{ "id": "1305.5837", "version": "v1", "published": "2013-05-24T19:52:40.000Z", "updated": "2013-05-24T19:52:40.000Z", "title": "Comment on: \"Classical signature of quantum annealing\"", "authors": [ "Lei Wang", "Troels F. Rønnow", "Sergio Boixo", "Sergei V. Isakov", "Zhihui Wang", "David Wecker", "Daniel A. Lidar", "John M. Martinis", "Matthias Troyer" ], "comment": "3 pages, 5 figures, ancillary file contains 1000 instances and QA success probabilities", "categories": [ "quant-ph" ], "abstract": "In a recent preprint (arXiv:1305.4904) entitled \"Classical signature of quantum annealing\" Smolin and Smith point out that a bimodal distribution presented in (arXiv:1304.4595) for the success probability in the D-Wave device does not in itself provide sufficient evidence for quantum annealing, by presenting a classical model that also exhibits bimodality. Here we analyze their model and in addition present a similar model derived from the semi-classical limit of quantum spin dynamics, which also exhibits a bimodal distribution. We find that in both cases the correlations between the success probabilities of these classical models and the D-Wave device are weak compared to the correlations between a simulated quantum annealer and the D-Wave device. Indeed, the evidence for quantum annealing presented in arXiv:1304.4595 is not limited to the bimodality, but relies in addition on the success probability correlations between the D-Wave device and the simulated quantum annealer. The Smolin-Smith model and our semi-classical spin model both fail this correlation test.", "revisions": [ { "version": "v1", "updated": "2013-05-24T19:52:40.000Z" } ], "analyses": { "keywords": [ "quantum annealing", "classical signature", "d-wave device", "simulated quantum annealer", "bimodal distribution" ], "note": { "typesetting": "TeX", "pages": 3, "language": "en", "license": "arXiv", "status": "editable", "adsabs": "2013arXiv1305.5837W" } } }