@unpublished{ronnow2013comment,
author = {Ronnow, Troels F. and Wang, Lei and Boixo, Sergio and Isakov, Sergei V. and Wang, Zhihui and Wecker, Dave and Lidar, Daniel A. and Martinis, John M. and Troyer, Matthias},
title = {Comment on: “Classical signature of quantum annealing”},
year = {2013},
month = {May},
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.},
url = {http://approjects.co.za/?big=en-us/research/publication/comment-on-classical-signature-of-quantum-annealing/},
}