Quantum annealing or D-Wave is fraud.

Quantum annealing or D-Wave is inferior to classical computers.

D-Wave just increased its net loss.

D-Wave quantum computers are useless, No advantage.

Fake quantum advantage by disguising classical computers as "hybrid" computers.

D-Wave spreads fake quantum advantage.

"Hybrid" means just "classical computers".

Even D-Wave's deceptive hybrid showed No advantage.

Fake D-Wave quantum supremacy

Fake quantum annealing supremacy is due to comparison with bad classical methods (= good classical methods easily outperform D-Wave quantum annealing ).

(Fig.S)  Quantum supremacy of quantum annealing or D-Wave was fake, far slower, more error-prone than good classical computer's methods.

D-Wave quantum supremacy claim was a lie.

Many overhyped claims that these annealing machines might be faster than ordinary classical computers are based on unfair comparison with bad classical methods (= good classical computer's methods easily outperformed quantum annealing or D-Wave, No quantum advantage ).

The 1st, 8th paragraphs of this ( or this,  3/12/2025 ) say  -- No supremacy
"D-Wave's claim that its quantum computers can solve problems that would take hundreds of years on classical machines have been undermined by two separate research groups showing that even an ordinary (= classical ) laptop can perform similar calculations"

"his (classical computer's) tensor approach could easily scale further"

The 11th, 14th paragraphs of this ( or this  3/12/2025 ) say  -- slower quantum
"D-Wave’s quantum supremacy claim is also being disputed by physicists particularly those who say classical computers still have their place."
"Look, this one problem at this one time didn't beat classical computers. Try again ( this-last-paragraph )"

↑ This recent D-Wave quantum annealing supremacy claim was also overhyped, fake, as shown in D-Wave's recent bad business loss (= No practical use, though one year has already been passed since this fake supremacy paper was published in arxiv ).

D-Wave quantum supremacy is illusion.

This (or this )-1st, 3rd-last paragraphs (3/12/2025) say  -- Classical better
"There's No clear quantum advantage yet in tests of real-world problems"
"our classical approach demonstrably outperforms other reported methods... we are also able to reach errors noticeably lower than the quantum annealing approach employed by the D-Wave Advantage2 system."

This-p.1-right-last-paragraph ~ p.2 (3/10/2025) says  -- Classical beats quantum
"In the case of cylindrical and diamond lattices our ( classical computer's ) simulations reach accuracies well beyond those of the ( error-prone ) quantum annealer for large system sizes"

↑ Quantum annealing machines or D-Wave are too useless and error-prone, so D-Wave has to rely on ordinary classical computers as (deceptive) hybrid machines that also cannot match the current good classical computers' methods.

Even D-Wave admits quantum annealing is still useless (forever).

Actually, even this or this latest (fake supremacy) D-Wave paper's p.1-abstract-last just vaguely says
"Thus quantum annealers can answer questions of practical importance that may (= this uncertain phrase means D-Wave is still useless ) remain out of reach for classical computation (← D-Wave changed the expression from this paper's arxiv's abstract-last that didn't use 'may' )."

This-middle-The Controversy; skepticism says  -- D-Wave is useless
"even D-Wave admits that solving practical business problems (e.g. in logistics, finance, etc.) on an annealer remains work for the future"
"These limitations lead some researchers to argue that quantum annealers face scaling challenges for truly complex, real-world instances"

Quantum annealing or D-Wave has No commercial practical use, contrary to hypes.

This-9th and last paragraphs (3/13/2025) say  -- No quantum advantage
"additional research is necessary to confirm whether practical application cases can be resolved in various fields"
"doubts remain as to whether quantum computers can solve problems that classical computers cannot"  ← No quantum computer advantage

This-lower-Limitations and future work (for this fake quantum supremacy's first application,  3/22/2025 ) says
"The system is still a prototype, and hurdles remain before a quantum blockchain could be deployed commercially."  ← Even D-Wave admits there is still No practical use of this (dubious) quantum supremacy.

This-5th-last ~ 4th-last paragraphs (3/31/2025) say  -- Useless D-Wave
"there are No obvious commercial applications (of D-Wave),... there are large number of powerful classical optimization algorithms that can solve these problems directly,"

"notes that media coverage suggesting the results could have practical applications is misleading.... for commercially relevant problems I think this is still far away."

↑ Quantum annealing or D-Wave is still useless (forever despite very long time fruitless researches and hypes ) with No evidence of quantum supremacy nor practical use.

Fake quantum supremacy against bad methods.

D-Wave's fake quantum supremacy is due to deliberately avoiding comparison with good classical computer's methods (= classical Selby, Gurobi, good tensor network.. outperformed D-Wave )

The 1st and 2nd-last paragraphs of this (or this, 3/12/2025 ) say
"D-Wave’s fresh claim that it has achieved “quantum advantage” has sparked criticism of the company—and of the scientific process itself"
"Claims of beating 'all classical methods' are very hard to justify scientifically"

↑ Actually, all these (dubious, fake) quantum supremacy claims of quantum annealing or D-Wave is due to unfair comparisons with deliberately-chosen bad classical computer's methods.

D-Wave's fake quantum supremacy is due to comparison with unfairly-chosen bad classical methods.

This-p.44-X. monte carlo dynamics (or this-p.47-X ) in this latest Science on (fake) D-Wave supremacy in 2025 mentions D-Wave compared the quantum annealing with (only bad) classical computer methods such as simulated quantum annealing (= SQA ) and Monte Carlo (= MC ), which classical computer methods were allegedly faster than classical tensor-network.

But actually there are various better, faster classical computer's methods such as Selby, Gurobi, even good classical tensor network ) that could outperform the quantum annealing or D-Wave ( this-p.9~p.12,  this-15~21th-paragraphs,   this-p.6-left-C,  this-p.1-abstract-last-2025 ).

The fact that D-Wave's (fake) quantum computer or quantum annealing (= QA ) is more useless, error-prone, slower than classical computers is why D-Wave applied only (deceptive) hybrid computers called CQM (= just classical computers ) to practical purpose, which also cannot match today's good classical computer's methods ( this-p.28-1st-paragraph,  this-p.10-2nd-last-paragraph, p.12-conclusion ).

D-Wave's commercially useful quantum computer is wrong.  They rely on classical computers as 'hybrid', so No quantum advantage.

(Fig.C)  D-Wave gave up using their error-prone useless quantum ( annealing ) computers, and instead, started to use classical computers as 'hybrid'.

D-Wave is useless like other quantum computers.

Unlike D-Wave bold claim, quantum computers or annealers can never be useful.

The recent D-Wave claim ( after the useless Willow thing ) that their ( fake ) quantum computers (= annealers ) might benefit business operation is completely untrue.

D-Wave quantum annealing machines are useless, too error-prone to be practical (= often giving wrong local energy minima ), so No quantum advantage ( this p.1-right-last-paragraph ), deadend ( this-2nd-paragraph ).

↑ If D-Wave annealing machines for the alleged faster scheduling were really useful, many ordinary companies should have already used them, which did Not happen ( this-Is D-Wave stock a buy ? ) despite the decades of research, except for research or hype purpose collecting investment money by controlling the media.

This p.10-2nd-last-paragraph (in 2024) says  -- Useless quantum computer
"we can conclude that quantum annealers are too small and too prone to errors, and hence, for more accurate solutions to larger problems, we opt for hybrid quantum-classical solvers (= needing more practical classical computers )"

D-Wave's hybrid is just a classical computer.

NTT, Mastercard use 'hybrid classical' computers, Not quantum computers that are useless.

NTT-Docomo uses D-Wave's hybrid' computer (= called CQM solver ) allegedly combining the ordinary classical computer and D-Wave's error-prone machine ( this p.1-left-last ). But this hybrid computer is just a classical computer, and No quantum computer's advantage ( this p.1-abstract-last, p.7-2nd-last-paragraph,  this 7~9th-paragraphs ).

This p.27-7. says  -- D-Wave is useless
"The purely quantum D-Wave Advantage6.1 QPU solver (= quantum annealer ) was only able to obtain optimal solutions for the five-node case due to scale limitations (= useless )"

Mastercard is also one of D-Wave's small number of customers, and using this misleading 'hybrid' machines (= just classical computers, this 2nd-paragraph ) with No quantum computer's advantage.

This-10th-paragraph~ says  -- inferior quantum computer
"A purely quantum system is Not desirable because quantum computers are Not better than classical computers for every task,"

Even these (misleading) hybrid computers (= which are just classical computers ) could Not outperform the conventional classical computer's methods (= which is just a competition between different classical computer's methods, irrelevant to quantum computer's advantage  this-p.9~p.12 ).

D-Wave quantum (annealing) computer is far worse than a classical computer, so D-Wave hides whether their hybrid computer really uses the quantum computer, or just uses a classical computer.

This p.1-abstract and p.15-last (12/10/2024) say  -- Classical beats quantum
"the Hybrid (= classical + quantum ) solver and SA (= classical simulated annealing method ) algorithm consistently achieve the global optimum, outperforming the QPU (= D-Wave quantum annealing )"  ← D-Wave quantum annealing machine is worse than a classical computer.

"For larger instances where global optima are unknown, we observe that the SBM (= using classical computer, this 2nd-paragraph,  this 2nd-paragraph ).. deliver competitive solution quality, while the Hybrid solver.. performed noticeably worse"  ← D-Wave hybrid machine is also worse.

"it is frustrating that the Hybrid solver operates as a black-box cloud solution, leaving us without insight into its internal workings"  ← D-Wave still hides whether their hybrid machine really uses their (useless) quantum annealing or uses only a practical classical computer.

Actually, D-Wave itself admits they are overhyping their performance ( this-last-forward-looking statement ).

Overhyped fake quantum speed-up of quantum annealing or D-Wave is due to comparison with bad classical methods.  Good classical computer's methods outperform quantum annealing, so No quantum advantage.

(Fig.1')  Good classical computer's methods (= Selby ) outperformed quantum annealing or D-Wave.

D-Wave is inferior to a classical computer.

D-Wave or quantum annealing machines were inferior to the faster classical computer's methods such as Selby.

It is known that these quantum annealing machines are slower and more error-prone than ordinary classical computers using best classical calculation methods such as (classical) Selby's algorithm ( this 6th-paragraph,  this 2nd-paragraph,  this p.6-left-c ).

This 3rd-pagagraph says  -- Classical beats D-Wave
"on every instance tested so far, Selby's (classical) annealing algorithm outperforms the D-wave machine,... they strategically included an unfair benchmark so that the news media could take the 100M speedup figure to fuel the hype machine"

This 15th, 19th paragraphs say  -- Good classical beats quantum
"So besides (classical) simulated annealing, there are two more classical algorithms that are actors in this story. One of them is quantum Monte Carlo, which is actually a classical optimization method (= simulated annealing and Monte Carlo are bad slower classical computer's methods )"

"What the Google paper finds is that Selby's algorithm, which runs on a classical computer, totally outperforms the D-Wave machine on all the instances they tested"

↑ The faster classical computer's method called Selby outperformed D-Wave annealing machines.

D-Wave's fake quantum speed-up is due to comparison with bad classical methods such as simulated annealing and Monte-Carlo.

This 2nd-last-paragraph says
"The VW research team also notes that their primary goal is.. not to prove supremacy over every existing classical clustering algorithm."  ← Because quantum annealing is slower than the good classical computer's method.

↑ So all the overhyped ( fake ) quantum advantage claims in quantum annealing (= QA ) optimization problems is due to unfair comparison with slower bad classical methods such as simulated annealing (= SA ) and Monte Carlo (= MC ), as shown in this p.1-right-1st-paragraph,  this p.5-left benchmark against simulated annealing,  this p.47-X (= all of which did Not compare quantum annealing with faster classical methods such as Selby ).

Classical computer's best faster algorithm such as Selby can easily outperformed quantum annealing machines (= classical Selby gave more accurate results than the error-prone D-Wave (= DW ), this p.16-Table.2, p.15-lower ).

In some tasks, even against slow classical simulated annealing, quantum annealing could not show quantum advantage ( this p.1-abstract-lower ).

No quantum computer advantage nor utility.

The fact that quantum annealing machines or D-Wave are still Not used for practical purpose shows No hope of quantum advantage.

As a result, contrary to many (unfounded) hypes, (fake) quantum computers or quantum annealing are slower and showing No quantum advantage over ordinary classical computers ( this p.1-last ).

Actually, despite extremely longtime research and hypes, still Nobody and No companies use these overhyped D-Wave annealing machines for practical optimization problems (= Only a tiny number of companies use D-Wave only for fruitless researches or spreading hypes to get investment money or research funds ).

This p.2-4th-paragraph (9/9/2024) says  -- No quantum advantaage
"the current implementations of quantum annealing in optimisation are limited in size and Not yet upscaled to real-world situations"  ← Quantum annealers or D-Wave are still useless.

This 8th-paragraph (5/23/2023) says
"but to date, No quantum computer has outperformed a classical supercomputer in practical tasks"

Also in one of optimization problems called travelling salesman problem finding shortest route, quantum annealing machines showed No advantage over classical computers ( this p.1-abstract,  this abstract ).

This 5th-last-paragraph says
"In fact, it hasn't been proved yet that quantum annealing gives an advantage over classical optimization algorithms"

D-Wave annealing machines use classical electric current as a qubit 0 or 1 state.  ← No quantum mechanics

(Fig.2) Classical electric current difference induced by applied magnetic field generates D-Wave's flux qubit-0 and 1 states.

D-Wave annealing machines use the direction of classical electric current flowing through the superconducting circuit as their ( flux ) qubit state 0 or 1.  No quantum mechanics is used.

Electron's current tends to be quantized due to the (classical) electron's ( an integer times ) de Broglie wavelength in D-Wave's superconducting flux qubit or circuit that can be manipulated by external magnetic field ( this p.6-7 ).

↑ By adjusting applied magnetic field (= flux ) in qubits (= classical superconducting circuits ) and couplers connecting qubits, D-Wave can optimize the final lowest-energy stable solution.

Quantum tunneling is a realistic classical phenomena (= electric current over only very short distance ) irrelevant to unrealistic quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy

Fake quantum advantage of quantum annealing machines is caused by comparison with bad time-consuming classical method such as path-integral Monte Carlo.

The best faster classical computer's methods easily outperform quantum annealing machines or D-Wave, so No quantum advantage.

(Fig.3)  One of bad time-consuming classical methods called path integral Monte-Carlo (= PIMC ) ↓

D-Wave often chose bad classical methods.

Quantum annealing outperformed only bad slow impractical methods with No quantum advantage.

The (fake) quantum advantage of quantum annealing or D-Wave is caused by comparison with the artificially-chosen bad slow classical computer's methods such as simulated annealing and Monte-Carlo.

One of those bad classical methods is path integral Monte Calro (= PIMC ) method or quantum Monte Carlo (= QMC, this Fig.1B ) using the unreal imaginary time, which means PIMC can Not represent the realistic classical calculation method at all.

Monte-Carlo is an extremely-time-consuming, inefficient classical method.

In this unrealistic very time-consuming classical method called path integral Monte Carlo, they first divide the process of annealing into many fictitious imaginary time periods (= σ1, σ2, σ2 .. σm,  this p.2 ).

And then, they randomly chose an arbitrary qubit representing "spin direction" included in random imaginary times one by one, calculated the total energy (=H ) before and after the qubit (or spin ) flip ( 0 ↔ 1,  this p.2 ), and decided whether this chosen qubit is flipped or not based on the calculated imaginary-time probabilities (= function of total energy,  this p.30-40 ), until the system may reach the lowest energy state ( this p.20,  this p.8,  this p.9,  this p.9 ).

↑ This impractical Monte Carlo classical method takes extremely much time, because it must randomly calculate each qubit's energy or flipping probability one by one without knowing the real forces by which all qubits naturally decide whether they flip or not simultaneously to lower the total energy.

Whether quantum or classical, all things and particles in the nature are gradually evolving into the lowest energy state by interacting and exerting real forces on each other simultaneously, which real classical process in the nature is completely different from these impractical extremely time-consuming artificial classical methods such as path integral Monte Carlo and simulated annealing unfairly chosen for comparison with the quantum annealing.

Quantum annealers cannot factor large numbers, because they are often trapped in wrong solutions or local energy minima.

(Fig.4) Setting the right prime numbers (= 5 and 3 ) as the lowest-energy qubit state for factoring 15 = 5 × 3 using (impractical) quantum annealing.

Quantum computers cannot factor, contrary to hypes.

Quantum computer's Shor algorithm and annealing are useless for factoring numbers.

The only way for faster quantum computer's factoring is Shor's algorithm that is impractical (= only fake slower Shor's algorithm for 21 = 3 × 7 can be done ) forever.

Quantum annealing or adiabatic machines treating factoring as optimization problems (= minimization ) are useless, just publicity stunt.

Classical computers are far, far superior.

Quantum annealing factoring give wrong answers.

Quantum computers cannot factor even 15 = 3 × 5 due to errors.

They encode solutions of factorization into the lowest energy state (= expressed as binary qubit states ) in D-Wave annealing machines.

The problem is quantum annealing or D-Wave often give wrong answers stuck in one of local energy minima instead of the lowest energy state (= right answers,  this p.3 ).

Even in factoring the simplest 15 = 3 × 5, D-Wave annealing machines are known to often give wrong answers ( this p.55,  this p.7-Figure 1,  this p.34 ).

Quantum annealing factoring is useless

Factoring by quantum annealing or adiabatic methods must know answers in advance, which is useless, cannot factor new numbers.

So when this quantum annealing or adiabatic methods try to factor large numbers, they have to know answers in advance to artificially reduce numbers of qubits.

This-p.1-right-lower says  -- Fake quantum computer factoring
"the integer N = 291311 had been factorized using the adiabatic (= equal to annealing, this-lower,  this-4th-paragraph ) approach,.. Only 3 qubits were used in this case"

"we have experimentally factorized the integers 4088459 and 966887, using 2 and 4 qubits respectively."

↑ One qubit can take only 0 or 1 value, so just 4 qubits can express only up to 16 (= 2⁴ ), which cannot express such large numbers as 291311, 966887.

Fake quantum computer's factorization

Quantum annealing factoring must know answers in advance illegitimately.

↑ So they have to already know answers in advance to reduce numbers of qubits, which quantum adiabatic or annealing's factoring is completely useless.

In this-p.2-(1), they tried to factor 291311 = 523 × 557

↑ A binary number of 523 is "1000001011"

In this-p.2-(1)(2), they just used 3 unknown variables or qubits (= p5, p2, p1 ) to express this 523 = 1000001011 = 1000(p5)01(p2)(p1)1 (= other binary numbers except for these 3 variables must be known in advance ).

↑ So they had to already know the answer 291311 = 523 × 557 to reduce qubits' numbers, which is useless, cannot factor unknown values.

Feel free to link to this site.