{"id":"arxiv:2610.35126","kind":"preprint","title":"Comparing classical and quantum QUBO solvers: optimality, trajectory diagnostics, and limits of solver selection","authors":["Gerhard Hellstern","Cedric Schacht","Martin Zaefferer"],"author_count":3,"year":2026,"published":"2026-10-26","venue":null,"cited_by":0,"doi":null,"arxiv_id":"2610.35126","nct_id":null,"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.35126","archive_url":"https://space-kitty.com/papers/arxiv:2610.35126","updated":"2026-10-26","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"W7223888756","pdf_url":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.35126","abstract":"Comparing solvers for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) requires distinguishing solution quality from optimality certification. We compare classical, tensor-network, and fixed-schedule quantum approaches on 180 benchmark instances from ten families with 14-48 variables, supplemented by harder synthetic instances with known optimal solutions, extending to 128 variables. On the main benchmark, a general-purpose branch-and-cut solver matches all reference energies and certifies 176 instances within a 600,s cap. When the known optima are moved to randomly chosen bitstrings, the search comparison changes: at n = 48 the branch-and-cut solver finds only four of ten optima and certifies none, whereas parallel tempering reaches every optimum in every tested run at a 60,s budget. Structural and trajectory diagnostics explain aspects of tensor-network performance. A treewidth bound ranks trajectory bond-dimension demand at Spearman $ρ= 0.78$ in sample and $0.73$ out of sample, but provides only a coarse runtime estimate. Controlled experiments identify excited-state trapping during warm-started density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) sweeps and demonstrate mitigation by restarting the variational search. These diagnostics do not yield a validated solver-selection rule. The tested linear-ramp quantum approximate optimization algorithm (LR-QAOA) runs offer no solution-quality improvement over the classical comparators. In the separate Wishart scaling study, on the harder setting, none of the classical methods tested reaches the optimum at the sampled sizes from n = 72 onward within the tested budgets. While this does not provide evidence for quantum advantage, it identifies a domain for further investigation.","abstract_license":"CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)","license":null,"is_open_access":false,"retracted":false,"peer_reviewed":false,"categories":["quant-ph"],"details":null,"provenance":"arxiv","attribution":"Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.","topics":[{"slug":"quantum-algorithms-advantage","name":"Quantum Algorithms & Quantum Advantage","domain_slug":"quantum-computing"}],"cited_in_dossiers":[]}