Loading the evidence record…
Return to the reportingA dated, source-bounded reading of the original report.
Results depend on the tested data and constraints. Potential compatibility with smaller quantum devices does not demonstrate quantum speedup or production portfolio returns.
This source-locator check adds context to the existing record. Its original publication and claim-review dates remain unchanged. No independent scientific replication was performed.
Four authors of the portfolio paper later summarized it on the AWS blog. Section 1 and reference 1 identify the original study. The hardware experiments in later sections belong to separate papers.
Source relationship reviewed .Where to look: Abstract; Introduction, Our contribution; IV Numerical Results
These selected views resolve the same ledger claim. Historical citations keep their cited revision.
Atithi Acharya et al.. Decomposition Pipeline for Large-Scale Portfolio Optimization with Applications to Near-Term Quantum Computing. arXiv. Source published 2024-11-20. arXiv:2409.10301v2, 20 November 2024. Abstract; Introduction, Our contribution; IV Numerical Results. https://arxiv.org/html/2409.10301v2#S4 Source authority: The tested decomposition method and its comparison with the same classical solver. Does not establish: Quantum speedup, investment returns or identity with every result in the related journal version. Source relationship reviewed 2026-11-03: Four authors of the portfolio paper later summarized it on the AWS blog. Section 1 and reference 1 identify the original study. The hardware experiments in later sections belong to separate papers. QubitWire: Smaller portfolio subproblems improve a classical baseline. Record first published 2026-09-26. Cited revision claim-portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline-r1. https://qubitwire.com/evidence/portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline?revision=claim-portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline-r1 Current record and corrections: https://qubitwire.com/evidence/portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline Limitation: Results depend on the tested data and constraints. Potential compatibility with smaller quantum devices does not demonstrate quantum speedup or production portfolio returns.
End-to-end quantum workflows with matched solution quality, preprocessing costs and competitive classical comparisons.
Suggest a correction or new source →Initial source-bounded record. No follow-up revision has been published.
Smaller portfolio subproblems improve a classical baseline Reported: Acharya and colleagues report portfolio decomposition that reduces subproblem size by about 80% in their tested data. Supported observation: For linear-constraint problems around 1,500 assets, the study reports roughly threefold runtime savings with solution quality within 5% of the optimum. Conditions: The checked v2 preprint reports Gurobi benchmarks, sequential subproblem solving and explicit approximation gaps. Its decomposition uses correlation preprocessing, clustering and risk rebalancing. Timing compares decomposed and direct optimization using the same classical solver. It is not a quantum-versus-classical timing result. Not established: Results depend on the tested data and constraints. Potential compatibility with smaller quantum devices does not demonstrate quantum speedup or production portfolio returns. Next evidence: End-to-end quantum workflows with matched solution quality, preprocessing costs and competitive classical comparisons. Decomposition Pipeline for Large-Scale Portfolio Optimization with Applications to Near-Term Quantum Computing · Primary research preprint, version 2 · 2024-11-20 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10301v2 Source checked 2026-09-26 AWS and JPMorganChase collaborate to advance quantum computing R&D · Primary collaboration report · 2026-08-05 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/quantum-computing/aws-and-jpmorganchase-collaborate-to-advance-quantum-computing-rd/ Source checked 2026-09-26 Revision: claim-portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline-r1 · 2026-09-26 Review: Source and editorial check. Attributed primary-source summary; no independent scientific review. Independent replication: not assessed. Cited revision: https://qubitwire.com/evidence/portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline?revision=claim-portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline-r1 Current corrections: https://qubitwire.com/evidence/portfolio-decomposition-classical-baseline
