Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
When Does Quantum Annealing Outperform Classical Methods? A Gradient Variance Framework
arXiv
Authors: Vishwajeet Ohal, Pierre Boulanger
Year
2026
Paper ID
4602
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
193
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Based on our experimental findings, we propose the following decision framework for practitioners. Quantum annealing is recommended when the problem formulation QUBO exhibits a high gradient variance (greater than 0.3) and the energy landscape contains numerous thin barriers characterized by sharp peaks and narrow valleys. Additionally, quantum approaches are particularly suitable when classical methods are observed to get trapped in local minima, the problem size is manageable given hardware constraints (less than 5000 variables for pure quantum annealing), and the time overhead of approximately 10 seconds is acceptable for the application. In contrast, classical methods are recommended when the gradient variance is low (less than 0.2), indicating smooth landscapes where quantum tunneling provides little advantage. Classical approaches are also preferable when the problem size is small and classical solvers can provide nearly instantaneous results, when solution quality requirements are modest and local optima suffice, or when hardware access or cost is a limiting factor. For problems that exceed pure quantum capacity but possess a favorable landscape structure, hybrid approaches combining quantum and classical techniques are recommended. Such hybrid methods are particularly effective when decomposition quality can be verified and both solution quality and scalability are important considerations.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Based on our experimental findings, we propose the following decision framework for practitioners.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.