Quantum processing units (QPUs) executing annealing algorithms have shown promise in optimization and simulation applications. Hybrid algorithms are a natural bridge to larger applications. We present a simple greedy method for solving larger-than-QPU lattice-structured Ising optimization problems. The method, implemented in the open-source D-Wave Hybrid framework, uses a QPU coprocessor operating with generic parameters. Performance is evaluated for standard spin-glass problems on two lattice types with up to 11616 spin variables, double the size that is directly programmable on any available QPU. The proposed method is shown to converge to low-energy solutions faster than an open-source simulated annealing method that is either directly employed or substituted as a coprocessor in the hybrid method. Using newer Advantage QPUs in place of D-Wave 2000Q QPUs is shown to enhance convergence of the hybrid method to low energies and to achieve a lower final energy.

We introduce quantum utility, a new approach to evaluating quantum performance that aims to capture the user experience by including overhead costs associated with the quantum computation. A demonstration of quantum utility by a quantum processing unit (QPU) shows that the QPU can outperform classical solvers at some tasks of interest to practitioners, when considering computational overheads. We consider overhead costs that arise in standalone use of the QPU (as opposed to a hybrid computation context). We define three early milestones on the path to broad-scale quantum utility that focus on restricted subsets of overheads: Milestone 0 considers pure anneal time (no overheads) and has been demonstrated in previous work; Milestone 1 includes overhead times to access the QPU (that is, programming and readout); and Milestone 2 incorporates an indirect cost associated with minor embedding.We evaluate the performance of a D-Wave Advantage QPU with respect to Milestones 1 and 2, using a testbed of 13 input classes and seven classical solvers implemented on CPUs and GPUs. For Milestone 1, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 99% of our tests. For Milestone 2, the QPU outperformed all classical solvers in 19% of our tests, and the scenarios in which the QPU found success correspond to cases where classical solvers most frequently failed.Analysis of test results on specific inputs reveals fundamentally distinct underlying mechanisms that explain the observed differences in quantum and classical performance profiles. We present evidence-based arguments that these distinctions bode well for future annealing quantum processors to support demonstrations of quantum utility on ever-expanding classes of inputs and for more challenging milestones.