<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the Emerging Potential of Quantum Annealing Hardware for Combinatorial Optimization · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.04291/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.04291/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the Emerging Potential of Quantum Annealing Hardware for Combinatorial Optimization — mentioned by tasseff</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34220686</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2210.04291:34220686</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2023 17:27:04 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;To my knowledge, it is an open challenge to find real-world problem instances where existing quantum annealers outperform state-of-the-art classical alternatives. It&amp;#x27;s even hard to find _extremely contrived families of instances_ where practical computational benefits can be observed with quantum annealing. I recently contributed to one such benchmarking manuscript [1], which may indicate future promise as the number of qubits in quantum annealers continues to increase. Anyway, as a result of that experience, I&amp;#x27;m skeptical of the benchmarking efforts that led these two companies to the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.04291/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.OC</category></item></channel></rss>
