Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) has been proposed as an improvement to conventional quantum annealing for solving optimization problems, in which one takes advantage of an initial guess at the solution to suppress problematic phase transitions. Here we interpret the performance of ARA through its effects on the free energy landscape, and use the intuition gained to introduce a classical analogue to ARA termed ``simulated reverse annealing'' (SRA). This makes it more difficult to claim that ARA provides a quantum advantage in solving a given problem, as not only must ARA succeed but the corresponding SRA must fail. As a solvable example, we analyze how both protocols behave in the infinite-range (non-disordered) $p$ -spin model. Through both the thermodynamic phase diagrams and explicit dynamical behavior, we establish that the quantum algorithm has no advantage over its classical counterpart: SRA succeeds not only in every case where ARA does but even in a narrow range of parameters where ARA fails.Adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) has been proposed as an improvement to conventional quantum annealing for solving optimization problems, in which one takes advantage of an initial guess at the solution to suppress problematic phase transitions. Here we interpret the performance of ARA through its effects on the free energy landscape, and use the intuition gained to introduce a classical analogue to ARA termed ``simulated reverse annealing'' (SRA). This makes it more difficult to claim that ARA provides a quantum advantage in solving a given problem, as not only must ARA succeed but the corresponding SRA must fail. As a solvable example, we analyze how both protocols behave in the infinite-range (non-disordered) $p$-spin model. Through both the thermodynamic phase diagrams and explicit dynamical behavior, we establish that the quantum algorithm has no advantage over its classical counterpart: SRA succeeds not only in every case where ARA does but even in a narrow range of parameters where ARA fails.

arXiv:2511.00150Oct 31, 20250 citations

Comparison of quantum annealing and simulated annealing

Hidetoshi Nishimori

The European Physical Journal Special TopicsFeb 1, 20152 citations

Dynamics of reverse annealing for the fully connected p-spin model

悠山城, Yu Yamashiro, 秀稔西森 +2 more

Reverse annealing is a relatively new variant of quantum annealing in which one starts from a classical state and increases and then decreases the amplitude of the transverse field, in the hope of finding a better classical state than the initial state for a given optimization problem.We numerically study the unitary quantum dynamics of reverse annealing for the mean-field-type p-spin model and show that the results are consistent with the predictions of equilibrium statistical mechanics.In particular, we corroborate the equilibrium analysis prediction that reverse annealing provides an exponential speedup over conventional quantum annealing in terms of solving the p-spin model.This lends support to the expectation that equilibrium analyses are effective at revealing essential aspects of the dynamics of quantum annealing.We also compare the results of quantum dynamics with the corresponding classical dynamics to reveal their similarities and differences.We distinguish between two reverse annealing protocols we call adiabatic and iterated reverse annealing.We further show that iterated reverse annealing, as has been realized in the D-Wave device, is ineffective in the case of the p-spin model but note that a recently introduced protocol ("h-gain"), which implements adiabatic reverse annealing, may lead to improved performance.Reverse annealing is a relatively new variant of quantum annealing in which one starts from a classical state and increases and then decreases the amplitude of the transverse field, in the hope of finding a better classical state than the initial state for a given optimization problem.We numerically study the unitary quantum dynamics of reverse annealing for the mean-field-type p-spin model and show that the results are consistent with the predictions of equilibrium statistical mechanics.In particular, we corroborate the equilibrium analysis prediction that reverse annealing provides an exponential speedup over conventional quantum annealing in terms of solving the p-spin model.This lends support to the expectation that equilibrium analyses are effective at revealing essential aspects of the dynamics of quantum annealing.We also compare the results of quantum dynamics with the corresponding classical dynamics to reveal their similarities and differences.We distinguish between two reverse annealing protocols we call adiabatic and iterated reverse annealing.We further show that iterated reverse annealing, as has been realized in the D-Wave device, is ineffective in the case of the p-spin model but note that a recently introduced protocol ("h-gain"), which implements adiabatic reverse annealing, may lead to improved performance.

Nov 1, 20190 citations

Standard quantum annealing outperforms adiabatic reverse annealing with decoherence

Gianluca Passarelli, Ka-Wa Yip, Daniel A. Lidar +1 more

We study adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) in an open system. In the closed system (unitary) setting, this annealing protocol allows avoidance of first-order quantum phase transitions of selected models, resulting in an exponential speedup compared with standard quantum annealing, provided that the initial state of the algorithm is close in Hamming distance to the target one. Here, we show that decoherence can significantly modify this conclusion: by resorting to the adiabatic master equation approach, we simulate the dynamics of the ferromagnetic $p$ -spin model with $p=3$ under independent and collective dephasing. For both models of decoherence, we show that the performance of open system ARA is far less sensitive to the choice of the initial state than its unitary counterpart, and, most significantly, that open system ARA by and large loses its time to solution advantage compared to standard quantum annealing. These results suggest that as a stand-alone strategy ARA is unlikely to experimentally outperform standard ``forward'' quantum annealing, and that error mitigation strategies will likely be required in order to realize the benefits of ARA in realistic, noisy settings.We study adiabatic reverse annealing (ARA) in an open system. In the closed system (unitary) setting, this annealing protocol allows avoidance of first-order quantum phase transitions of selected models, resulting in an exponential speedup compared with standard quantum annealing, provided that the initial state of the algorithm is close in Hamming distance to the target one. Here, we show that decoherence can significantly modify this conclusion: by resorting to the adiabatic master equation approach, we simulate the dynamics of the ferromagnetic $p$-spin model with $p=3$ under independent and collective dephasing. For both models of decoherence, we show that the performance of open system ARA is far less sensitive to the choice of the initial state than its unitary counterpart, and, most significantly, that open system ARA by and large loses its time to solution advantage compared to standard quantum annealing. These results suggest that as a stand-alone strategy ARA is unlikely to experimentally outperform standard ``forward'' quantum annealing, and that error mitigation strategies will likely be required in order to realize the benefits of ARA in realistic, noisy settings.

arXiv:2201.11997Physical Review AMar 18, 202214 citations

p

-spin model. Through both the thermodynamic phase diagrams and explicit dynamical behavior, we establish that the quantum algorithm has no advantage over its classical counterpart: SRA succeeds not only in every case where ARA does but even in a narrow range of parameters where ARA fails.

p

-spin model with

p=3

under independent and collective dephasing. For both models of decoherence, we show that the performance of open system ARA is far less sensitive to the choice of the initial state than its unitary counterpart, and, most significantly, that open system ARA by and large loses its time to solution advantage compared to standard quantum annealing. These results suggest that as a stand-alone strategy ARA is unlikely to experimentally outperform standard ``forward'' quantum annealing, and that error mitigation strategies will likely be required in order to realize the benefits of ARA in realistic, noisy settings.