Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Recurrent Embedding Neural Network

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum neural network that interleaves trainable layers with controlled data embeddings can avoid barren plateaus while keeping classically hard-to-simulate expressiveness.

desk verdict Original architecture with a solid conditional BP proof for polynomial-overlap data, but the diagonal-dataset claim rests on a wrong overlap calculation and an invalid rapid-mixing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13185 v1 pith:FY5CX7DH submitted 2025-06-16 quant-ph

Mingrui Jing , Erdong Huang , Xiao Shi , Shengyu Zhang , Xin Wang This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Lx
keywords quantumneuralnetworkbarrenplateausdynamicalLiealgebratrainabilitysupervisedlearningcontrolembeddingHamiltonianclassificationsymmetry-protectedtopologicalphases
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 neural networks that are expressive enough to be useful often develop barren plateaus, regions where gradients vanish exponentially with system size and training becomes impossible. This paper proposes the quantum recurrent embedding neural network (QRENN), which interleaves trainable processing layers with controlled embeddings of the data, and proves that its training landscape does not exhibit barren plateaus under stated assumptions. The proof works by showing the circuit's dynamical Lie algebra splits into a center plus many copies of su(2^m), each of polynomial dimension when the processing register is kept logarithmic in the data size. If correct, the result gives a quantum classifier that is both trainable and, because it contains QSP, QSVT, and DQC1 as special cases, not efficiently simulable classically. The authors demonstrate the claims numerically and apply the model to Hamiltonian classification and symmetry-protected topological phase detection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the control-embedding map g(U) = |c⟩⟨c| ⊗ U + (I − |c⟩⟨c|) ⊗ I, which couples a small trainable register to a data register, and the dynamical Lie algebra (DLA) of the resulting circuit. The key identity is the decomposition g_QRENN ≃ c ⊕ su(2^m)^{⊕ r}, where the center c is spanned by iI ⊗ Π_λ for the joint-eigenspace projections Π_λ of the commuting data Hamiltonians. The variance formula Var[∂_H ℓ] = Σ_j (‖H_{g_j}‖²_K ‖O_{g_j}‖²_F ‖ρ_{g_j}‖²_F) / d²_{g_j} then converts the small dimension of each g_j into a polynomial lower bound on the gradient variance, instead of the exponential decay that occurs for circuits whose DLA is the full unitary algebra.

What would settle it

Compute, for a fixed QRENN width, the gradient variance of the total loss as a function of circuit depth and compare it with the prediction of the abstracted-gradient formula. If for depths that are polynomial in n the variance still decays exponentially — or if the dynamical Lie algebra dimension grows exponentially when the embedded Hamiltonians do not commute — the central trainability claim is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that QRENN, a periodic circuit of the form U(x; θ, φ) = ∏_t $e^{{i φ_t |c⟩⟨c| ⊗ H_t(x)}}$ ∏_l $e^{{i θ_{t,l}}$ Ω_l ⊗ I}, has a dynamical Lie algebra g_QRENN ≃ c ⊕ su(2^m)^{⊕ r} whenever the embedded data Hamiltonians {H_t} commute. Each simple summand has dimension 4^m − 1, so with m = O(log n) the algebra has polynomial dimension. Applying the Lie-algebraic gradient variance formula, the paper proves the total-loss gradient has zero mean and variance lower bounded by Ω(1/poly(n)), provided at least one data Hamiltonian has a polynomially large joint-eigenspace overlap with the input state on the data register; this is what it means to avoid barren plateaus. The same architecture, by choice of control embedding, reduces to QSP, QSVT, and the one-clean-qubit model, so the paper argues the trainable model cannot be dequantized under standard complexity assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the circuit is deep enough to form an ε-approximate 2-design on its dynamical subgroup and that all embedded data Hamiltonians commute; if either fails, the DLA decomposition and the polynomial gradient lower bound are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QRENN training has gradient variances at least Ω(1/poly(n)), so random initialization does not lead to barren plateaus when the overlap condition holds.
  • The processing register can stay at m = O(log n) qubits, making the effective Lie algebra dimension polynomial and the training cost scalable.
  • Because the general architecture reduces to QSP, QSVT, and DQC1, efficient classical simulation of QRENN would contradict standard complexity assumptions about those primitives.
  • In numerical tests, QRENN classifies Pauli, involutory, and diagonal Hamiltonians with high accuracy and detects the cluster phase of the one-dimensional cluster-Ising model with up to 100% accuracy for suitable initial states.
  • More embedding slots improve accuracy under classical label noise and weak quantum control noise, suggesting that recurrent data embedding acts as a form of error mitigation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to drop the commutativity assumption: with two non-commuting data Hamiltonians, the Lie closure may generate a much larger algebra, and the variance lower bound may need re-derivation.
  • The joint-eigenspace-overlap condition can be read as a data-dependent initialization requirement; one could try to certify this overlap classically for specific Hamiltonian families before training.
  • If the claimed inclusion of QSVT and DQC1 is made precise, QRENN offers a concrete platform to probe the trainability-versus-simulability trade-off on actual hardware.
  • The variance formula suggests a practical stopping rule: monitor the growth of the DLA dimension or the overlap as the data register size grows, and stop adding slots once the polynomial lower bound is likely satisfied.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QRENN, a recurrent quantum neural network architecture that interleaves control-embedded data unitaries with trainable processing layers. The main theoretical claim is that, via a dynamical Lie algebra (DLA) decomposition, the QRENN can avoid barren plateaus: the DLA is claimed to split as c ⊕ su(2^m)^⊕r, with r the number of joint eigenspaces of the commuting embedded data Hamiltonians, and the gradient variance is then lower-bounded polynomially under a state-overlap assumption. The paper also claims that the general architecture resists classical simulation because it encompasses QSP, QSVT, and DQC1, and it reports numerical experiments on Hamiltonian classification, SPT phase detection, and gradient statistics for Pauli, involutory, and diagonal datasets.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it identifies a concrete recurrent-embedding architecture whose Lie-algebraic structure can be analyzed explicitly, and it connects the barren-plateau discussion to data-dependent eigenspace overlap conditions. The algebraic decomposition in Proposition 1 / Proposition S3 is a clean and potentially reusable result, and the paper is careful to state the overlap condition under which its polynomial lower bound is supposed to hold. The conditional nature of the proof is acknowledged at several places, which is a strength. However, the diagonal-dataset example—one of the three feature sets used in the headline numerical experiments and in Corollary 4—contains a concrete calculational error, and the abstract's classical-simulation claim is contradicted by the paper's own concluding remark. These issues currently prevent the main claims from being accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E / Corollary 4] The claimed eigenspace overlap for the diagonal feature set is incorrect. For a diagonal Hermitian D with distinct entries d_1,...,d_{2^n}, its joint eigenspaces are the computational basis projectors Π_j=|j><j|. With ρ_n = 0.5|+><+|^⊗n + 0.5 I_{2^n}/2^n, one has Tr(Π_j ρ_n)=2^{-n}, so R^2_D(ρ_n)=Σ_j 2^{-2n}=2^{-n}, which is exponentially small. The expression in Appendix E, written as 1/4 Σ_j (Tr(Π_j|+><+|^⊗n)+χ_j/2^n)^2, does not evaluate to 1/4; the lower bound 'E_D[R^2_D(ρ_n)] = 1/4(1+χ_j/2^n)^2 ≥ 1/4' drops the summation over j. Therefore the proof of Corollary 4 for the diagonal feature set is unsupported.
  2. [Proposition 2 / Proposition 3 / Section 4] The variance lower bound requires the QRENN circuit to form an ε-approximate 2-design on the dynamic subgroup, and the rapid-mixing result from Ref. [51] used for this purpose requires a polynomially sized DLA. For a random diagonal Hamiltonian with distinct eigenvalues, Proposition 1 gives r=2^n joint eigenspaces, hence dim g_QRENN ≈ 2^n(2^{2m}-1), which is exponential even when m=O(log n). Consequently the 2-design assumption is not justified for the diagonal dataset, and the polynomial variance decay shown for the blue curve in Figure 4(a) is not explained by the proven formula. The paper should either restrict the diagonal feature set to data with polynomially many (or polynomially dimensional) joint eigenspaces, or provide a separate argument for this case.
  3. [Abstract / Section 6] The abstract's statement that 'the general QRENN architecture resists classical simulation' is contradicted by the concluding remark in Section 6, which says that 'whether or not our QRENN model can resist classification into CSIM or CSIMQE under the proper initial state condition, still requires further discussion.' The architecture may encompass QSP, QSVT, and DQC1 primitives, but the paper does not prove that the QRENN as a whole is classically hard to simulate; this claim should be removed or explicitly downgraded to a conjecture.
  4. [Section 5.2 / Appendix E] For the SPT phase-detection experiment, the trainability statement is not covered by Proposition 3. The cluster-Ising Hamiltonian H(λ) in Eq. (14) will generically have many eigenspaces, and the only support offered for the overlap condition is the numerical histograms in Figure S2. The text should state clearly that the trainability of the SPT experiment is demonstrated numerically rather than by the Lie-algebraic theorem, or it should prove the overlap condition for this family.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The notation ∥H_{g_j}∥^2_K is introduced only verbally; please define the Killing norm explicitly at the point of use, since the subsequent derivation in Appendix D depends on the relation between Killing and Frobenius norms.
  2. [Section 5.1] There is a typo: 'the n = 6 involuntary feature set' should read 'involutory feature set'.
  3. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'the overall classification accuracy remains high at 92.32%..' contains a double period; please fix.
  4. [Section 4 / Proposition 3] The assumption that the circuit is 'sufficiently deep to form an ε-approximate 2-design' is imported from the LASA framework and is not verified for QRENN; the paper should state explicitly that this is an assumption rather than a derived property of the architecture.
  5. [Appendix E] The sentence discussing the diagonal case, 'the probability of getting Tr(Π_j|+><+|^⊗n)=0 for all j is almost zero', does not imply the claimed lower bound even when the stated numerical value is corrected; please rewrite the argument in terms of an explicit sum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the QRENN trainability derivation is an algebraic application of an external DLA variance formula to stated generators, states, and probes, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: define the QRENN generator set, decompose its DLA in Proposition 1, import the gradient-variance formula from the external work [51] as Eq. (2), compute the relevant projections of the state, measurement, and derivative generator, and then lower-bound the variance using the stated overlap assumption R^2_Xq(rho_n) >= Omega(1/poly(n)). Each of these steps is a direct algebraic computation from the explicitly declared generators, input states, and POVM operators; no parameter is fitted to the output being predicted, and the lower bound is not introduced as an ansatz. The rapid-mixing and approximate-2-design assumption is stated explicitly in Proposition 2 and is inherited from the external Lie-algebraic machinery of [51] and [52], not from the present authors' prior work. The paper does contain several self-citations ([16], [17], [31], [60], [75], [91], [92], [104]), but they appear as background, inspiration, or numerical-tool attribution, and none of them supplies the load-bearing variance formula, the uniqueness argument, or the design assumption. The suspected numerical issue in Appendix E concerning R^2_D(rho_n) for random diagonal Hamiltonians is a correctness defect: the overlap estimate appears to be arithmetically unsupported, which may invalidate Corollary 4's diagonal case and Figure 4(a)'s claimed polynomial decay, but an incorrect calculation is not circular reasoning. The proof does not define X in terms of Y, does not rename a fitted value as a prediction, and does not invoke an author-supplied uniqueness theorem to prevent alternatives. Therefore the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central trainability proof is parameter-free in the sense that no constants are fitted to data, but it requires several structural assumptions: 2-design mixing, commuting data, and positive eigenspace overlap. The SPT experiment has one empirical exclusion threshold listed as a free parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • SPT exclusion threshold = ±1e-6
    Measurement outcomes within 1e-6 of value 1 are excluded from the SPT classification accuracy, a post-hoc choice that improves the reported accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The QRENN circuit is sufficiently deep to form an ε-approximate 2-design on the dynamic group exp(gQRENN).
    Invoked in Proposition 2 and Appendix D to replace parameter gradients with abstracted gradients; never verified for the QRENN architecture.
  • domain assumption The data Hamiltonians {H_t}_t are mutually commuting.
    Assumed in Proposition 1 and Proposition S3 to obtain the direct-sum DLA decomposition; the general non-commuting case is left open.
  • domain assumption At least one data point has polynomial joint eigenspace overlap R^2_Xq(ρn).
    Needed for the polynomial lower bound in Proposition 3; the paper shows this for specific ensembles but not for worst-case inputs.
  • standard math The adjoint representation variance formula of Fontana et al. (2024) applies to the QRENN's dynamic group.
    Used in Theorem S4 and Lemma S13; assumed to hold for the compact connected Lie group exp(gQRENN).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Recurrent Embedding Neural Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FY5CX7DH

@misc{pith2026250613185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Recurrent Embedding Neural Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FY5CX7DH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13185}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum neural networks have emerged as promising quantum machine learning models, leveraging the properties of quantum systems and classical optimization to solve complex problems in physics and beyond. However, previous studies have demonstrated inevitable trainability issues that severely limit their capabilities in the large-scale regime. In this work, we propose a quantum recurrent embedding neural network (QRENN) inspired by fast-track information pathways in ResNet and general quantum circuit architectures in quantum information theory. By employing dynamical Lie algebras, we provide a rigorous proof of the trainability of QRENN circuits, demonstrating that this deep quantum neural network can avoid barren plateaus. Notably, the general QRENN architecture resists classical simulation as it encompasses powerful quantum circuits such as QSP, QSVT, and DQC1, which are widely believed to be classically intractable. Building on this theoretical foundation, we apply our QRENN to accurately classify quantum Hamiltonians and detect symmetry-protected topological phases, demonstrating its applicability in quantum supervised learning. Our results highlight the power of recurrent data embedding in quantum neural networks and the potential for scalable quantum supervised learning in predicting physical properties and solving complex problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The general framework of quantum supervised learning from a view of quantum circuit architecture. The quantum data, represented as physical evolution Ul(xq), can be repeatedly embedded into the processing blocks made of QNN layers W(θt). Measurements acting on a few systems followed by classical post-processing are required in order to deliver accurate predictions. Nonetheless, many investigations into QNNs’ design … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The circuit diagram of a T-slot QRENN. The input states and the measurement observable are fixed to ρm ⊗ ρn and Om, respectively. The upper m qubits with green parameterized gates make up the data processing register. The lower n qubits make up the data embedding register, where the data x is embedded through g(Ut(x)). Inspired from the above, we design the quantum recurrent embedding neural network (QRENN) represen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The sketch of the QRENN circuit for quantum Hamiltonian supervised learning. In (a), the model is initialized with a fixed initial state and embedded with the q-th data in T via controlled-unitary evolutions g(e iHt(Xq) ) followed by a measurement Myq ; in (b), the PQC applied on the processing register is given by the template plotted on the right with L repetitions. Within the block, RY and RZ denote the single-qu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gradient statistics for QRENNs with various datasets embedded in with respect to (a) the number of qubits in the data embedding register and (b) the number of slots in the model. In subfigure (a), the blue, yellow and red curves illustrate the results from embedding T …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The test accuracy of QRENN supervised learning on different feature sets of quantum Hamiltonian, with respect to (a) the number of qubits of the data embedded in, and (b) the number of slots for querying data. In (a), we perform ideal simulations to examine the accurac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Classification of SPT phases using supervised learning with QRENN. In (a), the schematic framework illustrates the QRENN for identifying SPT phases. The data H(λ) is embedded into the network as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LCQNN: Linear Combination of Quantum Neural Networks

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LCQNN combines several trainable unitaries through a learned superposition on control qubits, yielding gradient variance bounds that scale polynomially with local system size rather than exponentially with total qubit count.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [51]

    Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ansätze with the adjoint representation

    Enrico Fontana, Dylan Herman, Shouvanik Chakrabarti, Niraj Kumar, Romina Yalovetzky, Jamie Heredge, Shree Hari Sureshbabu, and Marco Pistoia. Characterizing barren plateaus in quantum ansätze with the adjoint representation. Nature Communications, 15(1):7171, August 2024. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Demonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning

    Diego Ristè, Marcus P Da Silva, Colm A Ryan, Andrew W Cross, Antonio D Córcoles, John A Smolin, Jay M Gambetta, Jerry M Chow, and Blake R Johnson. Demonstration of quantum advantage in machine learning. npj Quantum Information, 3(1):16, 2017

    2017

  3. [2]

    Quantum advantage with shallow circuits

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, and Robert König. Quantum advantage with shallow circuits. Science, 362(6412):308–311, 2018

    2018

  4. [3]

    Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, Robert König, and Marco Tomamichel. Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits. Nature Physics, 16(10):1040–1045, 2020

    2020

  5. [4]

    Quantum advantage in learning from experi- ments

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Jordan Cotler, Sitan Chen, Jerry Li, Masoud Mohseni, Hartmut Neven, Ryan Babbush, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, et al. Quantum advantage in learning from experi- ments. Science, 376(6598):1182–1186, 2022

    2022

  6. [5]

    Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation

    Andrew J Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022

    2022

  7. [6]

    Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold

    Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie-Beni, Igor Aleiner, Trond I Andersen, Markus Ansmann, Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Abraham Asfaw, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Juan Atalaya, et al. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13687, 2024. 14

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    An introduction to quantum machine learning

    Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. An introduction to quantum machine learning. Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172–185, 2015

    2015

Show all 117 references
  1. [8]

    Quan- tum machine learning

    Jacob Biamonte, Peter Wittek, Nicola Pancotti, Patrick Rebentrost, Nathan Wiebe, and Seth Lloyd. Quan- tum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

    2017

  2. [9]

    Toward trainability of quantum neural net- works

    Kaining Zhang, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Liu Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Toward trainability of quantum neural net- works. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06258, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Recent advances for quantum classifiers

    Weikang Li and Dong-Ling Deng. Recent advances for quantum classifiers. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 65(2):220301, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    The dilemma of quantum neural networks

    Yang Qian, Xinbiao Wang, Yuxuan Du, Xingyao Wu, and Dacheng Tao. The dilemma of quantum neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data

    Matthias C Caro, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Andrew Sornborger, Lukasz Cin- cio, and Patrick J Coles. Generalization in quantum machine learning from few training data. Nature communications, 13(1):4919, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning

    Marco Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning

    Jinkai Tian, Xiaoyu Sun, Yuxuan Du, Shanshan Zhao, Qing Liu, Kaining Zhang, Wei Yi, Wanrong Huang, Chaoyue Wang, Xingyao Wu, et al. Recent advances for quantum neural networks in generative learning. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(10):12321–...

    2023

  8. [15]

    Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods

    Sofiene Jerbi, Lukas J Fiderer, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Jonas M Kübler, Hans J Briegel, and Vedran Dunjko. Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods. Nature Communications, 14(1):1–8, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Vsql: Variational shadow quantum learning for classification

    Guangxi Li, Zhixin Song, and Xin Wang. Vsql: Variational shadow quantum learning for classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 8357–8365, 2021

    2021

  10. [17]

    Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks

    Zhan Yu, Hongshun Yao, Mujin Li, and Xin Wang. Power and limitations of single-qubit native quantum neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27810–27823, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Representation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels

    Junyu Liu, Francesco Tacchino, Jennifer R Glick, Liang Jiang, and Antonio Mezzacapo. Representation learning via quantum neural tangent kernels. PRX Quantum, 3(3):030323, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Quantum machine learning for image classification

    Arsenii Senokosov, Alexandr Sedykh, Asel Sagingalieva, Basil Kyriacou, and Alexey Melnikov. Quantum machine learning for image classification. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 5(1):015040, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models

    Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini. Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models. Quantum Science and Technology, 4(4):043001, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Marcello Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits. Quantum, 5:391, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jar- rod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  17. [24]

    Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard

    Lennart Bittel and Martin Kliesch. Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard. Physical review letters, 127(12):120502, 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science. Chemical Reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quantum simulator

    Cornelius Hempel, Christine Maier, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod McClean, Thomas Monz, Heng Shen, Petar Jurcevic, Ben P Lanyon, Peter Love, Ryan Babbush, et al. Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quantum simulator. Physical Review X, 8(3):031022, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term devices. Physical Review X, 10(2):021067, 2020. 15

    2020

  22. [29]

    Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning

    Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Chao-Han Huck Yang, Jun Qi, Pin-Yu Chen, Xiaoli Ma, and Hsi-Sheng Goan. Variational quantum circuits for deep reinforcement learning. IEEE access, 8:141007–141024, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Learning temporal data with a variational quantum recurrent neural network

    Yuto Takaki, Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Keisuke Fujii, and Masahiro Kitagawa. Learning temporal data with a variational quantum recurrent neural network. Physical Review A, 103(5):052414, 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Statistical analysis of quantum state learning process in quantum neural networks

    Hao-kai Zhang, Chenghong Zhu, Mingrui Jing, and Xin Wang. Statistical analysis of quantum state learning process in quantum neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R

    Martín Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R. McClean, Zoë Holmes, and M. Cerezo. Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing. Nature Reviews Physics, Mar 2025

    2025

  26. [33]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes

    Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes. Nature communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

    2018

  27. [34]

    Efficient processing of deep neural networks: A tutorial and survey

    Vivienne Sze, Yu-Hsin Chen, Tien-Ju Yang, and Joel S Emer. Efficient processing of deep neural networks: A tutorial and survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 105(12):2295–2329, 2017

    2017

  28. [35]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  29. [36]

    Entanglement-induced barren plateaus

    Carlos Ortiz Marrero, Mária Kieferová, and Nathan Wiebe. Entanglement-induced barren plateaus. PRX Quantum, 2(4):040316, 2021

    2021

  30. [37]

    Analyzing the barren plateau phenomenon in training quantum neural networks with the zx-calculus

    Chen Zhao and Xiao-Shan Gao. Analyzing the barren plateau phenomenon in training quantum neural networks with the zx-calculus. Quantum, 5:466, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks

    Arthur Pesah, Marco Cerezo, Samson Wang, Tyler V olkoff, Andrew T Sornborger, and Patrick J Coles. Absence of barren plateaus in quantum convolutional neural networks. Physical Review X, 11(4):041011, 2021

    2021

  32. [39]

    Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus

    Zoë Holmes, Kunal Sharma, Marco Cerezo, and Patrick J Coles. Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient magnitudes and barren plateaus. PRX Quantum, 3(1):010313, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits

    Marco Cerezo, Akira Sone, Tyler V olkoff, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits. Nature communications, 12(1):1791, 2021

    2021

  34. [41]

    The power of quantum neural networks

    Amira Abbas, David Sutter, Christa Zoufal, Aurélien Lucchi, Alessio Figalli, and Stefan Woerner. The power of quantum neural networks. Nature Computational Science, 1(6):403–409, 2021

    2021

  35. [42]

    Barren plateaus preclude learning scramblers

    Zoë Holmes, Andrew Arrasmith, Bin Yan, Patrick J Coles, Andreas Albrecht, and Andrew T Sornborger. Barren plateaus preclude learning scramblers. Physical Review Letters, 126(19):190501, 2021

    2021

  36. [43]

    Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms

    Samson Wang, Enrico Fontana, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Akira Sone, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. Nature communications, 12(1):6961, 2021

    2021

  37. [44]

    Emergence of noise-induced barren plateaus in arbitrary layered noise models

    Marco Schumann, Frank K Wilhelm, and Alessandro Ciani. Emergence of noise-induced barren plateaus in arbitrary layered noise models. Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4):045019, 2024

    2024

  38. [45]

    Effects of noise on the overparametrization of quantum neural networks

    Diego García-Martín, Martín Larocca, and Marco Cerezo. Effects of noise on the overparametrization of quantum neural networks. Physical Review Research, 6(1):013295, 2024

    2024

  39. [46]

    Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits

    Kaining Zhang, Liu Liu, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Dacheng Tao. Escaping from the barren plateau via gaussian initializations in deep variational quantum circuits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:18612–18627, 2022

    2022

  40. [47]

    Trainability enhancement of parameterized quantum circuits via reduced-domain parameter initialization

    Yabo Wang, Bo Qi, Chris Ferrie, and Daoyi Dong. Trainability enhancement of parameterized quantum circuits via reduced-domain parameter initialization. Physical Review Applied, 22(5):054005, 2024

    2024

  41. [48]

    Avoiding barren plateaus via gaussian mixture model

    Xiao Shi and Yun Shang. Avoiding barren plateaus via gaussian mixture model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13501, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Hamiltonian variational ansatz without barren plateaus

    Chae-Yeun Park and Nathan Killoran. Hamiltonian variational ansatz without barren plateaus. Quantum, 8:1239, 2024. 16

    2024

  43. [50]

    Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz

    Roeland Wiersema, Cunlu Zhou, Yvette de Sereville, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Yong Baek Kim, and Henry Yuen. Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz. PRX quantum, 1(2):020319, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Bakalov, Frédéric Sauvage, Alexander F

    Michael Ragone, Bojko N. Bakalov, Frédéric Sauvage, Alexander F. Kemper, Carlos Ortiz Marrero, Martín Larocca, and M. Cerezo. A Lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits. Nature Communications, 15(1):7172, August 2024. Publisher: Nature Pu...

    2024

  45. [53]

    On the dynamical lie algebras of quantum approximate optimization algorithms

    Jonathan Allcock, Miklos Santha, Pei Yuan, and Shengyu Zhang. On the dynamical lie algebras of quantum approximate optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12587, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Analyzing the quantum approximate optimization algorithm: ans \" atze, symmetries, and lie algebras

    Sujay Kazi, Martín Larocca, Marco Farinati, Patrick J Coles, M Cerezo, and Robert Zeier. Analyzing the quantum approximate optimization algorithm: ans \" atze, symmetries, and lie algebras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05187, 2024

  47. [55]

    Towards determining the presence of barren plateaus in some chemically inspired variational quantum algorithms

    Rui Mao, Guojing Tian, and Xiaoming Sun. Towards determining the presence of barren plateaus in some chemically inspired variational quantum algorithms. Communications Physics, 7(1):342, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier

    Adrián Pérez-Salinas, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Elies Gil-Fuster, and José I Latorre. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4:226, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces

    V ojtˇech Havlíˇcek, Antonio D Córcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces. Nature, 567(7747):209– 212, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Supervised quantum machine learning models are kernel methods

    Maria Schuld. Supervised quantum machine learning models are kernel methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11020, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Quantum circuit architecture. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:060401, Aug 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Hypothesis testing of symmetry in quantum dynamics

    Yu-Ao Chen, Chenghong Zhu, Keming He, Yingjian Liu, and Xin Wang. Hypothesis testing of symmetry in quantum dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14292, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Postselected quantum hypothesis testing

    Bartosz Regula, Ludovico Lami, and Mark M Wilde. Postselected quantum hypothesis testing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 70(5):3453–3469, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing

    Marco Cerezo, Martin Larocca, Diego García-Martín, Nelson L Diaz, Paolo Braccia, Enrico Fontana, Manuel S Rudolph, Pablo Bermejo, Aroosa Ijaz, Supanut Thanasilp, et al. Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classical simulability? or, why we need to rethink variationa...

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Quantum singular value transformation & its algorithmic applications

    András Gilyén. Quantum singular value transformation & its algorithmic applications. PhD thesis, Univer- sity of Amsterdam, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing.Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:010501, Jan 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Multivariable quantum signal processing (m-qsp): prophecies of the two-headed oracle

    Zane M Rossi and Isaac L Chuang. Multivariable quantum signal processing (m-qsp): prophecies of the two-headed oracle. Quantum, 6:811, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Quantum neural networks

    Sanjay Gupta and RKP Zia. Quantum neural networks. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63(3):355–383, 2001

    2001

  59. [67]

    Svore, and Nathan Wiebe

    Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe. Circuit-centric quantum classifiers. Phys. Rev. A, 101:032308, Mar 2020

    2020

  60. [68]

    Machine learning and artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress

    Vedran Dunjko and Hans J Briegel. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. Reports on Progress in Physics, 81(7):074001, jun 2018

    2018

  61. [69]

    Lie algebraic analysis and control of quantum dynamics

    Domenico D’Alessandro. Lie algebraic analysis and control of quantum dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:0803.1193, 2008. 17

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control

    Martin Larocca, Piotr Czarnik, Kunal Sharma, Gopikrishnan Muraleedharan, Patrick J Coles, and Marco Cerezo. Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control. Quantum, 6:824, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics

    Domenico D’Alessandro. Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2 edition, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Efficient approximate unitary designs from random pauli rotations

    Jeongwan Haah, Yunchao Liu, and Xinyu Tan. Efficient approximate unitary designs from random pauli rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05239, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Quantum hamiltonian em- bedding of images for data reuploading classifiers

    Peiyong Wang, Casey R Myers, Lloyd CL Hollenberg, and Udaya Parampalli. Quantum hamiltonian em- bedding of images for data reuploading classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14055, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Learnability of quantum neural networks

    Yuxuan Du, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Tongliang Liu, Shan You, and Dacheng Tao. Learnability of quantum neural networks. PRX quantum, 2(4):040337, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Quantum phase processing and its applications in esti- mating phase and entropies

    Youle Wang, Lei Zhang, Zhan Yu, and Xin Wang. Quantum phase processing and its applications in esti- mating phase and entropies. Physical Review A, 108(6):062413, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary opera- tions

    Andrew M Childs and Nathan Wiebe. Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary opera- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.5822, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Sequential quantum channel discrimination

    Yonglong Li, Christoph Hirche, and Marco Tomamichel. Sequential quantum channel discrimination. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 270–275. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  70. [78]

    Quantum computation and quantum information

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  71. [79]

    Learning quantum properties from short- range correlations using multi-task networks

    Ya-Dong Wu, Yan Zhu, Yuexuan Wang, and Giulio Chiribella. Learning quantum properties from short- range correlations using multi-task networks. Nature Communications, 15(1):8796, 2024

    2024

  72. [80]

    An introduction to neural networks

    Kevin Gurney. An introduction to neural networks. CRC press, 2018

    2018

  73. [81]

    Multivariable qsp and bosonic quantum simulation using iterated quantum signal processing

    Niladri Gomes, Hokiat Lim, and Nathan Wiebe. Multivariable qsp and bosonic quantum simulation using iterated quantum signal processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03254, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    2019

  75. [83]

    Lie-algebraic classical simulations for variational quantum computing

    Matthew L Goh, Martin Larocca, Lukasz Cincio, Marco Cerezo, and Frédéric Sauvage. Lie-algebraic classical simulations for variational quantum computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01432, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Generalizations of entanglement based on coherent states and convex sets

    Howard Barnum, Emanuel Knill, Gerardo Ortiz, and Lorenza Viola. Generalizations of entanglement based on coherent states and convex sets. Phys. Rev. A, 68:032308, Sep 2003

    2003

  77. [85]

    A subsystem- independent generalization of entanglement

    Howard Barnum, Emanuel Knill, Gerardo Ortiz, Rolando Somma, and Lorenza Viola. A subsystem- independent generalization of entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:107902, Mar 2004

    2004

  78. [86]

    An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits

    Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Mateusz Ostaszewski, and Marcello Benedetti. An initialization strategy for addressing barren plateaus in parametrized quantum circuits. Quantum, 3:214, December 2019

    2019

  79. [87]

    Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks

    Andrea Skolik, Jarrod R McClean, Masoud Mohseni, Patrick Van Der Smagt, and Martin Leib. Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks. Quantum Machine Intelligence, 3:1–11, 2021

    2021

  80. [88]

    Surviving the barren plateau in variational quantum circuits with bayesian learning initialization

    Ali Rad, Alireza Seif, and Norbert M Linke. Surviving the barren plateau in variational quantum circuits with bayesian learning initialization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02464, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Avoiding barren plateaus with classical deep neural networks

    Lucas Friedrich and Jonas Maziero. Avoiding barren plateaus with classical deep neural networks. Physical Review A, 106(4):042433, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Beinit: Avoiding barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms

    Ankit Kulshrestha and Ilya Safro. Beinit: Avoiding barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms. In 2022 IEEE international conference on quantum computing and engineering (QCE), pages 197–203. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  83. [91]

    Mitigating barren plateaus of variational quantum eigensolvers

    Xia Liu, Geng Liu, Hao-Kai Zhang, Jiaxin Huang, and Xin Wang. Mitigating barren plateaus of variational quantum eigensolvers. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 2024

    2024

  84. [92]

    Quantum sequential scattering model for quantum state learning

    Mingrui Jing, Geng Liu, Hongbin Ren, and Xin Wang. Quantum sequential scattering model for quantum state learning. Physical Review A, 109(6):062425, 2024. 18

    2024

  85. [93]

    Theoretical guar- antees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks

    Louis Schatzki, Martin Larocca, Quynh T Nguyen, Frederic Sauvage, and Marco Cerezo. Theoretical guar- antees for permutation-equivariant quantum neural networks. npj Quantum Information, 10(1):12, 2024

    2024

  86. [94]

    Theory for equivariant quantum neural networks

    Quynh T Nguyen, Louis Schatzki, Paolo Braccia, Michael Ragone, Patrick J Coles, Frederic Sauvage, Martin Larocca, and Marco Cerezo. Theory for equivariant quantum neural networks. PRX Quantum, 5(2):020328, 2024

    2024

  87. [95]

    Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry

    Seunghoon Lee, Joonho Lee, Huanchen Zhai, Yu Tong, Alexander M Dalzell, Ashutosh Kumar, Phillip Helms, Johnnie Gray, Zhi-Hao Cui, Wenyuan Liu, et al. Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry. Nature communications, 14(1):1952, 2023

    1952

  88. [96]

    Efficient phase-factor evaluation in quantum signal processing

    Yulong Dong, Xiang Meng, K Birgitta Whaley, and Lin Lin. Efficient phase-factor evaluation in quantum signal processing. Physical Review A, 103(4):042419, 2021

    2021

  89. [97]

    Heisenberg-limited ground-state energy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum computers

    Lin Lin and Yu Tong. Heisenberg-limited ground-state energy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum computers. PRX quantum, 3(1):010318, 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    Power of one nonclean qubit

    Tomoyuki Morimae, Keisuke Fujii, and Harumichi Nishimura. Power of one nonclean qubit. Physical Review A, 95(4):042336, 2017

    2017

  91. [99]

    Expressivity of deterministic quantum computation with one qubit

    Yujin Kim and Daniel K Park. Expressivity of deterministic quantum computation with one qubit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02751, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Deterministic quantum computation with one-clean-qubit model as an open quantum system

    Jake Xuereb, Steve Campbell, John Goold, and André Xuereb. Deterministic quantum computation with one-clean-qubit model as an open quantum system. Physical Review A, 107(4):042222, 2023

    2023

  93. [101]

    Impossibility of classically simulating one-clean-qubit model with multiplicative error

    Keisuke Fujii, Hirotada Kobayashi, Tomoyuki Morimae, Harumichi Nishimura, Shuhei Tamate, and Sei- ichiro Tani. Impossibility of classically simulating one-clean-qubit model with multiplicative error. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:200502, May 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    Hardness of classically simulating the one- clean-qubit model

    Tomoyuki Morimae, Keisuke Fujii, and Joseph F Fitzsimons. Hardness of classically simulating the one- clean-qubit model. Physical review letters, 112(13):130502, 2014

    2014

  95. [103]

    Expressibility and entangling capability of pa- rameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms

    Sukin Sim, Peter D Johnson, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and entangling capability of pa- rameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019

    2019

  96. [104]

    QuAIRKit

    QuAIR team. QuAIRKit. https://github.com/QuAIR/QuAIRKit, 2023

    2023

  97. [105]

    Quantum Neural Network Classifiers: A Tutorial

    Weikang Li, Zhide Lu, and Dong-Ling Deng. Quantum Neural Network Classifiers: A Tutorial. SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes, page 61, 2022

    2022

  98. [106]

    Quantum algorithms for testing hamiltonian symmetry

    Margarite L LaBorde and Mark M Wilde. Quantum algorithms for testing hamiltonian symmetry. Physical Review Letters, 129(16):160503, 2022

    2022

  99. [107]

    Hypothesis testing of symmetry in quantum dynamics

    Yu-Ao Chen, Chenghong Zhu, Keming He, Yingjian Liu, and Xin Wang. Hypothesis testing of symmetry in quantum dynamics. Physical Review A, 111(5):052406, 2025

    2025

  100. [108]

    Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey

    Hwanjun Song, Minseok Kim, Dongmin Park, Yooju Shin, and Jae-Gil Lee. Learning from noisy labels with deep neural networks: A survey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 34(11):8135– 8153, 2022

    2022

  101. [109]

    Experimental characterization, modeling, and analysis of crosstalk in a quantum computer

    Abdullah Ash-Saki, Mahabubul Alam, and Swaroop Ghosh. Experimental characterization, modeling, and analysis of crosstalk in a quantum computer. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 1:1–6, 2020

    2020

  102. [110]

    Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control

    Zeyuan Zhou, Ryan Sitler, Yasuo Oda, Kevin Schultz, and Gregory Quiroz. Quantum crosstalk robust quantum control. Physical Review Letters, 131(21):210802, 2023

    2023

  103. [111]

    Statistical mechanics of the cluster ising model

    Pietro Smacchia, Luigi Amico, Paolo Facchi, Rosario Fazio, Giuseppe Florio, Saverio Pascazio, and Vlatko Vedral. Statistical mechanics of the cluster ising model. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 84(2):022304, 2011

    2011

  104. [112]

    Quantum neural network classifiers: A tutorial

    Weikang Li, Zhi-de Lu, and Dong-Ling Deng. Quantum neural network classifiers: A tutorial. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes, page 061, 2022

    2022

  105. [113]

    Anthony W. Knapp. Lie groups beyond an introduction. 1988

    1988

  106. [114]

    An elementary introduction to groups and representations

    Brian C Hall. An elementary introduction to groups and representations. arXiv preprint math-ph/0005032, 2000. 19

    2000 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Quantum Recurrent Embedding Neural Network

    J. Fuchs. Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups: An Introduction, with Applications in Conformal Field Theory. Affine Lie Algebras and Quantum Groups: An Introduction, with Applications in Conformal Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1995. 20 Appendix for “Quantum Recu...

    1995

  108. [116]

    f is either zero or an isomorphism

  109. [117]

    The group representation can induce aLie algebra representationdϕ : g → u(V ), which, from the language of differential geometry, is the differential of the smooth map ϕ

    If V = W and ρV = ρW , then the only non-trivial G-equivariant linear map is homothety, i.e., scalar multiples of the identity. The group representation can induce aLie algebra representationdϕ : g → u(V ), which, from the language of differential geometry, is the differential...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.