SCIP, and CP-SAT. The two industrially relevant use cases are reaction network pathway analysis and mRNA codon selection. For reaction pathway analysis, classical MIP/CP solvers (especially Gurobi and CP-SAT) are observed to solve the problem to optimality in reasonable time frames. For mRNA codon selection, Gurobi outperformed all other solvers in time to solution for all problem sizes, followed by CP-SAT and the D-Wave Nonlinear (NL) HQA solver.
This paper implements a new way of solving a problem called the traveling salesman problem (TSP) using quantum genetic algorithm (QGA). We compared how well this new approach works to the traditional method known as a classical genetic algorithm (CGA). The TSP is a well-established challenge in combinatorial optimization where the objective is to find the most efficient path to visit a series of cities, minimizing the total distance, and returning to the starting point. We chose the TSP to test the performance of both algorithms because of its computational complexity and importance in practical applications. We choose the dataset from the international standard library TSPLIB for our experiments. By designing and implementing both algorithms and conducting experiments on various sizes and types of TSP instances, we provide an in-depth analysis of the accuracy of the optimal solution, the number of iterations, the execution time, and the stability of the algorithms for both. The empirical findings indicate that the CGA outperforms the QGA in terms of finding superior solutions more quickly in most of the test instances, especially when the problem size is large. This suggests that although the principle of quantum computing provides a new way to solve complex combinatorial optimisation problems, the implementation of quantum phenomena and the setting of parameters such as the optimal angle for a quantum revolving gate is challenging and need further optimisation to achieve the desired results. Additionally, it is important to note that the QGA has not been tested on real quantum hardware, so its true performance remains unverified. These limitations provide rich opportunities for further research in the future.
Claims of quantum advantage for combinatorial optimisation require rigorous comparison against state-of-the-art classical algorithms under controlled experimental conditions -- yet the quantum computing literature frequently benchmarks quantum methods against weak classical baselines such as greedy heuristics or random search, inflating apparent quantum advantage. This paper presents the Quantum-Classical Combinatorial Benchmark (QCCB), a rigorous comparative study of quantum optimisation algorithms (QAOA, VQE-QUBO, hybrid QA) against nine state-of-the-art classical algorithms (Goemans-Williamson SDP, simulated annealing, tabu search, CPLEX branch-and-bound, OR-Tools CP-SAT, Gurobi MIP, Benders decomposition, extremal optimisation, and population-based iterated local search) across six canonical combinatorial problem classes (MaxCut, Vertex Cover, Graph Colouring, Knapsack, Set Cover, and Weighted Max-SAT) at problem sizes n = 12 to n = 256. QCCB finds that no quantum algorithm consistently outperforms all classical baselines across all problem classes at current NISQ scale. QAOA with QOAS adaptive depth (Bianchi, 2024) outperforms all nine classical algorithms on MaxCut at n = 48 (approximation ratio 0.924 vs. GW 0.878). However, classical Gurobi MIP and CPLEX solve MaxCut exactly for n up to n = 84 within the same time budget, eliminating the QAOA advantage at moderate scale. QCCB provides nuanced guidance on problem classes, instance sizes, and time budgets where quantum algorithms offer genuine near-term advantage.
This study compares the performance of D-Wave’s two quantum-classical hybrid optimization solvers, which integrate quantum computing principles with classical optimization techniques to solve complex optimization problems. It focuses on the Binary Quadratic Model (BQM) solver, which encodes optimization problems using a binary quadratic formulation, and the Constrained Quadratic Model (CQM) solver, which can incorporate constraints into the model. The solvers were tested on five combinatorial optimization problems: Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), Quadratic Knapsack Problem (QKP), Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP), Weighted Max-Cut Problem (WMP), and Maximum Clique Problem (MCP). The goal is to quantify the accuracy of solutions compared to the optimal ones. Experiments on multiple instances with known optimal solutions examined solver behavior and solution quality. At default execution durations, the CQM solver generally outperforms BQM with lower error and higher consistency. Across all test problem instances in TSP, QKP, QAP, and WMP, the CQM solver achieved lower average absolute errors by 48.38, 27.83, 21.29, and 0.05 percentage points, respectively, compared to the BQM solver. An exception was found in MCP, where the BQM solver outperformed the CQM solver by 0.75 percentage points. These findings provide a guide for end users to understand the characteristics of the solvers and to select the appropriate solver for their specific optimization problems.