Structured PREreview of Quantum-Assisted Route Planning for UAV-Based Offshore Geological Exploration: A Simulation Study in the Guajira Basin

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction clearly defines the research objective: to apply a QUBO–QAOA quantum-classical framework for optimizing UAV route planning in offshore geological exploration. The problem is well contextualized, and the methodological purpose is explicit from the outset.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The methods are generally well chosen for the research goals, combining QUBO formulation with QAOA and leveraging both simulated and real quantum hardware. The authors respect most best practices in quantum simulation and geospatial modeling, including constraints, energy limits, and adjacency rules. However, the simulation uses synthetic data (e.g., Gaussian-based risk maps), and while decomposition strategies are valid under current hardware constraints, they limit generalizability. There is also a lack of comparative benchmarks with classical optimization methods in terms of performance or computation time. Therefore, the methods are solid and promising, but not fully rigorous across all dimensions—hence, "Somewhat appropriate" is the most accurate and balanced choice.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The conclusions are generally aligned with the data and simulations presented. The authors clearly distinguish between the two routing strategies (geological vs. composite risk) and explain the implications of each. They avoid overclaiming and acknowledge the hardware and scalability limitations of QAOA. However, the support is not “highly thorough” since the results are based on synthetic data, modular decomposition, and lack rigorous quantitative comparison with classical methods. Therefore, the interpretation is reasonable, but not fully comprehensive.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The authors provide a reasonably clear discussion of their findings, emphasizing the differences between the two routing strategies (pure geological vs. composite risk) and interpreting the trade-offs involved. They acknowledge limitations of current quantum hardware and propose relevant future directions, including scalability, cost modeling, and multi-criteria optimization. However, while the discussion is technically sound, it lacks depth in some areas, such as quantitative benchmarking or more detailed justification for future work. The potential next steps are mentioned but could be more structured.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

The preprint offers several novel contributions by applying QAOA–QUBO to a real-world offshore exploration context. While not groundbreaking, it meaningfully advances the integration of quantum methods into geospatial mission planning.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

The manuscript is generally well-written. There are occasional phrasing issues, but they do not interfere with clarity or comprehension. Language editing could improve fluency, but it is not strictly necessary for understanding the work.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

The manuscript is technically solid and presents a valuable application of quantum optimization. However, minor improvements in clarity, figure annotations, and benchmarking would strengthen its impact before wider dissemination.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.