Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Quantum Simplicial Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum simplicial networks beat classical simplicial deep learning models on two synthetic tasks.

desk verdict Promising first quantum topological deep learning architecture; the empirical quantum-advantage claim is not yet supported by the reported numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05558 v1 pith:YCY43ASH submitted 2025-01-09 cs.NE

Simone Piperno , Claudio Battiloro , Andrea Ceschini , Francesca Dominici , Paolo Di Lorenzo , Massimo Panella This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE
keywords QuantumMachineLearningTopologicalDeepSimplicialComplexesVariationalCircuitsGraphNeuralNetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum Simplicial Networks (QSNs) are variational quantum circuits that operate directly on simplicial complexes, assigning one qubit to each node, edge, and triangle and placing learnable two-qubit gates only where the complex's Hodge Laplacians and incidence matrices say simplices interact. The paper introduces two layer designs: a Base layer that generalizes the Ising Hamiltonian used in quantum graph neural networks, and a Schematic layer that assigns the x, y, and z rotation axes to nodes, edges, and triangles respectively. On two synthetic classification tasks—edge-level solenoidal component detection and source localization—the authors report that QSNs match or beat classical simplicial architectures (GSCN and GSAN) in accuracy while using comparable or fewer parameters, and that depth degrades the classical models far more than the quantum ones. The Schematic QSN stays between 0.949 and 0.957 mean test accuracy across one to five layers on the solenoidal task, while GSCN falls from 0.939 to 0.598. If this holds, QSNs are the first quantum topological deep learning models to beat their classical counterparts, connecting quantum machine learning to higher-order network analysis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Quantum Simplicial Layer (QSL), a variational quantum circuit layer acting on $N+E+T$ qubits, one per simplex. Each layer angle-encodes the input signal with rotations whose axes depend on simplex order, applies learnable single-qubit rotations, and then applies two-qubit gates $\mathrm{LI}_{k,p}(W_{i,j}) = CX (I\otimes R_{k,p}(W_{i,j})) CX$ only to pairs of simplices that are adjacent according to the Hodge Laplacians and incidence matrices. That sparsity pattern is what maps the simplicial complex into the circuit; stacking layers re-uploads data, giving depth meaning. The Base variant uses $R_x$ encoding, $R_z$ embeddings, and $R_{z,z}$ interactions, an Ising-style $ZZ$ coupling, while the Schematic variant assigns the $x$ axis to nodes, $y$ to edges, and $z$ to triangles and uses mixed-axis interactions; only the Base layer generalizes straightforwardly to complexes of arbitrary order. The parameter count equals the number of simplices plus the number of nonzero entries in the relevant Laplacian and incidence matrices.

What would settle it

Re-run the solenoidal detection task giving GSCN and GSAN a hyperparameter search over residual connections, dropout, layer normalization, and learning rate, and check whether a tuned classical model matches or exceeds the Schematic QSN's roughly 0.95 accuracy at five layers; if it does, the paper's central advantage claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the topology of a simplicial complex can be compiled directly into a parameterized quantum circuit. Each simplex's signal is angle-encoded onto a dedicated qubit, per-qubit learnable rotations adjust the embeddings, and entangling gates are applied only along the adjacency patterns encoded by the Hodge Laplacians and incidence matrices; stacking such layers with data re-uploading yields a Quantum Simplicial Network. In the reported experiments this construction outperforms classical simplicial networks in accuracy and parameter efficiency: the Schematic variant holds roughly 0.95 accuracy at every depth on solenoidal detection, and the Base variant beats a quantum graph neural network by about 9 percent on source localization. The authors therefore claim that QSNs are effective and efficient models for learning over combinatorial topological spaces, with the Schematic layer extracting more output entropy from the input than the Base layer.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical quantum advantage rests on the assumption that the classical baselines, trained with plain Adam, no regularization, and no hyperparameter search, represent properly configured simplicial networks; if those models were tuned, the reported accuracy gap could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Topological deep learning gains a quantum architecture trainable end-to-end with a classical optimizer via the parameter-shift rule.
  • Depth, which degrades GSCN and GSAN accuracy on the solenoidal task, leaves the Schematic QSN essentially flat at about 0.95 accuracy from one to five layers.
  • The Base QSN subsumes the Ising-style QGNN interaction model and improves on it by roughly 9 percent on the source-localization task.
  • Parameter counts comparable to classical simplicial networks mean the reported accuracy gain is not bought with extra parameters.
  • The authors propose extending the same layer design to regular cell complexes and to symmetry-injected variants, outlining a research program of quantum topological deep learning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The depth-stability pattern suggests quantum feature maps may avoid the oversmoothing that degrades deep classical simplicial networks; this could be tested directly by comparing a simulated SQSN against a GSCN with residual connections, normalization, and dropout.
  • Inference: Since parameter count scales with the number of nonzero entries in the Laplacian and incidence matrices, the efficiency claim may weaken on denser complexes; benchmarking on sparser and denser complexes would reveal whether the advantage is architectural or an artifact of the two small graphs.
  • Inference: The entropy analysis measures Shannon entropy of circuit outcomes rather than von Neumann entropy of the quantum state, so linking state-based entropy to learning performance is a natural follow-up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Quantum Simplicial Networks (QSNs), which the authors describe as the first quantum topological deep learning models. A QSN is a stack of Quantum Simplicial Layers that encode node, edge, and triangle signals of an order-two simplicial complex into a quantum circuit, with one qubit per simplex. Two layer variants are defined: Base QSLs, inspired by the Ising-model interactions used in QGNNs, and Schematic QSLs, which assign different rotation axes to nodes, edges, and triangles. The architecture and its parameter count are specified in Sections 4.1–4.4. The authors evaluate BQSN and SQSN on two synthetic classification tasks, solenoidal component detection and source localization, comparing them with GSCN, GSAN, MLP, and, for the second task, QGNN. The central claim, stated in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, is that QSNs outperform classical simplicial TDL models in both accuracy and parameter efficiency.

Significance. If the performance claim were established, this would be a meaningful contribution: it would open a new direction at the intersection of quantum machine learning and topological deep learning, and the proposed layer design is concrete and reproducible enough for others to build on. The manuscript's strengths include a clear architectural description, explicit circuit-level definitions in Eqs. (16)–(32), and a transparent parameter-counting analysis in Eqs. (33)–(36). The entropy analysis in Section 5.1 is an interesting attempt to explain why the Schematic variant might extract more information. However, the empirical evidence for the central claim is currently not sufficient: accuracy results are reported as means only, one stated claim is directly contradicted by the reported table, the parameter-efficiency claim is stated in a way that conflicts with the same tables, and the classical baselines are not shown to be tuned to a fair standard. These issues are all fixable within the manuscript's scope, so the appropriate outcome is major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 3] The sentence 'it is evident that QSNs always perform at least as well as classical SNs' is false as printed. At one layer, Table 3 reports BQSN mean test accuracy 0.833, which is below GSCN (0.939), GSAN (0.929), and MLP (0.991). The claim is only defensible for SQSN or for sufficiently deep networks, so the text must be corrected or qualified. Because this sentence is one of the main supports for the paper's central claim, it is load-bearing.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.2, Tables 3 and 5] The reported test accuracies are means over datasets and seeds, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests. Several of the decisive margins are small: for example, Task 1 at one layer has SQSN 0.949 vs. GSCN 0.939, and Task 2 at one layer has BQSN 0.681 vs. QGNN 0.608. With unreported seed-level variance, these differences cannot be distinguished from noise. The authors should report seed-level results, error bars, and a paired statistical test, or explicitly withdraw the claim that QSNs outperform classical models in accuracy.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.2, Tables 2 and 4] The paper's parameter-efficiency claim is stated in a way that conflicts with its own tables. Section 5.1 says QSNs outperform classical SNs 'despite the lower number of parameters,' but Table 2 shows that at one layer QSNs have 48–70 parameters while GSCN has 20 and GSAN has 36; only at larger depths do QSNs have comparable or fewer parameters. Similarly, Section 5.2 says QSNs win 'despite the lower number of parameters,' but Table 4 shows QSNs have 81 parameters at one layer vs. 34 for QGNN. The claim needs to be restricted to the depth regime where it actually holds, or the comparison needs to be redefined.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Tables 3, 5] The experimental setup reports only Adam with learning rate 0.01 and early stopping for all models, with no hyperparameter search, weight decay, dropout, normalization, or residual connections for the classical baselines. The behavior of GSCN in Task 1, which drops from 0.939 at one layer to 0.598 at five layers, is the classic signature of an undertrained or under-regularized deep network. Unless the classical baselines are tuned to a representative standard, the reported accuracy advantage of QSNs could be an artifact of weak baselines rather than a genuine property of the quantum architecture. The authors should provide the baseline tuning procedure and, ideally, a tuned comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 5 and Section 5.2, Figure 6] The Shannon-entropy analysis is presented as explaining SQSN's better performance, but in Task 2 the BQSN outperforms SQSN despite having lower entropy; the link between output-distribution entropy and task accuracy is not established. The footnote correctly notes that von Neumann entropy would be more appropriate, but the current analysis should be framed as a qualitative observation rather than evidence of learning quality.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (21)] The notation [L]_{i,j,0} and the use of the tensor product over all qubits in Eq. (21) is hard to parse; the authors should define the thresholding operation '0' explicitly and clarify the order in which the product over interactions is applied.
  3. [Section 3.2.2] The acronym 'GSCCN' is used in the text where 'GSCN' appears to be intended; please make the notation consistent.
  4. [Section 5.2] The claim that BQSN provides an 'average enhancement of approximately 9.02%' over QGNN should be shown explicitly, since it is not obvious from the five accuracy values in Table 5.
  5. [Section 5.3, Table 6] The table caption reads 'for the for models' training' and should be corrected.
  6. [General] The manuscript does not state whether code or data will be made available; a reproducibility statement would strengthen the paper, especially since the experiments are on synthetic data with a randomized generation procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QSN performance claims are empirical, trained on synthetic data and evaluated on held-out test sets, and the cited prior work is used as background or baselines, not as a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Quantum Simplicial Networks (QSNs) outperform classical simplicial TDL models in accuracy and parameter efficiency. This claim is supported by supervised experiments on synthetic classification tasks: models are trained on training splits and evaluated on held-out test splits, so the reported accuracies are genuine out-of-sample predictions rather than fitted values. The QSN architecture is explicitly constructed by the authors (Sections 4.1-4.3), with two variants defined through specific rotation axes and interaction gates; it is not derived from the empirical results, and the empirical results are not used to define the architecture. The classical counterparts GSCN and GSAN, including the self-cited GSAN [46], are used as external comparison baselines; their equations are stated in the paper (Eq. 8) and they are trained independently under the same experimental protocol. This is a normal benchmark comparison, not a case where the result reduces to a self-citation. The entropy analysis in Section 5.1 and 5.2 is a post hoc explanatory investigation, not a prediction that is forced by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. While the statistical presentation has limitations (means without confidence intervals, no paired tests, and classical baselines that may be under-tuned), those are correctness risks, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: the claims rest on trained-and-tested model behavior, not on any input being defined in terms of the output.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on hand-picked architectural choices (rotation axes, encoding angle), hand-generated synthetic benchmarks, and a proxy entropy measure. These do not constitute a derivation of a physical law, so the ledger is dominated by design choices rather than free parameters fitted to nature.

free parameters (4)
  • SQSN axis assignment = nodes: x, edges: y, triangles: z
    Hand-chosen design choice in Section 4.3; no ablation or theoretical justification, and different axis assignments would yield different circuits.
  • Encoding angle scale = π
    Signal values are encoded as R(π s_i) in Eq. (17); the scale is fixed by hand and not optimized.
  • Task 1 data generation constants = avg 10 nodes, edge prob 0.3, triangle prob 0.8, min/max simplices 12-16, A~Bernoulli(0.5)
    Synthetic benchmark parameters chosen by hand in Section 5.1; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Task 2 data generation constants = SBM: 6 nodes, 2 communities, intra 0.85, inter 0.25; diffusion t~Student-T(10) capped at 100; SNR 40 dB
    Synthetic benchmark parameters chosen by hand in Section 5.2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hodge decomposition of simplicial signals (Eq. 6-7)
    Used to generate Task 1 signals as s1 = B1^T s0 + A B2 s2; a standard result in topological signal processing.
  • standard math LI gate decomposition CX-(I⊗R_kp)-CX implements the intended two-body interaction
    The paper assumes this identity in Eq. (19); it is a standard circuit identity for controlled rotations.
  • ad hoc to paper Shannon entropy of the output distribution is a valid proxy for information extraction
    The paper uses Shannon entropy in Fig. 5-6 to claim SQSN 'extracts more information', but its own footnote says Von Neumann entropy would be more appropriate and could not be computed.
  • domain assumption Simplicial complexes of order 2 are sufficient to demonstrate QSNs without loss of generality
    Section 3.2 restricts to order-2 complexes; the extension to higher orders is only claimed for BQSL, not SQSL, in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Simplicial Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCY43ASH

@misc{pith2026250105558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Simplicial Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCY43ASH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05558}
}
read the original abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) excel at learning from graph-structured data but are limited to modeling pairwise interactions, insufficient for capturing higher-order relationships present in many real-world systems. Topological Deep Learning (TDL) has allowed for systematic modeling of hierarchical higher-order interactions by relying on combinatorial topological spaces such as simplicial complexes. In parallel, Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) have been introduced to leverage quantum mechanics for enhanced computational and learning power. In this work, we present the first Quantum Topological Deep Learning Model: Quantum Simplicial Networks (QSNs), being QNNs operating on simplicial complexes. QSNs are a stack of Quantum Simplicial Layers, which are inspired by the Ising model to encode higher-order structures into quantum states. Experiments on synthetic classification tasks show that QSNs can outperform classical simplicial TDL models in accuracy and efficiency, demonstrating the potential of combining quantum computing with TDL for processing data on combinatorial topological spaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical representation of a order 2 simplicial complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Functioning scheme of a VQC. where the notation |0⟩ ⊗N represents a tensor product of N identical copies of the initial quantum state |0⟩: |0⟩ ⊗N = |0⟩1 ⊗ |0⟩2 ⊗ ... ⊗ |0⟩N . (10) A practical quantum advantage cannot be achieved without a robust data encoding strategy that effectively maps classical features into quantum states [66]. For this reason, the selection of the unitary operator Uϕ(·) is critical, as it dir… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Quantum Simplicial Layer scheme. The layer is designed with the goal of mapping all the interactions among simplices in a simplicial complex into a quantum circuit. In particular, we consider a simplicial complex of order two X2 composed of N vertices, E edges, and T triangles and a single input simplicial complex signal s defined as in (3). In the following, we denote the global state of the circuit as |Ψ⟩. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circuital representation of LIk,p (a), LIk,p with k = p (b), and LIk,p with k , p (c). Mimicking the rationale of classical simplicial neural networks as the GSCNN in (8), in a QSN we enable simplices of the same and different order to interact with each other based on…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean entropy per layers for the quantum architectures applied to Task 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean entropy per layers for the quantum architectures applied to Task 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    C. M. Leditto, A. Southwell, B. Tonekaboni, G. A. White, M. Usman, K. Modi, Topological signal processing on quantum computers for higher-order network analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07672 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Scarselli, et al., The graph neural network model, IEEE Trans

    F. Scarselli, et al., The graph neural network model, IEEE Trans. on neural net- works 20 (1) (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Gori, et al., A new model for learning in graph domains, in: Proc

    M. Gori, et al., A new model for learning in graph domains, in: Proc. 2005 IEEE In- ternational Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005., V ol. 2, Montreal,Canada, 2005, pp. 729–734

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    T. N. Kipf, M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR), Toulon, France, 2017. 27

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Bruna, et al., Spectral Networks and Locally Connected Networks on Graphs, in: Proc

    J. Bruna, et al., Spectral Networks and Locally Connected Networks on Graphs, in: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Banff, Canada, 2014, pp. 1–14

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, in: Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Long Beach,California, 2017, pp. 1025–1035

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    D. K. o. Duvenaud, Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints, Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Gama, et al., Convolutional neural network architectures for signals supported on graphs, IEEE Trans

    F. Gama, et al., Convolutional neural network architectures for signals supported on graphs, IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 67 (4) (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Gilmer, et al., Neural message passing for quantum chemistry, in: International conference on machine learning, Sydney,Australia, 2017, pp

    J. Gilmer, et al., Neural message passing for quantum chemistry, in: International conference on machine learning, Sydney,Australia, 2017, pp. 1263–1272

    2017

  2. [9]

    Lambiotte, M

    R. Lambiotte, M. Rosvall, I. Scholtes, From networks to optimal higher-order models of complex systems, Nature physics 15 (4) (2019)

    2019

  3. [10]

    Barbarossa, S

    S. Barbarossa, S. Sardellitti, Topological signal processing over simplicial com- plexes, IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 68 (2020) 2992–3007

    2020

  4. [11]

    M. T. Schaub, et al., Signal processing on higher-order networks: Livin’on the edge... and beyond, Signal Processing 187 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Sardellitti, S

    S. Sardellitti, S. Barbarossa, L. Testa, Topological signal processing over cell com- plexes, in: 2021 55th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, California, 2021, pp. 1558–1562

    2021

  6. [13]

    Sardellitti, S

    S. Sardellitti, S. Barbarossa, Topological signal representation and processing over cell complexes, arXiv 2201.08993 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    T. M. Roddenberry, M. T. Schaub, M. Hajij, Signal processing on cell complexes, in: ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Singapore, 2022, pp. 8852–8856. 28

    2022

  8. [15]

    C. Battiloro, et al., Topological signal processing over weighted simplicial com- plexes, in: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  9. [16]

    L. J. Grady, J. R. Polimeni, Discrete calculus: Applied analysis on graphs for computational science, V ol. 3, 2010

    2010

  10. [17]

    Hajij, et al., Topological deep learning: Going beyond graph data, arxiv 2206.00606 (2023)

    M. Hajij, et al., Topological deep learning: Going beyond graph data, arxiv 2206.00606 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Papamarkou, et al., Position paper: Challenges and opportunities in topological deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08871 (2024)

    T. Papamarkou, et al., Position paper: Challenges and opportunities in topological deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08871 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Tacchino, C

    F. Tacchino, C. Macchiavello, D. Gerace, D. Bajoni, An artificial neuron imple- mented on an actual quantum processor, npj Quantum Information 5 (1) (2019) 26

    2019

  13. [20]

    Chen, X.-F

    B.-Q. Chen, X.-F. Niu, A novel neural network based on quantum computing, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 59 (7) (2020) 2029–2043

    2020

  14. [21]

    Ceschini, A

    A. Ceschini, A. Rosato, M. Panella, Hybrid quantum-classical recurrent neural networks for time series prediction, in: 2022 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  15. [22]

    Abbas, et al., The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science 1 (6) (2021) 403–409

    A. Abbas, et al., The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science 1 (6) (2021) 403–409

    2021

  16. [23]

    Tacchino, et al., Quantum implementation of an artificial feed-forward neural network, Quantum Science and Technology 5 (4) (2020) 044010

    F. Tacchino, et al., Quantum implementation of an artificial feed-forward neural network, Quantum Science and Technology 5 (4) (2020) 044010

    2020

  17. [24]

    Huber, et al., Realization of a quantum perceptron gate with trapped ions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08977 (2021)

    P. Huber, et al., Realization of a quantum perceptron gate with trapped ions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.08977 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    K. H. Wan, et al., Quantum generalisation of feedforward neural networks, npj Quantum information 3 (1) (2017) 36. 29

    2017

  19. [26]

    K. A. Tychola, T. Kalampokas, G. A. Papakostas, Quantum machine learning—an overview, Electronics 12 (11) (2023) 2379

    2023

  20. [27]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2 (2018) 79

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2 (2018) 79

    2018

  21. [28]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Physical Review A 98 (3) (2018) 032309

    2018

  22. [29]

    Tacchino, et al., Variational learning for quantum artificial neural networks, in: 2020 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE), IEEE, 2020, pp

    F. Tacchino, et al., Variational learning for quantum artificial neural networks, in: 2020 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE), IEEE, 2020, pp. 130–136

    2020

  23. [30]

    Cerezo, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9) (2021) 625–644

    M. Cerezo, et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9) (2021) 625–644

    2021

  24. [31]

    Verdon, et al., Quantum graph neural networks (2019)

    G. Verdon, et al., Quantum graph neural networks (2019). arXiv:1909.12264

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algo- rithm, arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    S. Ebli, M. Defferrard, G. Spreemann, Simplicial neural networks, in: NeurIPS 2020 Workshop on Topological Data Analysis and Beyond, Virtual, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    Bodnar, et al., Weisfeiler and lehman go topological: Message passing simplicial networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), PMLR, 2021, pp

    C. Bodnar, et al., Weisfeiler and lehman go topological: Message passing simplicial networks, in: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), PMLR, 2021, pp. 1026–1037

    2021

  28. [35]

    Bunch, et al., Simplicial 2-complex convolutional neural networks, in: NeurIPS 2020 Workshop on Topological Data Analysis and Beyond, Virtual, 2020

    E. Bunch, et al., Simplicial 2-complex convolutional neural networks, in: NeurIPS 2020 Workshop on Topological Data Analysis and Beyond, Virtual, 2020

    2020

  29. [36]

    T. M. Roddenberry, N. Glaze, S. Segarra, Principled simplicial neural networks for trajectory prediction, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna, Austria, 2021, pp. 9020–9029

    2021

  30. [37]

    Yang, et al., Finite impulse response filters for simplicial complexes, arXiv 2103.12587 (2021)

    M. Yang, et al., Finite impulse response filters for simplicial complexes, arXiv 2103.12587 (2021). 30

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    T. M. Roddenberry, S. Segarra, Hodgenet: Graph neural networks for edge data, 2019 53rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (2019) 220–224

    2019

  32. [39]

    M. Yang, E. Isufi, G. Leus, Simplicial convolutional neural networks, arXiv 2110.02585 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    M. Yang, E. Isufi, Convolutional learning on simplicial complexes, arXiv 2301.11163 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Eijkelboom, R

    F. Eijkelboom, R. Hesselink, E. Bekkers, E(n) equivariant message passing simpli- cial networks, arXiv 2305.07100 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Madhu, S

    H. Madhu, S. Gurugubelli, S. P. Chepuri, Unsupervised parameter-free simplicial representation learning with scattering transforms, in: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  36. [43]

    Maggs, C

    K. Maggs, C. Hacker, B. Rieck, Simplicial representation learning with neural $k$-forms, in: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  37. [44]

    Lecha, et al., Higher-order topological directionality and directed simplicial neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08389 (2024)

    M. Lecha, et al., Higher-order topological directionality and directed simplicial neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08389 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Giusti, C

    L. Giusti, C. Battiloro, et al., Simplicial attention neural networks, arXiv:2203.07485v2 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Battiloro, L

    C. Battiloro, L. Testa, L. Giusti, S. Sardellitti, P. D. Lorenzo, S. Barbarossa, Generalized simplicial attention neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks 10 (2024) 833–850. doi:10.1109/ TSIPN.2024.3485473

    2024

  40. [47]

    C. W. J. Goh, C. Bodnar, P. Li`o, Simplicial attention networks, arXiv 2204.09455 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    S. H. Lee, F. Ji, W. P. Tay, SGAT: Simplicial graph attention network, arXiv 2207.11761 (2022). 31

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Alain, et al., Gaussian processes on cellular complexes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01198 (2023)

    M. Alain, et al., Gaussian processes on cellular complexes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01198 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    M. Yang, V . Borovitskiy, E. Isufi, Hodge-compositional edge gaussian processes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19450 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Havl´ıˇcek, et al., Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567 (7747) (2019) 209–212

    V . Havl´ıˇcek, et al., Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567 (7747) (2019) 209–212. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0980-2

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Schuld, R

    M. Schuld, R. Sweke, J. J. Meyer, Effect of data encoding on the expressive power of variational quantum-machine-learning models, Phys. Rev. A 103 (2021) 032430. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032430

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Dallaire-Demers, N

    P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, N. Killoran, Quantum generative adversarial networks, Physical Review A 98 (1) (2018) 012324

    2018

  47. [55]

    Y . Trochun, et al., Hybrid classic-quantum neural networks for image classification, in: 2021 11th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), V ol. 2, 2021, pp. 968–972. doi:10.1109/IDAAC...

    2021

  48. [56]

    Mangini, et al., Quantum neural network autoencoder and classifier applied to an industrial case study, Quantum Machine Intelligence 4 (2) (2022) 13

    S. Mangini, et al., Quantum neural network autoencoder and classifier applied to an industrial case study, Quantum Machine Intelligence 4 (2) (2022) 13

    2022

  49. [57]

    Zhao, X.-S

    C. Zhao, X.-S. Gao, QDNN: Deep neural networks with quantum layers, Quantum Machine Intelligence 3 (1) (2021) 15. doi:10.1007/s42484-021-00046-w

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Innan, et al., Financial fraud detection using quantum graph neural networks, Quantum Machine Intelligence 6 (1) (2024) 1–18

    N. Innan, et al., Financial fraud detection using quantum graph neural networks, Quantum Machine Intelligence 6 (1) (2024) 1–18

    2024

  51. [59]

    S. Y .-C. Chen, et al., Hybrid quantum-classical graph convolutional network, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06189 (2021). 32

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    T ¨uys¨uz, et al., Hybrid quantum classical graph neural networks for particle track reconstruction, Quantum Machine Intelligence 3 (2021) 1–20

    C. T ¨uys¨uz, et al., Hybrid quantum classical graph neural networks for particle track reconstruction, Quantum Machine Intelligence 3 (2021) 1–20

    2021

  53. [61]

    Mauro, et al., A hybrid mlp-quantum approach in graph convolutional neural networks for oceanic nino index (oni) prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16049 (2024)

    F. Mauro, et al., A hybrid mlp-quantum approach in graph convolutional neural networks for oceanic nino index (oni) prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16049 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hansen, R

    J. Hansen, R. Ghrist, Toward a spectral theory of cellular sheaves, Journal of Applied and Computational Topology 3 (4) (2019) 315–358. doi:10.1007/ s41468-019-00038-7

    2019

  55. [63]

    M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  56. [64]

    Lim, Hodge Laplacians on graphs, Siam Review 62 (3) (2020)

    L. Lim, Hodge Laplacians on graphs, Siam Review 62 (3) (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    T. E. Goldberg, Combinatorial Laplacians of simplicial complexes, Senior Thesis, Bard College (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    Weigold, et al., Expanding data encoding patterns for quantum algorithms, in: 2021 IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C), IEEE, 2021, pp

    M. Weigold, et al., Expanding data encoding patterns for quantum algorithms, in: 2021 IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C), IEEE, 2021, pp. 95–101

    2021

  59. [67]

    Schuld, F

    M. Schuld, F. Petruccione, Machine learning with quantum computers, Springer, 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Holmes, et al., Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3 (2022) 010313

    Z. Holmes, et al., Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus, PRX Quantum 3 (2022) 010313. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum. 3.010313

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    P ´erez-Salinas, et al., Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier, Quantum 4 (2020) 226

    A. P ´erez-Salinas, et al., Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier, Quantum 4 (2020) 226. doi:10.22331/q-2020-02-06-226

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    A. LESNE, Shannon entropy: a rigorous notion at the crossroads between prob- ability, information theory, dynamical systems and statistical physics, Mathe- matical Structures in Computer Science 24 (3) (2014) e240311. doi:10.1017/ S0960129512000783. 33

    2014

  63. [71]

    P. W. Holland, K. B. Laskey, S. Leinhardt, Stochastic blockmodels: First steps, Social Networks 5 (2) (1983) 109–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0378-8733(83)90021-7

    1983

  64. [72]

    D. P. Kingma, J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017). arXiv: 1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Mernyei, K

    P. Mernyei, K. Meichanetzidis, I. I. Ceylan, Equivariant quantum graph circuits, in: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 15401–15420. Appendix A. Quantum Gates Quantum gates are fundamental operations that manipulate the state of qubits within a quant...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.