MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400877627 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3431540

Stochastic Simulated Quantum Annealing for Fast Solution of Combinatorial Optimization Problems

2024· article· en· W4400877627 on OpenAlexaff
Naoya Onizawa, Ryoma Sasaki, Duckgyu Shin, Warren J. Gross, Takahiro Hanyu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSimulated annealingQuantum annealingComputer scienceMathematical optimizationStochastic optimizationCombinatorial optimizationAnnealing (glass)QuantumQuantum computerTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMaterials scienceMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combinatorial optimization problems are frequently classified as NP-hard, which means that the time needed to find the optimal solution generally increases exponentially with the problem size. However, the existing research gap highlights the necessity to develop combinatorial optimization methods capable of scaling to large problems while maintaining low solution latency. In this paper, we introduce stochastic simulated quantum annealing (SSQA) for fast solution of combinatorial optimization problems. SSQA is designed based on stochastic computing, which can simulate quantum annealing (QA) by using multiple replicas of spins (probabilistic bits) in classical computing. The use of stochastic computing leads to an efficient parallel spin-state update algorithm, enabling quick search for a solution around the global minimum energy. Therefore, SSQA realizes quantum-like annealing for large-scale problems and can handle fully connected models in combinatorial optimization, unlike QA. The proposed method is evaluated in MATLAB on graph isomorphism problems, which are typical combinatorial optimization problems. It can handle a 100-times larger problem size compared to QA and a 25-times larger problem size compared to a traditional SA method, respectively, for similar convergence probabilities. The time to solution of SSQA is 11.5 times and 423 times smaller than that of the conventional stochastic simulated annealing method and traditional SA, respectively, when solving a 2,025-node combinatorial optimization problem.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207