Milestones on the Quantum Utility Highway: Quantum Annealing Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce quantum utility , a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by considering the overhead costs associated with a quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by the quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering the costs of computational overheads. A milestone is a test of quantum utility that is restricted to a specific subset of overhead costs and input types. We illustrate this approach with a benchmark study of a D-Wave annealing-based QPU versus seven classical solvers for a variety of problems in heuristic optimization. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the D-Wave QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility. Milestone 0 is the purely quantum computation with no overhead costs and is demonstrated implicitly by positive results on other milestones. We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to milestones 1 and 2: For milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed. This approach of isolating subsets of overheads for separate analysis reveals distinct mechanisms in quantum versus classical performance, which explain the observed differences in patterns of success and failure. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and with more challenging milestones in the very near future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".