Shots-to-Approximate-Solution Scaling in Neutral-Atom Quantum Optimization

We model the postprocessed shell distribution by the degeneracy-weighted form

where $d_{\alpha-j}$ denotes the number of independent sets of size $\alpha-j$. This form has a natural maximum-entropy interpretation: maximizing the entropy of $\pi$ relative to the degeneracy measure $d=\{d_{\alpha-j}\}$ (the negative of the relative entropy),

subject to normalization and a fixed mean shell depth $\langle j\rangle_{\pi}=\sum_{j}j\pi_{j}$ yields Eq. (5) as the unique stationary distribution, with $\beta$ emerging as the Lagrange multiplier conjugate to the mean-shell constraint Jaynes1957PR. Beyond this inference-based motivation, Eq. (5) also admits an algorithmic derivation. As shown in Appendix C, the finite interaction radius of the postprocessing pipeline, applied to input ensembles with short-range correlations, produces a degeneracy-weighted exponential shell distribution with corrections of order $\mathcal{O}(j^{2}/N)$; the shell model is therefore expected to be most accurate precisely in the low-$j$ region that controls $\mathrm{STS}(r)$ for near-exact targets. In this work, the primary role of Eq. (5) is operational. The observed distributions, as validated in Sec. III.5, are in agreement with Eq. (5) using an estimated parameter $\beta$, which serves as a single-parameter summary of output quality.

Equation (5) has the form of a Boltzmann distribution, and it is natural to ask whether $\beta$ reflects an effective temperature reached by the annealing dynamics. Analogous questions are extensively studied for superconducting quantum annealers, whose outputs are commonly modeled as approximate Boltzmann samples at an instance-dependent effective temperature set by a freeze-out point of the dynamics Amin2015; Benedetti2016; Marshall2017; Vuffray2022. What $\beta$ measures directly is the density of postprocessing-irreparable defects in the raw output. An effective temperature, if present, would control that same defect density, so the two readings are naturally related: $\beta$ would then be a monotone proxy for such a temperature rather than a temperature itself. The shell distribution alone cannot go further, since it describes the postprocessed output of a many-to-one classical map and, as shown in Appendix C, the same degeneracy-weighted form arises for any product-measure input—including the non-thermal Bernoulli baseline. Distinguishing the possibilities therefore requires the raw bitstring statistics, a direction we outline in Sec. IV.

To account for this effect, we introduce an excitation-matched random baseline defined as

where $\mathrm{Bern}(p_{\mathrm{exc}}^{(\mathrm{ann})})^{\otimes N}$ represents $N$ independent Bernoulli random variables with excitation probability $p_{\mathrm{exc}}^{(\mathrm{ann})}$, and $\mathrm{PP}(\cdot)$ denotes the deterministic postprocessing pipeline. The resulting annealing advantage is then given by

A positive value of $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ indicates that the annealing output yields a shell distribution more strongly concentrated toward low-shell solutions than can be explained by excitation density alone. This Bernoulli model serves as a minimal density-controlled null model: it matches the mean excitation density per shot—the dominant one-point statistic—without attempting to reproduce higher-order spatial correlations present in the quantum output.

The restriction to a one-point statistic is deliberate. The number of blockade-violating edges is not an independent knob: its suppression is itself a signature of the blockade physics under test, so a baseline matched to it would build part of the structure being tested into the null model, and a vanishing residual could no longer be interpreted. Matching it in addition to the excitation density is moreover impossible within a product measure, since a single Bernoulli parameter cannot satisfy two constraints; an edge-matched product ensemble does exist, but it reproduces a substantially lower excitation density and therefore no longer controls the one-point statistic that the construction is designed to control. We therefore use the density-matched Bernoulli ensemble as the minimal spatially uncorrelated baseline, and expect an edge-matched variant to shift $\beta_{\mathrm{rand}}$ only slightly at the present system sizes.

The locality derivation of Appendix C sharpens the meaning of this comparison. For any product-measure input, the shell form of Eq. (5) follows with an exponent fixed entirely by the one-point statistics; $\beta_{\mathrm{rand}}(p_{\mathrm{exc}})$ therefore represents the quality parameter attainable by an arbitrary spatially uncorrelated input ensemble at the given excitation density. A positive $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ consequently certifies the presence of correlations in the quantum output, beyond one-point statistics, that suppress postprocessing-irreparable defects—independently of any assumption about the microscopic origin of those correlations.

All experiments were performed on QuEra Aquila QuEra2026 with $M=500$ shots per instance. The raw measurement records, the graph instances with their exact maximum-independent-set data, and the analysis code that reproduce all figures and quoted values are openly available Jung2026Data. The dataset comprises four system-size groups: small ($N=30$–$35$), medium ($N=60$–$65$), large ($N=90$–$95$), and xlarge ($N=120$–$125$), with 30 instances in each group. The exact maximum independent set sizes, listed in Table 1, average $\bar{\alpha}=12.2$–$43.9$ across the four groups and thereby set the granularity $\Delta r\simeq 1/\alpha$ of the accessible target ratios (Sec. IV). Within each size group, instances are further partitioned into five hardness bins according to

where $H(G)$ measures the ratio of near-optimal to optimal degeneracy, with larger values indicating stronger entropic competition from suboptimal first-shell solutions and thus lower probability of reaching the MIS Ebadi2022Science. Bin boundaries are placed at equal intervals between the minimum and maximum $H(G)$ values in the dataset; instances within each bin span a range of approximately $\pm 0.1$ in $H$. The lowest-hardness bin (bin 0) is retained in the dataset but excluded from averaged quantitative analyses, as the postprocessed $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ values for these instances lie well outside the range of harder bins; at very low hardness, the postprocessing pipeline effectively resolves the MIS with high probability, making the shell distribution qualitatively distinct from the remainder of the dataset.

For each instance and annealing time, we define the mean excitation density

where $s$ indexes experimental shots. This quantity is used in constructing the matched baseline and is therefore defined directly from the raw experimental data, rather than only after fitting $\beta$.

Figure 2(b) shows the per-instance values of $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ at the plateau ($T=5000~\mathrm{ns}$) as a function of system size $N$. The group means remain positive across all four size groups. Two features of Table 1 are worth stating explicitly. First, $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ is essentially size-independent: the group values span $3.79$–$4.06$, comparable to the within-group scatter, and a per-instance regression against $N$ gives a slope $-5.7\times 10^{-4}$ per site ($95\%$ CI $[-2.5,+1.4]\times 10^{-3}$, $p=0.57$). This is expected from Appendix C, where $\beta$ is a log-probability per defect and hence intensive; the extensive growth of the shot cost enters through $d_{\alpha-j}$, not $\beta$. Second, the nominal decrease of $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ from $0.40$ (small) to $0.23$ (xlarge) is carried by the small group alone: over all four groups the slope is $-1.7\times 10^{-3}$ per site ($95\%$ CI $[-3.3,-0.1]\times 10^{-3}$, $p=0.04$, $R^{2}=0.05$), but excluding small it is consistent with zero ($-8.2\times 10^{-4}$, $p=0.40$). The small group is also the only one departing from the size-collapse of Appendix A, as expected at $\bar{\alpha}\approx 12$. We therefore do not read Table 1 as evidence of a systematic decay with system size. Figure 3 further shows that $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ consistently exceeds the excitation-matched random baseline across all hardness bins and system sizes at $T=5000~\mathrm{ns}$. Table 1 summarizes $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ and $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ per size group at $T=5000~\mathrm{ns}$, where the measured values lie in the plateau regime. The excitation-matched advantage $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}=0.23$–$0.40$ is positive across all groups and varies only weakly across hardness bins 1–4 compared with the overall separation between annealing and the matched baseline. The group means in Table 1 understate the consistency of the effect, since the instance-to-instance scatter is comparable to the mean: at the level of individual instances, $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}>0$ holds for $86$ of the $96$ instances in bins 1–4 ($90\%$; $21/24$, $20/24$, $22/24$, and $23/24$ from small to xlarge), which is the precise sense in which annealing exceeds the matched baseline.

The shell model is validated on two fronts: goodness of fit to the empirical shell distribution, and monotonic sensitivity of the inferred $\beta$ to known degradation in solution quality.

To assess sensitivity, we construct controlled mock datasets in which the distance from the MIS manifold is set by a known flip probability $p\in\{0.05,0.1,\ldots,0.5\}$. For each graph instance, $N_{\mathrm{shots}}=2000$ mock measurements are generated by independently flipping each bit of the exact MIS solution with probability $p$ and applying the $\ell=1$ postprocessing pipeline. Figures 4(a)–(d) show that the inferred $\beta$ decreases monotonically with $p$ across all size groups and hardness bins, confirming that the shell model resolves degradation in solution quality in the expected direction.

To assess goodness of fit, we use the KL divergence

where $P_{\mathrm{emp}}$ is the empirical postprocessed shell distribution and $P_{\mathrm{fit}}$ is the corresponding fitted one-parameter model. Because the magnitude of $D_{\mathrm{KL}}$ depends on the effective support of the shell distribution, we interpret $D_{\mathrm{KL}}<0.1$ as an empirical fit-quality threshold within the present dataset rather than as a universal normalized score. Figures 4(e)–(h) show that over $97\%$ of tested instances satisfy $D_{\mathrm{KL}}<0.1$, validating the one-parameter shell description over a broad range of output qualities. The fitted model is also required to reproduce the dominant shell region that controls $\mathrm{STS}(r)$; the threshold $D_{\mathrm{KL}}<0.1$ is therefore used in combination with the monotonic calibration above, so that the validation checks both goodness of fit and sensitivity of the fitted parameter.

The mock ensemble also occupies a precise position within the locality derivation of Appendix C. Since the mock inputs $z=S^{\star}\oplus\mathrm{Bern}(p)^{\otimes N}$ form an inhomogeneous product measure, the independence assumptions of the derivation are satisfied exactly by construction; the exponential shell form and the monotonic decrease of $\beta$ with $p$ then follow as corollaries rather than purely empirical observations. The derivation further predicts $\beta_{\mathrm{mock}}(p)\simeq-m\ln p+\mathrm{const}$ as $p\to 0$, where $m$ is the minimal number of flips required to create a defect that the $\ell=1$ pipeline cannot repair; the overall decrease of $\beta$ by $\approx 3.5$–$4$ across the decade $p=0.05$–$0.5$ in Figs. 4(a)–(d) is consistent with a mixture of single- and double-flip defect channels. We note an asymmetry in what this validation establishes: because the mock measure is centered on a single reference MIS, it samples the shell manifold locally around $S^{\star}$ rather than degeneracy-uniformly. The mock data therefore calibrate the sensitivity of the fitted $\beta$ to known quality degradation, while the goodness-of-fit test on the experimental data assesses the shell description itself.

Finally, the end quantity can be checked without the model: with $M=500$ shots per instance, the fraction landing in shells $j\leq J(r)$ is a model-free estimate of $p_{r}$, available at every admissible cutoff $J$. At the exact target the median counts are $146.5$, $45$, $12$, and $5$ per $500$ shots (small to xlarge, annealing, bins 1–4), giving direct-count $\mathrm{STS}(r=1)=14$, $49$, $190$, and $459$ against per-instance shell-model values $11$, $27$, $63$, and $140$. The xlarge direct count rests on $5$ exact hits in $500$ shots and thus carries a $\sim 45\%$ counting uncertainty. The discrepancy is confined to the exact target: for $J\geq 1$ the two agree to within $25\%$ in the large and xlarge groups, whereas at $J=0$ the model overestimates $\pi_{0}$ by up to a factor of $\approx 3$ ($\approx 1.2$ in the small group, growing to $2$–$3$ in the larger groups). This is the shell where the stable-set-count refinement of Sec. IV is expected to matter most, since $d_{\alpha}$ counts all maximum independent sets rather than the $1$-swap-stable ones the pipeline can return. Shell-model $\mathrm{STS}(r=1)$ should therefore be read as a lower bound at that level. At the relaxed target the same count gives $\mathrm{STS}(r=0.9)=2$ in every group, so the two-regime structure holds by direct counting alone, independently of Eq. (5).

For the exact target ($J=0$, equivalently $r=1$), Fig. 5(a) shows the required shot count $\mathrm{STS}(r=1;N)$ as a function of system size using these group-dependent values $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}^{(g)}$. The plotted curves are exponential fits to the binned medians, while the shaded regions indicate the interquartile range of the hardest 10% of instances, ranked by $\mathrm{STS}(r=1;N)$, within each size bin. In all cases, $\mathrm{STS}(r=1;N)$ increases approximately exponentially with $N$, consistent with the large-deviation interpretation developed in Sec. IV. Increasing $\beta$ lowers the required shot count at fixed $N$, as shown explicitly in panel (c); at the present sizes the four fitted growth rates are nearly indistinguishable ($\kappa=0.035$–$0.040$), so within the shell-model description the improvement appears chiefly as a prefactor reduction rather than a resolvable change of slope.

In contrast, Fig. 5(b) shows an expanded view of the shell-model prediction for a relaxed fixed-ratio target, $r=0.9$, evaluated at the same group-dependent plateau values $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}^{(g)}$. In this regime, the required shot count remains close to unity over the entire size range and changes only weakly across the experimentally relevant range of $\beta$. The excitation-matched random baselines, $\mathrm{STS}(r=0.9;\beta_{\mathrm{rand}})$, also lie in this order-unity regime. Thus, although annealing produces a positive structural shift $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}>0$, the operational benefit of this shift is strongly target-dependent: it is substantial for near-exact targets close to the MIS manifold, but small for sufficiently relaxed approximate targets.

Figure 5(c) makes this target dependence explicit from the opposite perspective. At the exact target, $\mathrm{STS}(r=1;\beta)$ decreases rapidly with increasing $\beta$, and the separation between size groups grows with system size. The measured annealing plateau values $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}^{(g)}$ lie to the right of the excitation-matched random baselines $\beta_{\mathrm{rand}}$, implying fewer required shots at fixed $N$. The faint vertical lines mark the plateau values $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}^{(g)}$, at which the exponential fits in panel (a) are evaluated. The large reduction visible at the exact target does not contradict the near-unity shot cost in Fig. 5(b): once the accepted shell range is wide enough to include the dominant portion of the postprocessed distribution, the success probability becomes $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and the corresponding shot cost saturates near one.

Harder instances (larger $H$) correspond to lower postprocessed $\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$, but the excitation-matched advantage $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ varies only weakly across hardness bins within each size group (Table 1). The main hardness effect is therefore a shift in the overall scale of the shell distribution, rather than a qualitative change in the shots-to-approximate-solution scaling structure.

Across all system sizes, the measured outputs consistently exceed the excitation-matched random baseline ($\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}>0$). Because this comparison controls for per-shot excitation density, the residual gap reflects genuine concentration toward low-shell solutions rather than trivial density effects.

First, the cutoff $J(r)=\alpha-\lceil r\alpha\rceil$ is integer-valued, so targets are quantized in steps of $\Delta r\simeq 1/\alpha$—from $\approx 0.082$ (small) to $\approx 0.023$ (xlarge). The continuous crossover at $\delta_{c}=\delta_{\star}$ implied by Eqs. (14)–(16) is therefore not resolvable here, the two targets being separated by only a handful of admissible cutoffs. Those cutoffs are nonetheless measurable. Counting the same shots at $J=0,1,2,\dots$ yields $p_{r}$, and hence the rate function $I=-N^{-1}\ln p_{r}$, at every accessible target; Fig. 6(a) shows the result. Two features are relevant here. (i) $I$ decays smoothly and approximately geometrically with $J$ and passes through $\delta_{c}=\delta_{\star}$ without a break, whereas Eq. (16) vanishes identically above $\delta_{\star}$: the kink is an $N\to\infty$ feature and is absent at these sizes. This is expected, since the Laplace step requires $NI\gg 1$ while the measured values are $NI=1.3$, $2.4$, $3.7$, and $4.5$ at the exact target. (ii) $I$ at the exact target is nonetheless independent of system size to within $8\%$ [Fig. 6(b)], i.e. the rate function is intensive, so $NI$ grows linearly with $N$. The sharpening is thus not an extrapolation but a measured trend, and it places the onset of a resolvable kink ($NI\gtrsim 10$) near $N\approx 260$, roughly twice the size of the present arrays. A fixed ratio is also not a fixed physical relaxation: $r=0.9$ admits a one-atom deficit in the small group but four in xlarge, so the uniformity of Fig. 5(b) conceals a target that weakens with system size; reporting $\mathrm{STS}$ at fixed $\delta_{c}$ would remove the ambiguity but is indistinguishable at the present $\alpha$. The picture should sharpen as $\alpha$ grows: $\delta_{c}(r)$ becomes quasi-continuous and $I(\delta_{c})$ develops a non-analytic point at $\delta_{c}=\delta_{\star}$, vanishing above it and rising with slope $-\beta+s^{\prime}(\delta_{c})$ below. At finite $\alpha$ the transition is smeared, as Fig. 6(a) shows directly. Confirming the kink itself requires larger $\alpha$; extrapolating from Eq. (5) alone would describe the shell model, not the hardware.

Second, the asymptotic behavior of $\Delta\beta_{\mathrm{ann}}$ remains open at the present sizes. As shown in Sec. III, its apparent decrease is driven by the small group, which also exhibits the strongest finite-size effects in Appendix A. The remaining three groups show no resolvable size dependence over $N=60$–$125$. Whether the advantage saturates or slowly decays therefore remains open and requires larger systems.

This interpretation relies on two assumptions: that shell counts admit an entropy-density description at large $N$, and that the Laplace principle governs the shell sum. Under these conditions, the fitted parameter $\beta$ provides a direct link between experimentally measured output distributions and the scaling of shot complexity. The exact rescaled counts of Appendix A support this description over the accessible window, though the window remains too narrow for a definitive verification. The resulting two-regime structure—exponential sensitivity for near-exact targets and weak dependence for relaxed ones—is consistent with analogous observations in gate-based optimization Larkin2022QST; Chernyavskiy2025 and demonstrates that similar behavior arises in analog Rydberg systems when excitation-density effects are properly controlled.

Exact target. The degeneracy computation of Appendix A—a geometry-aware transfer-matrix dynamic program over the rows of the King’s lattice, run independently on each connected component—returns the exact maximum independent set size $\alpha(G)$ together with the near-optimal counts $d_{\alpha-j}(G)$, and thus constitutes an exact classical solve of every instance in the dataset. Its cost is reported in Appendix D: Fig. 8(c) shows the runtime versus $N$, and Fig. 8(a) plots the measured $\mathrm{STS}(r{=}1)$ directly against it. On one core of an Apple M3 under CPython 3.9.6 the median time per instance rises from $0.6~\mathrm{ms}$ at $N=30$–$35$ to $97~\mathrm{ms}$ at $N=120$–$125$, and all $120$ instances are solved exactly in under four seconds. Exact optimization on this family is not polynomial—the PTAS of Refs. Hunt1998; Nieberg2005; Erlebach2005 concerns approximation—but it is subexponential, $2^{\Theta(\sqrt{n})}$, and this is optimal under the exponential-time hypothesis deBerg2020. The dynamic program has the corresponding state-count scaling: its cost is set by the number of transfer-matrix states per lattice row, bounded by $\varphi^{L}$ with $\varphi$ the golden ratio and $L=\Theta(\sqrt{N})$ the lattice width. The measured times track this state count closely ($R^{2}=0.9996$ against rows${}\times{}$states²) and follow the guide $\propto e^{0.91\sqrt{N}}$ of Fig. 8(c) out to $N\approx 200$, using synthetic instances at the same site density beyond the experimental range. The implementation is unoptimized pure Python, so the constant factor—but not the scaling—bounds the classical cost from above. The shell-model median $\mathrm{STS}(r=1;N\!\approx\!120)=157$ shots (binned-fit; the per-instance shell-model median is $140$)—or the larger direct count of Sec. III.5—should be read against them: the classical solve is inexpensive here, and the shot count measures how a protocol concentrates probability near the MIS manifold, not a competitive cost.

Relaxed target. The excitation-matched baseline is a randomized greedy MIS heuristic with $1$-swap local search (Algorithm 1), so its shot cost directly provides a classical reference. The open diamonds of Fig. 5(b) give $\mathrm{STS}(r=0.9;\beta_{\mathrm{rand}})=1.9$, $1.3$, $1.6$, and $1.6$ from small to xlarge (medians of the unrounded expression in Eq. (1), which the ceiling turns into two shots in every group): one to two greedy passes reach the target throughout. A pass costs $0.05$–$1.6~\mathrm{ms}$ per instance over $N=30$–$200$, growing polynomially [$\propto N^{1.9}$; Fig. 8(b,c)]. The allowed deficit $J(0.9)$ takes the constant values $1$, $2$, $3$, and $4$ in the four groups, so the target is a genuinely multi-atom relaxation only for the largest instances; the largest baseline cost ($1.9$) occurs in the small group, where $J(0.9)=1$ places it a single shell from exact. The classical cost is thus milliseconds throughout, and this relaxed target has limited discriminatory power as a benchmark for this graph family.