Unstructured Adiabatic Quantum Optimization: Optimality with Limitations

Arthur Braida; Shantanav Chakraborty; Alapan Chaudhuri; Joseph Cunningham; Rutvij Menavlikar; Leonardo Novo; Jérémie Roland

doi:10.22331/q-2025-07-11-1790

Unstructured Adiabatic Quantum Optimization: Optimality with Limitations

Arthur Braida¹, Shantanav Chakraborty², Alapan Chaudhuri², Joseph Cunningham¹, Rutvij Menavlikar², Leonardo Novo³, and Jérémie Roland¹

¹QuIC, Ecole Polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
²CQST and CSTAR, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, Telangana, India
³International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Braga, Portugal

Published:	2025-07-11, volume 9, page 1790
Editor:	Yu Tong
Eprint:	arXiv:2411.05736v3
Doi:	https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-07-11-1790
Citation:	Quantum 9, 1790 (2025).

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

In the circuit model of quantum computing, amplitude amplification techniques can be used to find solutions to NP-hard problems defined on $n$-bits in time $\text{poly}(n) 2^{n/2}$. In this work, we investigate whether such general statements can be made for adiabatic quantum optimization, as provable results regarding its performance are mostly unknown. Although a lower bound of $\Omega(2^{n/2})$ has existed in such a setting for over a decade, a purely adiabatic algorithm with this running time has been absent. We show that adiabatic quantum optimization using an unstructured search approach results in a running time that matches this lower bound (up to a polylogarithmic factor) for a broad class of classical local spin Hamiltonians. For this, it is necessary to bound the spectral gap throughout the adiabatic evolution and compute beforehand the position of the avoided crossing with sufficient precision so as to adapt the adiabatic schedule accordingly. However, we show that the position of the avoided crossing is approximately given by a quantity that depends on the degeneracies and inverse gaps of the problem Hamiltonian and is NP-hard to compute even within a low additive precision. Furthermore, computing it exactly (or nearly exactly) is #P-hard. Our work indicates a possible limitation of adiabatic quantum optimization algorithms, leaving open the question of whether provable Grover-like speed-ups can be obtained for any optimization problem using this approach.

Featured image: Summary of our results

Popular summary

Adiabatic Quantum Computation (AQC) is a physically motivated model of quantum computing where a system evolves slowly under a changing energy landscape. The system begins in the easily prepared ground state of a simple Hamiltonian and, over time, transforms into a complex problem Hamiltonian whose ground state encodes the solution to a computational task. If the evolution is slow enough, the quantum system remains in its ground state throughout, and the final measurement reveals the answer.

This continuous-time approach offers a natural way to solve optimization problems, especially NP-complete ones like SAT or MaxCut, by encoding them into classical Ising spin systems. Although it is unclear how much quantum speed-up can be obtained for optimization problems via the adiabatic approach, it is natural to expect that at least a provable quadratic speed-up over brute force classical search would be possible. Indeed, in the circuit model of quantum computation, we know that quantum computers can generically speed up brute-force search by a square root factor, thanks to Grover’s algorithm and its generalization, quantum amplitude amplification. For example, if a classical computer takes $O(2^n)$ time to find the solution of some hard problem, a quantum one can do it in $O(2^{n/2}~\mathrm{poly}(n))$ time using amplitude amplification.

The main question we address in our work is thus the following: Can the adiabatic model provide this same generic quantum advantage? Since AQC is a universal model, any circuit-based algorithm can, in principle, be implemented adiabatically, it’s tempting to believe the answer is yes. Moreover, there is an adiabatic version of Grover’s algorithm that achieves the same running time as the circuit model version. In the more complex scenario of finding the minimum of a classical cost function, it has been known for over a decade that any adiabatic unstructured search algorithm would require at least $2^{n/2}$ time. However, no purely adiabatic algorithm was known to achieve this bound until now.

In this work, we show that unstructured adiabatic quantum optimization (AQO) can indeed match this lower bound, providing a generic quadratic quantum speedup over classical brute-force search for a wide class of classical Hamiltonians, including those encoding NP-hard or NP-complete problems. The key challenge lies in analyzing the spectral gap (the energy difference between the two lowest eigenstates) during the adiabatic evolution, which controls how slowly the system must evolve. In our case, the smallest gap appears at a critical point in the evolution called an avoided crossing. Identifying this point accurately is crucial because it determines how to adjust the rate of evolution, a faster pace where the gap is wide, and a slower one near the minimum gap. We rigorously analyze this process, tightly bounding the spectral gap throughout the adiabatic path and constructing an optimized local schedule that ensures the algorithm finishes in $O(2^{n/2}~\mathrm{poly}(n))$ time, matching Grover-like performance in a fully adiabatic setting.

However, there is a fundamental limitation. We show that determining the location of the avoided crossing requires knowing a spectral quantity that depends on the degeneracies and energy gaps of the problem Hamiltonian. Unfortunately, approximating this quantity to even modest precision is NP-hard, and computing it exactly is #P-hard, as hard as counting the number of solutions to a SAT instance. This reveals a fundamental limitation of the unstructured adiabatic optimization algorithm we analyze: although it can, in principle, provide a generic quadratic speedup, doing so requires solving a classically intractable problem up front. By contrast, this bottleneck is absent in the gate-based model, using tools like amplitude amplification and quantum phase estimation without needing detailed spectral knowledge.

In summary, our work answers a long-standing open question in quantum computing. We show that generic quadratic speedups via adiabatic evolution are possible, but they come with significant caveats. This interplay between the power of AQC and the hardness of spectral analysis highlights both its promise and its limitations and opens exciting new avenues for overcoming these obstacles in future quantum algorithm design.

► BibTeX data

@article{Braida2025unstructured,
  doi = {10.22331/q-2025-07-11-1790},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-07-11-1790},
  title = {Unstructured {A}diabatic {Q}uantum {O}ptimization: {O}ptimality with {L}imitations},
  author = {Braida, Arthur and Chakraborty, Shantanav and Chaudhuri, Alapan and Cunningham, Joseph and Menavlikar, Rutvij and Novo, Leonardo and Roland, J{\'{e}}r{\'{e}}mie},
  journal = {{Quantum}},
  issn = {2521-327X},
  publisher = {{Verein zur F{\"{o}}rderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften}},
  volume = {9},
  pages = {1790},
  month = jul,
  year = {2025}
}

► References

[1] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Michael Sipser. Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution. arXiv:quant-ph/0001106, 2000. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001106, doi:10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0001106.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0001106
arXiv:quant-ph/0001106

[2] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, Joshua Lapan, Andrew Lundgren, and Daniel Preda. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-Complete problem. Science, 292(5516):472–475, 2001. URL: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1057726, doi:10.1126/science.1057726.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057726

[3] Matthew B. Hastings. Obstructions to classically simulating the quantum adiabatic algorithm. Quantum Info. Comput., 13(11–12):1038–1076, November 2013. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2535639.2535647.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2535639.2535647

[4] Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:015002, Jan 2018. URL: https://doi.org10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

[5] Julia Kempe, Alexei Kitaev, and Oded Regev. The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 35(5):1070–1097, 2006. doi:10.1137/S0097539704445226.
https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704445226

[6] Mark W Johnson, Mohammad HS Amin, Suzanne Gildert, Trevor Lanting, Firas Hamze, Neil Dickson, Richard Harris, Andrew J Berkley, Jan Johansson, Paul Bunyk, et al. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature, 473(7346):194–198, 2011. doi:10.1038/nature10012.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10012

[7] Dorit Aharonov, Wim van Dam, Julia Kempe, Zeph Landau, Seth Lloyd, and Oded Regev. Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):166–194, 2007. doi:10.1137/S0097539705447323.
https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539705447323

[8] Dorit Aharonov and Amnon Ta-Shma. Adiabatic quantum state generation and statistical zero knowledge. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '03, page 20–29, New York, NY, USA, 2003. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/780542.780546.
https://doi.org/10.1145/780542.780546

[9] Hari Krovi, Maris Ozols, and Jérémie Roland. Adiabatic condition and the quantum hitting time of markov chains. Phys. Rev. A, 82:022333, Aug 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022333, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022333.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022333

[10] Rolando D. Somma, Daniel Nagaj, and Mária Kieferová. Quantum speedup by quantum annealing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:050501, Jul 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.050501

[11] Silvano Garnerone, Paolo Zanardi, and Daniel A. Lidar. Adiabatic quantum algorithm for search engine ranking. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:230506, Jun 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230506, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230506.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.230506

[12] Matthew B. Hastings. The Power of Adiabatic Quantum Computation with No Sign Problem. Quantum, 5:597, December 2021. doi:10.22331/q-2021-12-06-597.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-12-06-597

[13] András Gilyén, Matthew B. Hastings, and Umesh Vazirani. (Sub)exponential advantage of adiabatic quantum computation with no sign problem. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2021, page 1357–1369, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3406325.3451060.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451060

[14] Yiğit Subaşı, Rolando D. Somma, and Davide Orsucci. Quantum algorithms for systems of linear equations inspired by adiabatic quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:060504, Feb 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.060504, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.060504.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.060504

[15] Lin Lin and Yu Tong. Optimal polynomial based quantum eigenstate filtering with application to solving quantum linear systems. Quantum, 4:361, November 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-11-361.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-11-11-361

[16] Dong An and Lin Lin. Quantum linear system solver based on time-optimal adiabatic quantum computing and quantum approximate optimization algorithm. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 3(2), March 2022. doi:10.1145/3498331.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3498331

[17] Alexander M. Dalzell, Nicola Pancotti, Earl T. Campbell, and Fernando G.S.L. Brandão. Mind the gap: Achieving a super-grover quantum speedup by jumping to the end. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023, page 1131–1144, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3564246.3585203.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3564246.3585203

[18] Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Xin Wang, and Nathan Wiebe. Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation with $L^1$-norm scaling. Quantum, 4:254, April 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-04-20-254.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-04-20-254

[19] Sergio Boixo, Emanuel Knill, and Rolando Somma. Eigenpath traversal by phase randomization. Quantum Info. Comput., 9(9):833–855, September 2009. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2011804.2011811.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2011804.2011811

[20] Sabine Jansen, Mary-Beth Ruskai, and Ruedi Seiler. Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(10):102111, 10 2007. doi:10.1063/1.2798382.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2798382

[21] Alexander Elgart and George A. Hagedorn. A note on the switching adiabatic theorem. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 53(10):102202, 09 2012. doi:10.1063/1.4748968.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4748968

[22] Ben W. Reichardt. The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '04, page 502–510, New York, NY, USA, 2004. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1007352.1007428.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1007352.1007428

[23] F Barahona. On the computational complexity of ising spin glass models. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 15(10):3241, oct 1982. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/028, doi:10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/028.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/028

[24] Andrew Lucas. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in physics, 2:5, 2014. doi:doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

[25] Boris Altshuler, Hari Krovi, and Jérémie Roland. Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(28):12446–12450, 2010. URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1002116107, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002116107.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002116107

[26] Jeremie Roland and Nicolas J. Cerf. Quantum search by local adiabatic evolution. Physical Review A, 65(4), mar 2002. doi:10.1103/physreva.65.042308.
https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.65.042308

[27] Andris Ambainis. Quantum search algorithms. Acm Sigact News, 35(2):22–35, 2004.

[28] Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel Nagaj. How to make the quantum adiabatic algorithm fail. International Journal of Quantum Information, 6(03):503–516, 2008. doi:10.1142/S021974990800358X.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S021974990800358X

[29] W. van Dam, M. Mosca, and U. Vazirani. How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation? In Proceedings 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 279–287, 2001. doi:10.1109/SFCS.2001.959902.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2001.959902

[30] Richard M. Karp. Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems, pages 85–103. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1972. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2001-2_9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2001-2_9

[31] Leslie G. Valiant. The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8(3):410–421, 1979. doi:10.1137/0208032.
https://doi.org/10.1137/0208032

[32] Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov. The computational complexity of linear optics. In Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '11, page 333–342, New York, NY, USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1993636.1993682.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1993636.1993682

[33] Michael J. Bremner, Ashley Montanaro, and Dan J. Shepherd. Achieving quantum supremacy with sparse and noisy commuting quantum computations. Quantum, 1:8, April 2017. doi:10.22331/q-2017-04-25-8.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2017-04-25-8

[34] Adam Bouland, Bill Fefferman, Chinmay Nirkhe, and Umesh Vazirani. On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling. Nature Physics, 15(2):159–163, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0318-2.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0318-2

[35] Ramis Movassagh. The hardness of random quantum circuits. Nature Physics, 19(11):1719–1724, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41567-023-02131-2.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02131-2

[36] Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd. Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:5162–5165, Dec 1999. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162

[37] Yimin Ge, Jordi Tura, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 60(2):022202, 02 2019. doi:10.1063/1.5027484.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5027484

[38] Shantanav Chakraborty. Implementing any Linear Combination of Unitaries on Intermediate-term Quantum Computers. Quantum, 8:1496, October 2024. doi:10.22331/q-2024-10-10-1496.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-10-10-1496

[39] Lin Lin and Yu Tong. Near-optimal ground state preparation. Quantum, 4:372, December 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-12-14-372.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-12-14-372

[40] Shantanav Chakraborty, András Gilyén, and Stacey Jeffery. The Power of Block-Encoded Matrix Powers: Improved Regression Techniques via Faster Hamiltonian Simulation. In Christel Baier, Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Paola Flocchini, and Stefano Leonardi, editors, 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019), volume 132 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 33:1–33:14, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2019. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. URL: https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.33, doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.33.
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2019.33

[41] Jack Sherman and Winifred J. Morrison. Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to a Change in One Element of a Given Matrix. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21(1):124 – 127, 1950. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729893.
https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729893

[42] Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak. Computational complexity: a modern approach. Cambridge University Press, 2009. doi:doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804090.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804090

[43] L.G. Valiant. The complexity of computing the permanent. Theoretical Computer Science, 8(2):189–201, 1979. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397579900446, doi:10.1016/0304-3975(79)90044-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(79)90044-6
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397579900446

[44] Joseph Cunningham and Jérémie Roland. Eigenpath Traversal by Poisson-Distributed Phase Randomisation. In Frédéric Magniez and Alex Bredariol Grilo, editors, 19th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC 2024), volume 310 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 7:1–7:20, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2024. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. URL: https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2024.7, doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2024.7.
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2024.7

[45] Marko Žnidaričand Martin Horvat. Exponential complexity of an adiabatic algorithm for an NP-complete problem. Phys. Rev. A, 73:022329, Feb 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022329, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022329.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022329

[46] Itay Hen. Continuous-time quantum algorithms for unstructured problems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(4):045305, jan 2014. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/4/045305, doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/4/045305.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/4/045305

[47] Max Born and Vladimir Fock. Beweis des adiabatensatzes. Zeitschrift für Physik, 51(3):165–180, 1928. doi:10.1007/BF01343193.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01343193

[48] Arthur Braida. Analog Quantum Computing for NP-Hard Combinatorial Graph Problems. Theses, Université d'Orléans, June 2024. URL: https://theses.hal.science/tel-04706199.
https://theses.hal.science/tel-04706199

[49] Andrew M. Childs and Jeffrey Goldstone. Spatial search by quantum walk. Phys. Rev. A, 70:022314, Aug 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022314, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022314.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022314

[50] Shantanav Chakraborty, Leonardo Novo, Andris Ambainis, and Yasser Omar. Spatial search by quantum walk is optimal for almost all graphs. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:100501, Mar 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.100501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.100501.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.100501

[51] Shantanav Chakraborty, Leonardo Novo, and Jérémie Roland. Optimality of spatial search via continuous-time quantum walks. Phys. Rev. A, 102:032214, Sep 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032214, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032214.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.032214

[52] Joseph Cunningham and Jérémie Roland. Quantum adiabatic theorem. In preparation, 2025.

[53] Gene H. Golub. Some modified matrix eigenvalue problems. SIAM Review, 15(2):318–334, 1973. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/1015032, doi:10.1137/1015032.
https://doi.org/10.1137/1015032
arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/1015032

[54] M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson, and L. Stockmeyer. Some simplified NP-complete graph problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(3):237–267, 1976. doi:10.1016/0304-3975(76)90059-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(76)90059-1

[55] Vicky Choi. Different adiabatic quantum optimization algorithms for the NP-complete exact cover and 3sat problems. Quantum Info. Comput., 11(7–8):638–648, July 2011. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2230916.2230923.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2230916.2230923

[56] George M Phillips. Interpolation and approximation by polynomials, volume 14. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003. doi:10.1007/b97417.
https://doi.org/10.1007/b97417

[57] Ramamohan Paturi. On the degree of polynomials that approximate symmetric boolean functions (preliminary version). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '92, page 468–474, New York, NY, USA, 1992. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/129712.129758.
https://doi.org/10.1145/129712.129758

[58] Leonid Gurvits. On the complexity of mixed discriminants and related problems. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, MFCS'05, page 447–458, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11549345_39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/11549345_39

[59] Adam Callison, Nicholas Chancellor, Florian Mintert, and Viv Kendon. Finding spin glass ground states using quantum walks. New Journal of Physics, 21(12):123022, dec 2019. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab5ca2, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab5ca2.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab5ca2

[60] Eduardo Araújo, Shantanav Chakraborty, and Leonardo Novo. Advantages and limitations of analog quantum search methods. In preparation, 2025.

Cited by

[1] Jie Sun, Zhimin Zhang, and Songfeng Lu, "A direct proof of optimality for multi-target quantum adiabatic search using subspace projector Hamiltonians", Europhysics Letters 155 3, 38002 (2026).

[2] Mancheon Han, Hyowon Park, and Sangkook Choi, "Constant geometric speed schedule for adiabatic state preparation", Physical Review Research 8 2, 023233 (2026).

[3] Franz J. Schreiber, Maximilian J. Kramer, Alexander Nietner, and Jens Eisert, "A measurement-driven quantum algorithm for SAT: Performance guarantees via spectral gaps and measurement parallelization", arXiv:2511.09647, (2025).

[4] Vicky Choi, "Beyond Stoquasticity: Structural Steering and Interference in Quantum Optimization", arXiv:2509.16263, (2025).

[5] Vicky Choi, "Limitation of Stoquastic Quantum Annealing: A Structural Perspective", arXiv:2509.16265, (2025).

[6] Joseph Cunningham and Jérémie Roland, "Alternative adiabatic quantum dynamics with algorithmic applications", arXiv:2605.30110, (2026).

The above citations are from Crossref's cited-by service (last updated successfully 2026-08-08 01:29:56) and SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2026-08-08 01:29:56). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions.