Lagrangian duality in quantum optimization: Overcoming QUBO limitations for constrained problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an approach to solving constrained combinatorial optimization problems based on embedding the concept of Lagrangian duality into the framework of adiabatic quantum computation. Within the setting of circuit-model fault-tolerant quantum computation, we demonstrate that this approach achieves a quadratic improvement in circuit depth and maintains a constraint-independent circuit width in contrast with the prevalent approach of solving constrained problems via reformulations based on the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) framework. In this study, we include a detailed review of the limitations encountered when using QUBO for constrained optimization. We show that the proposed method overcomes these limitations by encoding the optimal solution at an energetically elevated level of a simpler problem Hamiltonian, which results in substantially more resource-efficient quantum circuits. We consolidate our strategy with a detailed analysis on how the concepts of Lagrangian duality such as duality gap and complementary slackness relate to the success probability of sampling the optimal solution. Our findings are illustrated by benchmarking the Lagrangian dual approach against the QUBO approach using the NP-complete binary knapsack 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".