Cited by 238Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum many-body systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Demonstration of a Scaling Advantage for a Quantum Annealer over Simulated Annealing

Open access
Albash, Tameem, Lidar, Daniel A.·2018·Physical Review X

Abstract

Benchmarks of a quantum information processor establish, for the first time, an advantage for a quantum annealer over classical simulated annealing, an important milestone in the development of quantum optimizers and in the journey towards demonstrating a quantum speedup over classical computers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevx.8.031016

Cites

70 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. P. W. Shor, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1994
  2. F. Hamze, 2004, UAI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 238

Metadata

Authors
Albash, T., & Lidar, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Physical Review X
Published
2018-07-19
Volume
8
Issue
3
ISSN
2160-3308 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2992146840
Cited by
238
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 4
FWCI
12.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review X (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • APS March Meeting Abstracts
Funders
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-12-1-0523, W911NF-11-1-0268, W911NF-15-1-0582, W911NF-17-C-0050)
  • National Science Foundation (INSPIRE-1551064)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE-AC05-00OR22725)
  • Office of the Director of National Intelligence
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
Keywords
quantum annealing, simulated annealing, quantum advantage, benchmarking, combinatorial optimization, quantum annealers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review