SymbiQ Ledger: D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.Everything that happens to this claim: the criteria and any public change to them, check-ins, a proposed verdict, the final verdict and any reply.https://symbiq.dev/feeds/claim-dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025.xml2026-12-31T00:00:00ZSymbiQ deskhttps://symbiq.dev/tools/build_verdict_feeds.pyurn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:due:2026-12-31:0Verdict due: D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2026-12-31T00:00:00Z2026-12-31T00:00:00ZThe deadline for this claim is 2026-12-31. A verdict follows the rules on how a verdict gets written.The deadline for this claim is 2026-12-31. The claim, its criteria and the sources that will settle it are on its page.urn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:criteria:2026-10-19:0Criteria updated, in public: D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2026-10-19T00:00:00Z2026-10-19T00:00:00ZTwo resolver sources were named by citation, not by link (arXiv:2503.05693 and an EPFL preprint). Each now has its arXiv link, so the documents that settle the claim can be found and archived.Two resolver sources were named by citation, not by link (arXiv:2503.05693 and an EPFL preprint). Each now has its arXiv link, so the documents that settle the claim can be found and archived. Adds a link to each resolver source that was named only by citation. The same two documents are meant; no condition is changed. The earlier text is kept on the claim page.urn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:checkin:2026-10-16:2Check-in (at risk): D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2026-10-16T00:00:00Z2026-10-16T00:00:00ZOn 26 May 2026 D-Wave issued a response to a newly published Flatiron Institute paper in Science that uses a classical tensor-network method to compute quantum annealing dynamics, the approach first posted to arXiv in March 2025. As reporteOn 26 May 2026 D-Wave issued a response to a newly published Flatiron Institute paper in Science that uses a classical tensor-network method to compute quantum annealing dynamics, the approach first posted to arXiv in March 2025. As reported by Quantum Computing Report, D-Wave says its 2025 milestones are not overturned: the classical method covers only some topologies, sizes and measured quantities. We have not read the Science paper. The dispute is now a published paper against a company statement, and it is not settled either way.urn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:tracked:2026-08-27:0Now tracking: D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2026-08-27T00:00:00Z2026-08-27T00:00:00ZClaim captured, with its resolution criteria and the sources that will settle it. Resolves by 2026-12-31.Resolves by 2026-12-31 (+30 day grace). Criteria: This is a claim about a result already published (Science, DOI 10.1126/science.ado6285, “Beyond-Classical Computation in Quantum Simulation”), not a future promise -- so what is being tracked is not whether it happens, but whether it HOLDS UP against classical rebuttals, which is exactly the kind of claim a credibility tracker exists for. Resolves VERIFIED if no classical algorithm has, by the resolution date, matched D-Wave's reported accuracy/runtime on the same problem instances at the same or larger scale. NOT_VERIFIED if a peer-reviewed classical method has matched or beaten it at comparable scale. PARTIALLY_VERIFIED if classical methods match it at smaller scales tested so far (as the two rebuttals below currently claim) but have not yet been shown to scale to D-Wave's largest reported instances.urn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:checkin:2025-03-12:1Check-in (at risk): D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2025-03-12T00:00:00Z2025-03-12T00:00:00ZLinda Mauron and Giuseppe Carleo (EPFL) posted a separate classical approach (time-dependent variational Monte Carlo) to arXiv, reporting correlation errors below 7% on systems up to 128 spins -- “aligning with or surpassing” D-Wave's reporLinda Mauron and Giuseppe Carleo (EPFL) posted a separate classical approach (time-dependent variational Monte Carlo) to arXiv, reporting correlation errors below 7% on systems up to 128 spins -- “aligning with or surpassing” D-Wave's reported accuracy at that scale, though not yet tested at D-Wave's largest reported instances.urn:symbiq:ledger:dwave-magnetic-simulation-supremacy-2025:checkin:2025-03-07:0Check-in (at risk): D-Wave says its Advantage2 annealing quantum computer demonstrated quantum computational supremacy on a real-world magnetic-materials simulation problem, beating classical supercomputers.2025-03-07T00:00:00Z2025-03-07T00:00:00ZFlatiron Institute (Joseph Tindall et al.) posted a classical belief-propagation approach to arXiv claiming it “demonstrably outperforms other reported methods” on the same spin-glass problem, with errors “noticeably lower than the quantum Flatiron Institute (Joseph Tindall et al.) posted a classical belief-propagation approach to arXiv claiming it “demonstrably outperforms other reported methods” on the same spin-glass problem, with errors “noticeably lower than the quantum annealing approach” -- not yet peer-reviewed at time of posting.