Optimization Applications as Quantum Performance Benchmarks
Open accessAbstract
Combinatorial optimization is anticipated to be one of the primary use cases for quantum computation in the coming years. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) and Quantum Annealing (QA) can potentially demonstrate significant run-time performance benefits over current state-of-the-art solutions. Inspired by existing methods to characterize classical optimization algorithms, we analyze the solution quality obtained by solving Max-Cut problems using gate-model quantum devices and a quantum annealing device. This is used to guide the development of an advanced benchmarking framework for quantum computers designed to evaluate the trade-off between run-time execution performance and the solution quality for iterative hybrid quantum-classical applications. The framework generates performance profiles through compelling visualizations that show performance progression as a function of time for various problem sizes and illustrates algorithm limitations uncovered by the benchmarking approach. As an illustration, we explore the factors that influence quantum computing system throughput, using results obtained through execution on various quantum simulators and quantum hardware systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Algorithm-oriented benchmarks use specific quantum algorithms and require width and depth to specify behaviour, unlike quantum volume.
“Unlike random circuits, these benchmarks use specific quantum algorithms such as the Quantum Fourier Transformation or Grover's Search algorithm, which have different circuit depths for the same number of qubits (width).”
From Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspective (2023) · cites this paper as [11]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: performance and end-user perspective
Wintersperger, K., Dommert, F., Ehmer, T., Hoursanov, A., Klepsch, J., Mauerer, W., Reuber, G., Strohm, T., Yin, M., & Luber, S. (2023) · EPJ Quantum Technology · doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-023-00190-1 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Quantum Annealing vs. QAOA: 127 Qubit Higher-Order Ising Problems on NISQ Computers
Pelofske, E., Bärtschi, A., & Eidenbenz, S. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32041-5_13 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lubinski, T., Coffrin, C., McGeoch, C., Sathe, P., Apanavicius, J., & Neira, D. E. B.
- Affiliations
- Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
- D-Wave Systems (Canada) (CA)
- Universities Space Research Association (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-44
- ISSN
- 2643-6809 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.02278
- OpenAlex
- W4400737701
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 8
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Ohio State University
- Universities Space Research Association
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Keywords
- quantum benchmarking, combinatorial optimization, max-cut problem, quantum approximate optimization algorithm, quantum annealing, hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, solution quality, runtime performance, performance profiles, quantum simulators
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