Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Quantum-inspired dynamical models on quantum and classical annealers

Philipp Hanussek1,2,*, Jakub Pawłowski3,4,†, Zakaria Mzaouali5,6,‡, and Bartłomiej Gardas1,§

  • *Contact author: philipp.hanussek@etu.sorbonne-universite.fr
  • †Contact author: jakub.pawlowski@pwr.edu.pl
  • ‡Contact author: z.mzaouali@extern.fz-juelich.de
  • §Contact author: bgardas@iitis.pl

Phys. Rev. Applied 25, 044055 – Published 21 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/rrf3-jm5m

Abstract

We propose a practical, physics-inspired benchmarking suite to challenge both quantum and classical computers by mapping real-time quantum dynamics to a common optimization format. Using a parallel-in-time encoding, we convert the real-time propagator of an n-qubit, possibly non-Hermitian, Hamiltonian into quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) instances that are executable in a solver-agnostic manner on quantum annealers and classical optimizers alike. This enables direct, like-for-like performance comparisons across fundamentally different computational paradigms. To stress-test the framework, we consider eight representative dynamical models spanning single-qubit rotations, multiqubit entangling gates (Bell, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger, cluster), and PT-symmetric and other non-Hermitian generators, and evaluate success probability and time to solution as standard benchmarking metrics. Applying this method to two generations of D-Wave quantum annealers and to state-of-the-art classical solvers (simulated annealing and the graphics-processing unit–accelerated VeloxQ), we find that Advantage2 consistently outperforms its predecessor, while VeloxQ retains the shortest absolute run-times, reflecting the maturity of classical heuristics. We further extend the benchmarks to large-scale instances (N≈105), establishing a demanding classical baseline for future hardware. Together, these results position the parallel-in-time QUBO framework as a versatile and physically motivated test bed for quantitatively tracking progress toward quantum-competitive simulation of dynamical systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (65)

  1. B. P. Lanyon, C. Hempel, D. Nigg, M. Müller, R. Gerritsma, F. Zähringer, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Rambach, G. Kirchmair, M. Hennrich, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Universal digital quantum simulation with trapped ions, Science 334, 57 (2011).
  2. H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017).
  3. T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang et al., Thermalization and criticality on an analogue–digital quantum simulator, Nature 638, 79 (2025).
  4. A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005).
  5. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  6. T. N. Georges, M. Bothe, C. Sünderhauf, B. K. Berntson, R. Izsák, and A. V. Ivanov, Quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization with any basis set, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 55 (2025).
  7. S. Euchner and I. Lesanovsky, Rydberg atom arrays as quantum simulators for molecular dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L042009 (2025).
  8. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  9. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  10. O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gambetta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, C. Porter, S. Sheldon, J. Watrous, C. Zoufal, A. Dauphin, and B. Peropadre, A framework for quantum advantage, arXiv:2506.20658 [quant-ph].
  11. A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris et al., Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation, Science 388, 199 (2025).
  12. H. Munoz-Bauza and D. Lidar, Scaling advantage in approximate optimization with quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 160601 (2025).
  13. J. Tindall, A. Mello, M. Fishman, M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Dynamics of disordered quantum systems with two- and three-dimensional tensor networks, arXiv:2503.05693 [quant-ph].
  14. L. Mauron and G. Carleo, Challenging the quantum advantage frontier with large-scale classical simulations of annealing dynamics, arXiv:2503.08247 [quant-ph].
  15. J. Pawłowski, P. Tarasiuk, J. Tuziemski, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, Closing the quantum-classical scaling gap in approximate optimization, arXiv:2505.22514 [quant-ph].
  16. J. Pawłowski, J. Tuziemski, P. Tarasiuk, A. Przybysz, R. Adamski, K. Hendzel, L. Pawela, and B. Gardas, VeloxQ: A fast and efficient QUBO solver, arXiv:2501.19221 [quant-ph].
  17. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574, 505 (2019).
  18. Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan et al., Strong quantum computational advantage using a superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021).
  19. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature 618, 500 (2023).
  20. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  21. L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins et al., Quantum computational advantage with a programmable photonic processor, Nature 606, 75 (2022).
  22. D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational advantage of quantum random sampling, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035001 (2023).
  23. K. Michielsen, M. Nocon, D. Willsch, F. Jin, T. Lippert, and H. De Raedt, Benchmarking gate-based quantum computers, Comput. Phys. Commun. 220, 44 (2017).
  24. B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges, Nat. Commun. 15, 2123 (2024).
  25. I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014).
  26. V. Mehta, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, and F. Jin, Understanding the physics of D-wave annealers: From Schrödinger to Lindblad to Markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 112, 032616 (2025).
  27. K. Jałowiecki, A. Więckowski, P. Gawron, and B. Gardas, Parallel in time dynamics with quantum annealers, Sci. Rep. 10, 13534 (2020).
  28. M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des Adiabatensatzes, Z. Phys. 51, 165 (1928).
  29. H. Zhang, K. Boothby, and A. Kamenev, Cyclic quantum annealing: Searching for deep low-energy states in 5000-qubit spin glass, Sci. Rep. 14, 30784 (2024).
  30. H. Zhang and A. Kamenev, Computational complexity of three-dimensional Ising spin glass: Lessons from D-wave annealer, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033098 (2025).
  31. H. Wang, H.-C. Yeh, and A. Kamenev, Many-body localization enables iterative quantum optimization, Nat. Commun. 13, 5503 (2022).
  32. M. H. Muñoz-Arias and P. M. Poggi, Quantum ergodicity and scrambling in quantum annealers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 045027 (2025).
  33. H. Zhang and A. Kamenev, Quantum sequel of neural network training, Commun. Phys. 8, 478 (2025).
  34. S. Schulz, D. Willsch, and K. Michielsen, Learning-driven annealing with adaptive Hamiltonian modification for solving large-scale problems on quantum devices, Quantum 9, 1898 (2025).
  35. A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud et al., Quantum critical dynamics in a 5,000-qubit programmable spin glass, Nature 617, 61 (2023).
  36. A. Teplukhin, B. K. Kendrick, S. M. Mniszewski, Y. Zhang, A. Kumar, C. F. A. Negre, P. M. Anisimov, S. Tretiak, and P. A. Dub, Computing molecular excited states on a D-Wave quantum annealer, Sci. Rep. 11, 18796 (2021).
  37. F. Neukart, G. Compostella, C. Seidel, D. von Dollen, S. Yarkoni, and B. Parney, Traffic flow optimization using a quantum annealer, Front. ICT 4, 29 (2017).
  38. M. Koniorczyk, K. Krawiec, L. Botelho, N. Bešinović, and K. Domino, Solving rescheduling problems in heterogeneous urban railway networks using hybrid quantum–classical approach, J. Rail Transp. Plan. Manage. 34, 100521 (2025).
  39. K. Domino, E. Doucet, R. Robertson, B. Gardas, and S. Deffner, On the Baltimore Light RailLink into the quantum future, Sci. Rep. 15, 29576 (2025).
  40. T. Śmierzchalski, J. Pawłowski, A. Przybysz, Ł. Pawela, Z. Puchała, M. Koniorczyk, B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and K. Domino, Hybrid quantum-classical computation for automatic guided vehicles scheduling, Sci. Rep. 14, 21809 (2024).
  41. K. Domino, M. Koniorczyk, K. Krawiec, K. Jałowiecki, S. Deffner, and B. Gardas, Quantum annealing in the NISQ era: Railway conflict management, Entropy 25, 191 (2023).
  42. E. Kędziera, W. Gamon, M. Koniorczyk, Z. Mzaouali, A. Galadíková, and K. Domino, EMU circulation planning for Silesian railways: Case study and a quantum approach, arXiv:2512.19340 [quant-ph].
  43. R. Robertson, E. Doucet, Z. Mzaouali, K. Domino, B. Gardas, and S. Deffner, in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (IEEE, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2025), Vol. 01, pp. 190–196.
  44. L. Buffoni and M. Campisi, Thermodynamics of a quantum annealer, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 035013 (2020).
  45. M. Campisi and L. Buffoni, Improved bound on entropy production in a quantum annealer, Phys. Rev. E 104, L022102 (2021).
  46. T. Śmierzchalski, Z. Mzaouali, S. Deffner, and B. Gardas, Efficiency optimization in quantum computing: balancing thermodynamics and computational performance, Sci. Rep. 14, 4555 (2024).
  47. E. Doucet, Z. Mzaouali, R. Robertson, B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and K. Domino, Thermodynamic significance of QUBO encoding on quantum annealers, arXiv:2601.04402 [quant-ph].
  48. M. S. Könz, W. Lechner, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. Troyer, Embedding overhead scaling of optimization problems in quantum annealing, PRX Quantum 2, 040322 (2021).
  49. V. Mehta, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, and F. Jin, Unraveling reverse annealing: A study of D-Wave quantum annealers, Phys. Rev. A 112, 012414 (2025).
  50. V. Mehta, H. De Raedt, K. Michielsen, and F. Jin, Performance of quantum annealing for 2-satisfiability problems with multiple satisfying assignments, Phys. Rev. A 112, 012405 (2025).
  51. J. Vodeb, V. Eržen, T. Hrga, and J. Povh, Accuracy and performance evaluation of quantum, classical and hybrid solvers for the max-cut problem, arXiv:2412.07460 [math.OC].
  52. A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many NP problems, Front. Phys. 2, 74887 (2014).
  53. B. Gardas, S. Deffner, and A. Saxena, PT-symmetric slowing down of decoherence, Phys. Rev. A 94, 040101(R) (2016).
  54. S. Croke, PT-symmetric Hamiltonians and their application in quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 91, 052113 (2015).
  55. N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python, arXiv:2412.04705 [quant-ph].
  56. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  57. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  58. B. Li, S. Ahmed, S. Saraogi, N. Lambert, F. Nori, A. Pitchford, and N. Shammah, Pulse-level noisy quantum circuits with QuTiP, Quantum 6, 630 (2022).
  59. N. Lambert, T. Raheja, S. Cross, P. Menczel, S. Ahmed, A. Pitchford, D. Burgarth, and F. Nori, QuTiP-BoFiN: A bosonic and fermionic numerical hierarchical-equations-of-motion library with applications in light-harvesting, quantum control, and single-molecule electronics, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013181 (2023).
  60. E. Pelofske, Comparing three generations of D-Wave quantum annealers for minor embedded combinatorial optimization problems, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 025025 (2025).
  61. V. Mehta, F. Jin, H. De Raedt, and K. Michielsen, Quantum annealing for hard 2-satisfiability problems: Distribution and scaling of minimum energy gap and success probability, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062406 (2022).
  62. H. Zhang and A. Kamenev, Computational complexity of three-dimensional Ising spin glass: Lessons from D-Wave annealer, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033098 (2025).
  63. A. Montanaro, Quantum speedup of branch-and-bound algorithms, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013056 (2020).
  64. https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/gpu-mining, 433 Gpu mining icons, Ahmad Roaayala, Flaticon.
  65. P. Hanussek, J. Pawłowski, Z. Mzaouali, and B. Gardas, Quantum dynamics benchmarking framework, 2025, https://github.com/atg205/dynamics-benchmark.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation