This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Some things that come to mind that are missing in this article are
-- Smuecke1 ( talk) 17:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The claim about quantum computing is problematic. The paper by McGeoch was a comparison between optimized hardware and unoptimized software, and further examination has demonstrated no advantage for existing quantum hardware ( http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/). If there is a theoretical reason why QUBO would be well-suited to quantum solving, then the article should reference that. 71.186.212.34 ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Leaving doubts aside, the page does not explain the problem being solved. The formula without annotations is useless. PetrGlad ( talk) 09:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
From what domain are and ? HenningThielemann ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I added that X are binary and Q real-valued and corrected the objective which missed the linear term Alexander Mitsos ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In the first line of the derivation of the connection to Ising models, the sign in front of $\mu$ suddenly changes and no commented is made. Also, $x_i=x_i x_i$ is not in fact used on line two. Should be fixed. Maruti.punekar.patil ( talk) 13:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Some things that come to mind that are missing in this article are
-- Smuecke1 ( talk) 17:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The claim about quantum computing is problematic. The paper by McGeoch was a comparison between optimized hardware and unoptimized software, and further examination has demonstrated no advantage for existing quantum hardware ( http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/). If there is a theoretical reason why QUBO would be well-suited to quantum solving, then the article should reference that. 71.186.212.34 ( talk) 16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Leaving doubts aside, the page does not explain the problem being solved. The formula without annotations is useless. PetrGlad ( talk) 09:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
From what domain are and ? HenningThielemann ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I added that X are binary and Q real-valued and corrected the objective which missed the linear term Alexander Mitsos ( talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In the first line of the derivation of the connection to Ising models, the sign in front of $\mu$ suddenly changes and no commented is made. Also, $x_i=x_i x_i$ is not in fact used on line two. Should be fixed. Maruti.punekar.patil ( talk) 13:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)