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

arXiv:quant-ph/9908080

A Quantum NP Solver: NP in QP

Clarke, Thomas L.

Published Aug 27, 1999• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A attempt at a quantum algorithm for solving NP problems is presented. Now withdrawn because some crucial operators were not unitary.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9908080

Related papers

Solving in the quantum computer every classical NP problem in polynomial time

Fernando Maroto

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error in eq.59. I apologize for the inconveniences.

arXiv:quant-ph/9801036•Jan 16, 1998•0 citations

A New Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Solving NP-complete Problems

Dhananjay P. Mehendale

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Efficient Algorithm for Binary Quadratic Problem by Column Generation and Quantum Annealing

Sota Hirama, Masayuki Ohzeki

We propose an efficient algorithm that combines column generation and quantum annealing to solve binary quadratic problems. Binary quadratic problems are difficult to solve because they are NP-hard. An attempt to solve binary quadratic problems efficiently by column generation has been studied, but it demands successively solving quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems. We solve the bottleneck by using quantum annealing or simulated annealing. Our results demonstrate a good approximate solution obtained in 2.7 to 1000 times shorter computational time to use column generation and quantum annealing to solve binary quadratic problems than the existing fast solver.

arXiv:2307.05966•Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Oct 19, 2023•16 citations

Globally solving Non-Convex Quadratic Programs via Linear Integer Programming techniques

Wei Xia, Juan C. Vera, Luis F. Zuluaga

Quadratic programming (QP) is a well-studied fundamental NP-hard optimization problem which optimizes a quadratic objective over a set of linear constraints. In this paper, we reformulate QPs as a mixed-integer linear problem (MILP). This is done via the reformulation of QP as a linear complementary problem, and the use of binary variables and big-M constraints, to model the complementary constraints. To obtain such reformulation, we show how to impose bounds on the dual variables without eliminating all the (globally) optimal primal solutions; using some fundamental results on the solution of perturbed linear systems. Reformulating non-convex QPs as MILPs provides an advantageous way to obtain global solutions as it allows the use of current state-of-the-art MILP solvers. To illustrate this, we compare the performance of our solution approach, labeled quadprogIP, with the current benchmark global QP solver quadprogBB, as well as with BARON, one of the leading non-linear programming (NLP) solvers, and CPLEX's non-convex QP solver, on a large variety of QP test instances. In practice, quadprogIP is shown to typically outperform by orders of magnitude quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX on standard QPs. For general QPs, quadprogIP outperforms quadprogBB, outperforms BARON in most instances, while CPLEX performs the best on these instances. For box-constrained QPs, quadprogIP has a comparable performance to quadprogBB and BARON in small- to medium-scale instances, but is outperformed by these solvers on large-scale instances; while CPLEX performs the best on box-constrained QP instances. Also, unlike quadprogBB, the solution approach proposed here is able to solve QP instances whose dual feasible set is unbounded. The MATLAB code, called quadprogIP, and the instances used to perform these numerical experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/xiawei918/quadprogIP.

arXiv:1511.02423•Nov 8, 2015•9 citations

New quantum algorithm for studying NP-complete problems

Masanori Ohya, Igor V. Volovich

arXiv:quant-ph/0406216•Reports on Mathematical Physics•Aug 1, 2003•32 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
We propose an efficient algorithm that combines column generation and quantum annealing to solve binary quadratic problems. Binary quadratic problems are difficult to solve because they are NP-hard. An attempt to solve binary quadratic problems efficiently by column generation has been studied, but it demands successively solving quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems. We solve the bottleneck by using quantum annealing or simulated annealing. Our results demonstrate a good approximate solution obtained in 2.7 to 1000 times shorter computational time to use column generation and quantum annealing to solve binary quadratic problems than the existing fast solver.
Quadratic programming (QP) is a well-studied fundamental NP-hard optimization problem which optimizes a quadratic objective over a set of linear constraints. In this paper, we reformulate QPs as a mixed-integer linear problem (MILP). This is done via the reformulation of QP as a linear complementary problem, and the use of binary variables and big-M constraints, to model the complementary constraints. To obtain such reformulation, we show how to impose bounds on the dual variables without eliminating all the (globally) optimal primal solutions; using some fundamental results on the solution of perturbed linear systems. Reformulating non-convex QPs as MILPs provides an advantageous way to obtain global solutions as it allows the use of current state-of-the-art MILP solvers. To illustrate this, we compare the performance of our solution approach, labeled quadprogIP, with the current benchmark global QP solver quadprogBB, as well as with BARON, one of the leading non-linear programming (NLP) solvers, and CPLEX's non-convex QP solver, on a large variety of QP test instances. In practice, quadprogIP is shown to typically outperform by orders of magnitude quadprogBB, BARON, and CPLEX on standard QPs. For general QPs, quadprogIP outperforms quadprogBB, outperforms BARON in most instances, while CPLEX performs the best on these instances. For box-constrained QPs, quadprogIP has a comparable performance to quadprogBB and BARON in small- to medium-scale instances, but is outperformed by these solvers on large-scale instances; while CPLEX performs the best on box-constrained QP instances. Also, unlike quadprogBB, the solution approach proposed here is able to solve QP instances whose dual feasible set is unbounded. The MATLAB code, called quadprogIP, and the instances used to perform these numerical experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/xiawei918/quadprogIP.
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.