- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Subsampling factorization machine annealing

Yusuke Hama*

Tadashi Kadowaki

  • *Contact author: hama.yusuke@aist.go.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013187 – Published 20 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/qgpq-6dmr

Abstract

Quantum computing and machine learning are state-of-the-art technologies that have been investigated intensively in both academia and industry. The hybrid technology of these two ingredients is expected to be a powerful tool to solve complex problems in many branches of science and engineering such as combinatorial optimization problems and accelerate the creation of next-generation technologies. In this work, we develop an algorithm to solve a black-box optimization problem by improving Factorization Machine Annealing (FMA) such that the training of a machine learning model called factorization machine is performed not by a full dataset but by a subdataset that is sampled from a full dataset: Subsampling Factorization Machine Annealing (SFMA). According to such a probabilistic training process, the performance of FMA on exploring a solution space gets enhanced. As a result, SFMA exhibits balanced performance of exploration and exploitation, which we call exploitation-exploration functionality. We conduct numerical benchmarking tests to compare the performance of SFMA with that of FMA. Consequently, SFMA certainly exhibits the exploration-exploitation functionality and outperforms FMA in speed and accuracy. In addition, the performance of SFMA can be further improved by sequentially using two subsampling datasets with different sizes such that the size of the latter dataset is substantially smaller than the former. Such a substantial reduction not only enhances the exploration performance of SFMA but also enables us to run it with correspondingly low computational cost even for a large-scale problem. These results indicate the effectiveness of SFMA in a certain class of black-box optimization problems of significant size: the potential scalability of SFMA in solving large-scale problems with correspondingly low computational cost. The exploitation-exploration functionality of SFMA is expected to pave the way for solving various complex combinatorial optimization problems in the real world and designing next-generation technologies that become the basic building blocks for industrial advancements.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (113)

  1. M. Mezard and A. Montanari, Information, Physics, and Computation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009).
  2. M. J. Kochenderfer, Algorithms for Optimization (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2019).
  3. A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Front. Phys. 2, 05 (2014).
  4. Edited by C. Suh, Convex Optimization for Machine Learning (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2022).
  5. S. Yarkoni, E. Raponi, T. Bäck, and S. Schmitt, Quantum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 104001 (2022).
  6. F. Phillipson, Quantum computing in logistics and supply chain management an overview, arXiv:2402.17520.
  7. A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Colloquium: Quantum annealing and analog quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1061 (2008).
  8. S. Tanaka, R. Tamura, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum Spin glasses, Annealing and Computation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017).
  9. T. Albash and D. A Lidar, Adiabatic quantum computation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018).
  10. P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations, Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 054401 (2020).
  11. A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum annealing: An overview, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 381, 20210417 (2023).
  12. Göran Wendin, Quantum information processing with superconducting circuits: A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017).
  13. S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Daniel Gelatt, Jr., and M. P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, Science 220, 671 (1983).
  14. D. Bertsimas and J. Tsitsiklis, Simulated annealing, Stat. Sci. 8, 10 (1993).
  15. T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998).
  16. J. Brooke, D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum, and G. Aeppli, Quantum annealing of a disordered magnet, Science 284, 779 (1999).
  17. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem, Science 292, 472 (2001).
  18. D. Aharonov, W. V. Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation, SIAM Rev. 50, 755 (2008).
  19. M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P. Bunyk, et al., Quantum annealing with manufactured spins, Nature (London) 473, 194 (2011).
  20. S. Boixo, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, Z. Wang, D. Wecker, D. A. Lidar, J. M. Martinis, and M. Troyer, Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits, Nat. Phys. 10, 218 (2014).
  21. T. F. Rønnow, Z. Wang, J. Job, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, D. Wecker, J. M. Martinis, D. A. Lidar, and M. Troyer, Defining and detecting quantum speedup, Science 345, 420 (2014).
  22. S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V. Isakov, M. Dykman, V. S. Denchev, M. H. Amin, A. Y. Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, Computational multiqubit in programmable quantum annealers, Nat. Commun. 7, 10327 (2016).
  23. V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Babbush, V. Smelyanskiy, J. Martinis, and H. Neven, What is the computational value of finite-range tunneling? Phys. Rev. X 6, 031015 (2016).
  24. T. Albash and D. A Lidar, Demonstration of a scaling advantage for a quantum annealer over simulated annealing, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031016 (2018).
  25. S. Tsukamoto, M. Takatsu, S. Matsubara, and H. Tamura, An accelerator architecture for combinatorial optimization problems, Fujitsu Sci. Tech. J. 53, 8 (2017).
  26. M. Aramon, G. Rosenberg, E. Valiante, T. Miyazawa, H. Tamura, and H. G. Katzgraber, Physics-inspired optimization for quadratic unconstrained problems using a digital annealer, Front. Phys. 7, 48 (2019).
  27. R. Au-Yeung, B. Camino, O. Rathore, and V. Kendon, Quantum algorithms for scientific computing, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 116001 (2024).
  28. 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).
  29. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  30. N. Moll, P. Barkoutsos, L. S. Bishop, J. M. Chow, A. Cross, D. J. Egger, S. Filipp, A. Fuhrer, J. M. Gambetta, M. Ganzhorn, et al., Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 030503 (2018).
  31. S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas, From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz, Algorithms 12, 34 (2019).
  32. N. Sachdeva, G. S Hartnett, S. Maity, S. Marsh, Y. Wang, A. Winick, R. Dougherty, D. Canuto, Y. Q. Chong, M. Hush, et al., Quantum optimization using a 127-qubit gate-model IBM quantum computer can outperform quantum annealers for nontrivial binary optimization problems, arXiv:2406.01743.
  33. K. Blekos, D. Brand, A. Ceschini, C.-H. Chou, R.-H. Li, K. Pandya, and A. Summer, A review on quantum approximate optimization algorithm and its variants, Phys. Rep. 1068, 1 (2024).
  34. A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. Bärtschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, et al., Challenges and opportunities in quantum optimization, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 718 (2024).
  35. B. Camino, J. Buckeridge, P. A. Warburton, V. Kendon, and S. M. Woodley, Quantum computing and materials science: A practical guide to applying quantum annealing to the configurational analysis of materials, J. Appl. Phys. 133, 221102 (2023).
  36. K. Hatakeyama-Sato, H. Adachi, M. Umeki, T. Kashikawa, K. Kimura, and K. Oyaizu, Automated design of Li+-conducting polymer by quantum-inspired annealing, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 43, 2200385 (2022).
  37. K. Hatakeyama-Sato, Y. Uchima, T. Kashikawa, K. Kimura, and K. Oyaizu, Extracting higher-conductivity designs for solid polymer electrolytes by quantum-inspired annealing, RSC Adv. 13, 14651 (2023).
  38. Q. Gao, G. O Jones, T. Kobayashi, M. Sugawara, H. Yamashita, H. Kawaguchi, S. Tanaka, and N. Yamamoto, Quantum-classical computational molecular design of deuterated high-efficiency oled emitters, Intell. Comput. 2, 0037, (2023).
  39. H. Sampei, K. Saegusa, K. Chishima, T. Higo, S. Tanaka, Y. Yayama, M. Nakamura, K. Kimura, and Y. Sekine, Quantum annealing boosts prediction of multimolecular adsorption on solid surfaces avoiding combinatorial explosion, JACS Au 3, 991 (2023).
  40. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  41. B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020).
  42. S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu, et al., Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry, Nat. Commun. 14, 1952 (2023).
  43. D. Venturelli and A. Kondratyev, Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems, Quantum Mach. Intell. 1, 17 (2019).
  44. J. Lang, S. Zielinski, and S. Feld, Strategic portfolio optimization using simulated, digital, and quantum annealing, Appl. Sci. 12, 12288 (2022).
  45. G. Buonaiuto, F. Gargiulo, G. D. Pietro, M. Esposito, and M. Pota, Best practices for portfolio optimization by quantum computing, experimented on real quantum devices, Sci. Rep. 13, 19434 (2023).
  46. E. Aguilera, J. d. Jong, F. Phillipson, S. Taamallah, and M. Vos, Multi-objective portfolio optimization using a quantum annealer, Mathematics 12, 1291 (2024).
  47. A. Perdomo, C. Truncik, I. Tubert-Brohman, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Construction of model Hamiltonians for adiabatic quantum computation and its application to finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012320 (2008).
  48. A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Dickson, M. drew-brook, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models by quantum annealing, Sci. Rep. 2, 571 (2012).
  49. R. Babbush, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, B. O’Gorman, W. Macready, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Construction of energy functions for lattice heteropolymer models: Efficient encodings for constraint satisfaction programming and quantum annealing, in Advances in Chemical Physics, edited by S. A. Rice and A. R. Dinner (Wiley, 2014), Vol. 155, Chap. 5, p. 201.
  50. A. Irbäck, L. Knuthson, S. Mohanty, and C. Peterson, Folding lattice proteins with quantum annealing, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043013 (2022).
  51. A. Irbäck, L. Knuthson, S. Mohanty, and C. Peterson, Using quantum annealing to design lattice proteins, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013162 (2024).
  52. C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, New York, NY, 2006).
  53. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2017), Vol. 1.
  54. P. Mehta, M. Bukov, Ching-Hao Wang, Alexandre G. R. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, A high-bias, low-variance introduction to machine learning for physicists, Phys. Rep. 810, 1 (2019).
  55. K. P Murphy, Probabilistic Machine Learning: An Introduction (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2022).
  56. Y. Tian, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhang, Recent advances in stochastic gradient descent in deep learning, Mathematics 11, 682 (2023).
  57. C. M. Bishop and H. Bishop, Deep Learning: Foundations and Concepts (Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, 2023).
  58. J. J. Hopfield, Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 2554 (1982).
  59. D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines, Cognit. Sci. 9, 147 (1985).
  60. G. E Hinton, Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence, Neural Comput. 14, 1771 (2002).
  61. Mohammad H. Amin, E. Andriyash, J. Rolfe, B. Kulchytskyy, and R. Melko, Quantum Boltzmann machine, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021050 (2018).
  62. P. Date, D. Arthur, and L. Pusey-Nazzaro, Qubo formulations for training machine learning models, Sci. Rep. 11, 10029 (2021).
  63. J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Quantum machine learning, Nature (London) 549, 195 (2017).
  64. V. Dunjko and H. J Briegel, Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: A review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074001 (2018).
  65. M. Benedetti, E. Lloyd, S. Sack, and M. Fiorentini, Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 043001 (2019).
  66. M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, Machine Learning with Quantum Computers (Springer, Cham, 2021), Vol. 676.
  67. M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 567 (2022).
  68. M. Sajjan, J. Li, R. Selvarajan, S. H. Sureshbabu, S. S. Kale, R. Gupta, V. Singh, and S. Kais, Quantum machine learning for chemistry and physics, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 6475 (2022).
  69. A. Zeguendry, Z. Jarir, and M. Quafafou, Quantum machine learning: A review and case studies, Entropy 25, 287 (2023).
  70. Y. Wang and J. Liu, A comprehensive review of quantum machine learning: From NISQ to fault tolerance, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 116402 (2024).
  71. A. Agrawal and A. Choudhary, Perspective: Materials informatics and big data: Realization of the fourth paradigm of science in materials science, APL Mater. 4, 053208 (2016).
  72. R. Ramprasad, R. Batra, G. Pilania, A. Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, and C. Kim, Machine learning in materials informatics: Recent applications and prospects, npj Comput. Mater. 3, 54 (2017).
  73. K. Alberi, M. B. Nardelli, A. Zakutayev, L. Mitas, S. Curtarolo, A. Jain, M. Fornari, N. Marzari, I. Takeuchi, M. L. Green, et al., The 2019 materials by design roadmap, J. Phys. D 52, 013001 (2018).
  74. A. Agrawal and A. Choudhary, Deep materials informatics: Applications of deep learning in materials science, MRS Commun. 9, 779 (2019).
  75. S. Hong, C. H. Liow, J. M. Yuk, H. R. Byon, Y. Yang, E. Cho, J. Yeom, G. Park, H. Kang, S. Kim, et al., Reducing time to discovery: Materials and molecular modeling, imaging, informatics, and integration, ACS Nano 15, 3971 (2021).
  76. Y. Iwasaki, R. Sawada, E. Saitoh, and M. Ishida, Machine learning autonomous identification of magnetic alloys beyond the slater-pauling limit, Commun. Mater. 2, 31 (2021).
  77. A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S. S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, and E. Dogus Cubuk, Scaling deep learning for materials discovery, Nature (London) 624, 80 (2023).
  78. C. Li and K. Zheng, Methods, progresses, and opportunities of materials informatics, InfoMat 5, e12425 (2023).
  79. C. Chen, D. T. Nguyen, S. J. Lee, N. A. Baker, A. S. Karakoti, L. Lauw, C. Owen, K. T. Mueller, B. A. Bilodeau, V. Murugesan, et al., Accelerating computational materials discovery with machine learning and cloud high-performance computing: From large-scale screening to experimental validation, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 146, 20009 (2024).
  80. D. Sivan, K. S. Kumar, A. Abdullah, V. Raj, I. I. Misnon, S. Ramakrishna, and R. Jose, Advances in materials informatics: A review, J. Mater. Sci. 59, 2602 (2024).
  81. K. Kitai, J. Guo, S. Ju, S. Tanaka, K. Tsuda, J. Shiomi, and R. Tamura, Designing metamaterials with quantum annealing and factorization machines, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013319 (2020).
  82. Y. Seki, R. Tamura, and S. Tanaka, Black-box optimization for integer-variable problems using Ising machines and factorization machines, arXiv:2209.01016.
  83. B. A. Wilson, Z. A. Kudyshev, A. V. Kildishev, S. Kais, V. M. Shalaev, and A. Boltasseva, Machine learning framework for quantum sampling of highly constrained, continuous optimization problems, Appl. Phys. Rev. 8, 041418 (2021).
  84. T. Inoue, Y. Seki, S. Tanaka, N. Togawa, K. Ishizaki, and S. Noda, Towards optimization of photonic-crystal surface-emitting lasers via quantum annealing, Opt. Express 30, 43503 (2022).
  85. T. Matsumori, M. Taki, and T. Kadowaki, Application of QUBO solver using black-box optimization to structural design for resonance avoidance, Sci. Rep. 12, 12143 (2022).
  86. T. Kadowaki and M. Ambai, Lossy compression of matrices by black box optimisation of mixed integer nonlinear programming, Sci. Rep. 12, 15482 (2022).
  87. Z. Mao, Y. Matsuda, R. Tamura, and K. Tsuda, Chemical design with GPU-based Ising machines, Digital Discovery 2, 1098 (2023).
  88. A. Tucs, F. Berenger, A. Yumoto, R. Tamura, T. Uzawa, and K. Tsuda, Quantum annealing designs nonhemolytic antimicrobial peptides in a discrete latent space, ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 14, 577 (2023).
  89. K. Nawa, T. Suzuki, K. Masuda, S. Tanaka, and Y. Miura, Quantum annealing optimization method for the design of barrier materials in magnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024044 (2023).
  90. C.-Y. Liu, H.-Y. Wang, P.-Y. Liao, C.-J. Lai, and M.-H. Hsieh, Implementation of trained factorization machine recommendation system on quantum annealer, in Proceedings of the 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 1–8.
  91. Y. Couzinié, Y. Seki, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, S. Tanaka, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Machine learning supported annealing for prediction of grand canonical crystal structures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 94, 044802 (2025).
  92. J. Lin, T. Tada, A. Koizumi, M. Sumita, K. Tsuda, and R. Tamura, Determination of stable proton configurations by black-box optimization using an Ising machine, J. Phys. Chem. C 129, 2332 (2025).
  93. C. Liang, D. Das, J. Guo, R. Tamura, Z. Mao, and K. Tsuda, Predicting symmetric structures of large crystals with GPU-based Ising machines, Commun. Phys. 8, 477 (2025).
  94. M. Nakano, Y. Seki, S. Kikuchi, and S. Tanaka, SWIFT-FMQA: Enhancing factorization machine with quadratic-optimization annealing via sliding window, IEEE Access 14, 10977 (2026).
  95. Y. Minamoto and Y. Sakamoto, A black-box optimization method with polynomial-based kernels and quadratic-optimization annealing, arXiv:2501.04225.
  96. T. Kashimata, Y. Hamakawa, M. Yamasaki, and K. Tatsumura, Real-time black-box optimization for dynamic discrete environments using embedded Ising machines, arXiv:2506.16924.
  97. R. Baptista and M. Poloczek, Bayesian optimization of combinatorial structures, in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2018), pp. 462–471.
  98. Ami S Koshikawa, M. Ohzeki, T. Kadowaki, and K. Tanaka, Benchmark test of black-box optimization using D-wave quantum annealer, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 064001 (2021).
  99. K. Morita, Y. Nishikawa, and M. Ohzeki, Random postprocessing for combinatorial bayesian optimization, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 92, 123801 (2023).
  100. J. E. Kim and Y. Wang, Quantum approximate bayesian optimization algorithms with two mixers and uncertainty quantification, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng. 4, 3102817 (2023).
  101. M. Ambai and I. Sato, SPADE: Scalar product accelerator by integer decomposition for object detection, in Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV 2014) (Springer, Cham, 2014), Part V 13, pp. 267–281.
  102. B. Yoon, Nga T. T. Nguyen, Chia Cheng Chang, and E. Rrapaj, Lossy compression of statistical data using quantum annealer, Sci. Rep. 12, 3814 (2022).
  103. S. Rendle, Factorization machines, in Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2010), pp. 995–1000.
  104. N. S. Keskar, D. Mudigere, J. Nocedal, M. Smelyanskiy, and P. Tak P. Tang, On large-batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima, arXiv:1609.04836.
  105. O. Räisä, J. Jälkö, and A. Honkela, Subsampling is not magic: Why large batch sizes work for differentially private stochastic optimisation, in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'24) (JMLR.org, Vienna, Austria, 2024).
  106. D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung, Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization, Nature (London) 401, 788 (1999).
  107. C. J. Long, D. Bunker, X. Li, V. L. Karen, and I. Takeuchi, Rapid identification of structural phases in combinatorial thin-film libraries using x-ray diffraction and non-negative matrix factorization, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 103902 (2009).
  108. H. Asaoka and K. Kudo, Image analysis based on nonnegative/binary matrix factorization, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 085001 (2020).
  109. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015).
  110. N. Pirnay, V. Ulitzsch, F. Wilde, J. Eisert, and J.-P. Seifert, An in-principle super-polynomial quantum advantage for approximating combinatorial optimization problems via computational learning theory, Sci. Adv. 10, eadj5170 (2024).
  111. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17960406.
  112. D-Wave Systems, Inc., neal: Simulated annealing sampler (2025), https://github.com/dwavesystems/neal.
  113. D-Wave Systems, Inc., d-wave quantum computing platform (2025), https://www.dwavesys.com.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013187– Published 20 February, 2026
  • Received 13 August 2025
  • Accepted 19 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation