Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Quantum-Efficient Convolution through Sparse Matrix Encoding and Low-Depth Inner Product Circuits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum convolution is recast as a sparse matrix product, cutting state-preparation overhead.

desk verdict Clear writeup of doubly block-Toeplitz convolution, but the advertised logarithmic scaling omits measurement cost and does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19658 v1 pith:ERHKWVWK submitted 2025-07-25 quant-ph physics.comp-phphysics.data-an

Mohammad Rasoul Roshanshah , Payman Kazemikhah , Hossein Aghababa This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx
keywords quantumconvolutiondoublyblock-ToeplitzmatrixSWAPtestinnerproductestimationsparsestatepreparationaugmentedQRAMmachinelearningconvolutionalneuralnetworksNISQalgorithms
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

The paper tries to establish that a convolutional layer, one of the most expensive operations in a neural network, can be rewritten as a single sparse matrix product that a quantum computer can evaluate with shallow circuits. The reformulation flattens the input image and reshapes the filter tensor into a doubly block-Toeplitz matrix, so no redundant patch-by-patch copy of the input is needed. Convolution outputs are then read out with a low-depth inner-product circuit, the SWAP test, applied between kernel rows and input columns. If the claim is right, sparse images and kernels would be preparable in polylogarithmic time and the circuit depth would stay roughly constant, making quantum convolutional layers practical components of hybrid quantum-classical machine learning pipelines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the doubly block-Toeplitz matrix $\tilde{K}$ of Eq. (8): a reshaping of the four-dimensional kernel tensor into a sparse matrix whose rows are kernel windows aligned with valid output positions. This object carries the argument because it converts convolution into a matrix-vector product without expanding the input into a redundant patch matrix. The companion mechanism is the SWAP-test inner-product estimator, which encodes a kernel row and an input column, interferes them through a controlled exchange, and measures an ancilla to learn the squared inner product; together with key-value QRAM (quantum random access memory) sparse state preparation, it is what keeps both the state preparation and the circuit depth tied to sparsity rather than to image area.

What would settle it

Count the measurements implied by Eqs. (16) and (17). Observing a particular output position $(p,q)$ has probability about $1/(2HWC)$, so estimating all $EFM \times N$ inner products to additive error $\varepsilon$ needs on the order of $EFM \cdot N \cdot HWC / \varepsilon^2$ repetitions. A resource count or a small simulation that carries this sampling cost through would settle whether the claimed logarithmic scaling survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that convolution $\tilde{K} \cdot X = Y$ is an exact rewriting of the convolutional layer, where $\tilde{K}$ is a doubly block-Toeplitz sparse matrix constructed once from the kernel tensor and $X$ is the flattened input with no duplicated entries. Each output entry is a normalized inner product between a row of $\tilde{K}$ and a column of $X$; the paper estimates these inner products with a generalized SWAP test at circuit depth $\widetilde{O}(1)$, using key-value QRAM state preparation whose cost scales with the number of nonzero entries rather than the full input size. The authors argue that this removes the redundant preparation costs of earlier Toeplitz patch-matrix methods, supports batched convolution by running the estimation over all $(p,q)$ pairs in superposition, and achieves logarithmic qubit scaling, $O(\log HWC + \log N)$. They present this as a NISQ-friendly route to quantum feature extraction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that reading out the convolution output is cheap: the paper counts the cost of preparing sparse quantum states but not the many repeated measurements needed to estimate every output entry from probabilities that are tiny, roughly one over the image size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single flattened input state suffices for one convolution layer, so per-input preparation cost does not grow with the number of kernel positions.
  • The kernel reshaping is done once per filter bank, classically, and is then amortized over many inputs, which suits streaming inference.
  • Batch convolution over many images and many filters fits naturally in the same circuit by superposing the $(p,q)$ index registers.
  • Zero padding in the reshaped kernel matrix does not change the asymptotic cost, because preparation complexity depends on the number of nonzero entries.
  • The qubit count grows as $O(\log HWC + \log N)$, so spatial resolution and batch size add only logarithmically to the quantum register.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper's resource table does not count the number of SWAP-test repetitions needed to reconstruct all outputs; if that shot count is included, the scaling with input size depends on $HWC$ through the probability in Eq. (17).
  • Editorial extension: the same doubly block-Toeplitz reshaping could be paired with amplitude estimation instead of raw SWAP sampling, improving the error scaling from $1/\varepsilon^2$ to $1/\varepsilon$; the paper does not explore this.
  • Editorial extension: the reshaping itself is a classical preprocessing trick, so it could also speed up classical convolution via structured matrix libraries, independent of the quantum readout.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum algorithm for convolution based on a doubly block-Toeplitz (DBT) reformulation of the convolution kernel, sparse QRAM state preparation, and an inner-product estimation circuit. The central operational claim is Eq. (8), K~ X = Y, where the rows of K~ encode kernel windows and X is the flattened input. The authors claim logarithmic scaling with input size under sparsity, low circuit depth, reduced sampling overhead, and easy integration into hybrid quantum-classical pipelines, and they sketch a variational extension for learned filters.

Significance. If the central claim were established, a quantum convolution layer with polylogarithmic resource scaling would be a significant practical advance for quantum machine learning, because convolution is the dominant computational primitive in CNNs. The DBT reshaping itself is a standard classical technique, and the paper's contribution is the proposed combination with sparse QRAM and a low-depth inner-product circuit. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, numerical simulations, or hardware results; its assessment rests on asymptotic resource claims. As detailed below, the central scalability claim is not supported once measurement/readout cost is counted, so the significance is currently limited to a heuristic proposal rather than a validated algorithm.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (16)-(17), and Table 2] The sampling cost for reading out the full output tensor is omitted, and this omission is load-bearing for the abstract's central claim of logarithmic scaling. The uniform superposition in Eq. (16) is over (p,q) ∈ [EFM] × [N], so the normalization coefficient should be 1/√(EFM·N), not 1/√(HWC); as written the state is not normalized. With the corrected normalization, the probability of observing a given output pair is P0(p,q) = P_pq/(EFM·N), and Eq. (17)'s denominator HWC makes the suppression even stronger. Estimating each inner product to additive error ε from binary counts therefore requires Ω(EFM·N/ε²) total shots for the full output tensor, and the constant-factor suppression of Eq. (17) only increases this cost. Table 2 lists QRAM complexity, circuit depth, preprocessing, and state preparation cost but no measurement cost; consequently the advertised 'logarithmic scaling' applies only to a single circuit execution, not to producing the convolution output Y. This directly invalidates the paper's main efficiency claim as stated.
  2. [§2.1 Eq. (2) versus §3.2 Eq. (14)] The manuscript gives two incompatible inner-product estimation formulas. Eq. (2), for the standard SWAP test, yields P(0) = (1 + |⟨ψ|φ⟩|²)/2, which is quadratic in the inner product. Eq. (14) yields P_pq(0) = (1 + ⟨K_p|X_q⟩)/2, which is linear in the inner product. These correspond to different circuits: Eq. (14) is correct for the controlled-state-preparation (Hadamard-test) circuit in Eqs. (12)-(13), not for the controlled-SWAP circuit described in §2.1. The text says the adapted circuit 'computes |⟨ψ|φ⟩|²' but then derives a linear real-part expression. The paper should either use the standard SWAP test and explain how the squared output is converted back to Y_pq (losing sign information), or explicitly identify the circuit as a Hadamard test and justify the recovery of signed inner products. As written, the algorithmic description is internally inconsistent.
  3. [§3.2, final paragraph, and §3.3 variational extension] The manuscript acknowledges that 'to reconstruct the full output tensor Y with a desired precision, the state preparation and measurement process must be repeated multiple times,' but it never quantifies this repetition cost. The claim that 'a small number of measurements can be sufficient to recover the dominant components of Y' is asserted without a concentration bound, a sparsity model, or an error metric; it does not justify full tensor recovery. Moreover, the variational extension in §3.3 replaces the filter state by a parameterized state |θ⟩ but retains the same inner-product estimation scheme, so it does not provide a different readout mechanism; the sampling bottleneck identified above therefore also applies to the proposed hybrid quantum-classical learning loop.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3, text after Eq. (3)] The notation is confusing: 'For a matrix A ∈ ℝ^{n×n}, we denote A ∈ ℝ^{n×n} as the number of nonzero entries in A' should define nnz(A) or a separate symbol; the current sentence makes A mean both a matrix and a scalar.
  2. [§2.3] The placeholder 'for cxxx i ∈ nnz(v)' appears in the sparse-vector illustration and should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 6 and Figure 7] The claimed structural savings of DBT reshaping over the Toeplitz patch matrix would be much easier to verify if the figures used a single concrete example with explicit nonzero counts; as printed, the dense figures are hard to read.
  4. [References] Several citations appear mismatched in the text: [16] is described both as Chen et al. and as Kerenidis et al., and [35] is used for both Canny edge detection and augmented QRAM; the reference numbering should be checked.
  5. [Abstract and §3.3] The phrase 'reduced sampling overhead' in the abstract is not quantified anywhere in the paper; given Eq. (17), the sampling overhead is actually amplified relative to per-element SWAP testing, so this phrase is misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation reduces convolution to a doubly block-Toeplitz matrix product and estimates the resulting inner products with a standard SWAP test, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is Eq. 8, K~ X = Y, where K~ is the doubly block-Toeplitz reshaping of the convolution kernel. This is a direct algebraic identity: the entries of K~ are defined so that the matrix-vector product reproduces the summation in Eq. 7, and no target result is built into the assumption. The quantum component estimates the normalized inner products <K_p|X_q> using the SWAP test, whose probability formula in Eq. 14 is standard and externally established. The output is then recovered by multiplying by the known norms stored as QRAM metadata, which is not a fitted or circular step. The paper's self-citations in Refs. 1-3 appear only in the introductory sentence 'Quantum algorithms [1–3] have demonstrated remarkable potential' and are not used to justify the main claim. The sparsity-aware preparation results are cited to Prakash's thesis and Kerenidis-Landman-Prakash, which are independent external sources. The variational extension is openly described as a proposal rather than a derived result. The main weaknesses of the paper are correctness and completeness concerns about the normalization in Eq. 16, the omitted sampling overhead from Eq. 17, and the unsupported logarithmic scaling claim in Table 2; these are not circularity patterns, because the claimed output is not equivalent to the input by construction and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The result rests on the standard convolution-to-Toeplitz identity, the SWAP-test inner product estimation primitive, and an idealized augmented QRAM model from Prakash's thesis. Sparsity of inputs is a domain assumption, not guaranteed. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Convolution of tensor X with kernel K equals multiplication by doubly block-Toeplitz matrix K~ (Eq. 8).
    This is the classical Toeplitz/im2col reformulation; Section 3.1 relies on it.
  • standard math SWAP test or a controlled-preparation variant estimates inner products with O(1/epsilon^2) repetitions.
    Sections 2.1 and 3.2; the probability formula is standard, though Eq. 14 modifies it without reconciliation.
  • domain assumption Sparse vectors can be loaded into quantum states in O~(sqrt(nnz)) per copy using a quantum key-value map with augmented QRAM.
    Section 2.3 is based on Prakash's thesis; this idealized memory model is assumed for all complexity claims.
  • domain assumption Inputs and kernels are sparse and localized, so nnz is small.
    The abstract and Section 3.3 invoke sparsity for logarithmic scaling; the method's advantage rests on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Efficient Convolution through Sparse Matrix Encoding and Low-Depth Inner Product Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERHKWVWK

@misc{pith2026250719658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Efficient Convolution through Sparse Matrix Encoding and Low-Depth Inner Product Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERHKWVWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19658}
}
read the original abstract

Convolution operations are foundational to classical image processing and modern deep learning architectures, yet their extension into the quantum domain has remained algorithmically and physically costly due to inefficient data encoding and prohibitive circuit complexity. In this work, we present a resource-efficient quantum algorithm that reformulates the convolution product as a structured matrix multiplication via a novel sparse reshaping formalism. Leveraging the observation that localized convolutions can be encoded as doubly block-Toeplitz matrix multiplications, we construct a quantum framework wherein sparse input patches are prepared using optimized key-value QRAM state encoding, while convolutional filters are represented as quantum states in superposition. The convolution outputs are computed through inner product estimation using a low-depth SWAP test circuit, which yields probabilistic amplitude information with reduced sampling overhead. Our architecture supports batched convolution across multiple filters using a generalized SWAP circuit. Compared to prior quantum convolutional approaches, our method eliminates redundant preparation costs, scales logarithmically with input size under sparsity, and enables direct integration into hybrid quantum-classical machine learning pipelines. This work provides a scalable and physically realizable pathway toward quantum-enhanced feature extraction, opening up new possibilities for quantum convolutional neural networks and data-driven quantum inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19658 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of a traditional CNN. Beyond low-level vision tasks, convolution has become foundational in artificial intelligence, particularly in Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). CNNs are specialized deep learning architectures composed of cascaded convolution layers, often accompanied by non-linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The convolving of one Ifmap channel by a single filter. Thus, convolutional layers transform high-dimensional visual input into structured and compact representations suitable for downstream learning tasks. In the quantum setting, this classical convolutional mechanism must be reinterpreted in a form compatible with sparse state encoding and inner product evaluation via quantum circuits—topics explored in the follow… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Sparse vector state preparation using a quantum key-value map [31]. Nevertheless, given the crucial role of QRAM in enabling scalable quantum algorithms, especially those involving structured datasets such as images or signals, continued development of feasible QRAM implementations remains a key enabler of quantum advantage. In this work, we leverage QRAM-inspired data models to propose a sparsity-aware convolution … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The convolution of a 3-D input tensor by one 3-D kernel tensor. (b) The several convolutions of a 3-D input tensor by one 4-D kernel tensor. (c) The several convolutions of a batch of inputs by one 4-D kernel tensor. This operation yields a 2D output tensor of shap…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The basic idea of the reshaping method based on (a) Toeplitz and (b) Doubly Block-Toeplitz matrices considering R=S=2 and H=W=3 and Stride=1 and without Padding. To address these limitations, we propose an alternative quantum-friendly reshaping strategy that significan…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The complete view of the proposed pattern. To enable batch processing, especially relevant for large-scale learning tasks, the approach is naturally extended to accommodate multiple inputs. Let 𝑁 denote the batch size. Each input tensor 𝐾(𝑖) ∈ ℝ𝐻×𝑊×𝐶 is vectorized and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum Mach

    Kookani, A., Mafi, Y., Kazemikhah, P., Aghababa, H., Fouladi, K., Barati, M.: XpookyNet: advancement in quantum system analysis through convolutional neural networks for detection of entanglement. Quantum Mach. Intell. 6, 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-024-00183-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-024-00183-y 2024

  2. [2]

    Moghadam, A.H., Kazemikhah, P., Aghababa, H.: Using 1-Factorization from Graph Theory for Quantum Speedups on Clique Problems, https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.16827, (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Ahmadkhaniha, A., Mafi, Y., Kazemikhah, P., Aghababa, H., Barati, M., Kolahdouz, M.: Performance Analysis of the Hardware-Efficient Quantum Search Algorithm. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62, 168 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773- 023-05424-7

    doi:10.1007/s10773- 2023

  4. [4]

    SIAM Rev

    Shor, P.W.: Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer. SIAM Rev. 41, 303–332 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598347011

    doi:10.1137/s0036144598347011 1999

  5. [5]

    In: Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science

    Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. pp. 124–134 (1994)

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing

    Grover, L.K.: A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. pp. 212–219. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (1996)

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Long, G.L.: Grover algorithm with zero theoretical failure rate. Phys. Rev. A. 64, 22307 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022307

    doi:10.1103/physreva.64.022307 2001

  8. [8]

    Quantum Inf

    Toyama, F.M., van Dijk, W., Nogami, Y.: Quantum search with certainty based on modified Grover algorithms: optimum choice of parameters. Quantum Inf. Process. 12, 1897–1914 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-012-0498-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-012-0498-0 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Harrow, A.W., Hassidim, A., Lloyd, S.: Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Clader, B.D., Jacobs, B.C., Sprouse, C.R.: Preconditioned Quantum Linear System Algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 250504 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.250504

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Presented at the (2013)

    Gall, F.: Quantum Algorithms for Matrix Multiplication. Presented at the (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    In: Ravi, R

    Le Gall, F., Nishimura, H.: Quantum Algorithms for Matrix Products over Semirings. In: Ravi, R. and Gørtz, I.L. (eds.) Algorithm Theory -- SWAT 2014. pp. 331–343. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    A.Yu.Kitaev: Quantum measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    Quantum Comput

    Brassard, G., Høyer, P., Mosca, M., Tapp, A.: Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation. Quantum Comput. Inf. 53–74 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/305/05215

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Science (80-

    Farhi, E., Goldstone, J., Gutmann, S., Lapan, J., Lundgren, A., Preda, D.: A Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithm Applied to Random Instances of an NP-Complete Problem. Science (80-. ). 292, 472–475 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057726

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    Kerenidis, I., Landman, J., Prakash, A.: Quantum Algorithms for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Shao, C.: Quantum Algorithms to Matrix Multiplication, (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    V, Hopcroft, J.E.: The design and analysis of computer algorithms

    Aho, A. V, Hopcroft, J.E.: The design and analysis of computer algorithms. Pearson Education India (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    In: 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference

    Kerenidis, I., Prakash, A.: Quantum Recommendation Systems. In: 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference. pp. 1–21 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Buhrman, H., Cleve, R., Watrous, J., de Wolf, R.: Quantum Fingerprinting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167902 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.167902

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    Garcia-Escartin, J.C., Chamorro-Posada, P.: swap test and Hong-Ou-Mandel effect are equivalent. Phys. Rev. A. 87, 52330 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.052330

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM- SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithm

    Buhrman, H., Špalek, R.: Quantum Verification of Matrix Products. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM- SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithm. pp. 880–889. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Zhang, X.-D., Zhang, X.-M., Xue, Z.-Y.: Quantum hyperparallel algorithm for matrix multiplication. Sci. Rep. 6, 24910 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24910

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Quantum Inf

    Gitiaux, X., Morris, I., Emelianenko, M., Tian, M.: SWAP test for an arbitrary number of quantum states. Quantum Inf. Process. 21, (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-022-03643-1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Neural Networks

    Li, P., Wang, B.: Quantum neural networks model based on swap test and phase estimation. Neural Networks. 130, 152–164 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Image Process

    Getreuer, P.: A Survey of Gaussian Convolution Algorithms. Image Process. Line. 3, 286–310 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature. 521, 436–444 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., Berg, A.C., Fei-Fei, L.: ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 115, 211–252 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A.: Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition, (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G., Vazirani, U.: Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing. SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1510–1523 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539796300933

    1997 doi

  23. [31]

    Prakash, A.: Quantum algorithms for linear algebra and machine learning., (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Quantum Random Access Memory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 160501 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160501

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Architectures for a quantum random access memory. Phys. Rev. A. 78, 52310 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.052310

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    In: National Key Lab for Novel Software Technology

    Wu, J.: Introduction to Convolutional Neural Networks. In: National Key Lab for Novel Software Technology. Nanjing University. China. p. 5. pp. 23, (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Canny, J.: A computational approach to edge detection. Trans. pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 679–698 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    Gray, R.M.: Toeplitz and Circulant Matrices: A Review. Found. Trends® Commun. Inf. Theory. 2, 155–239 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1561/0100000006

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Algorithms

    Heinig, G., Bojanczyk, A.: Transformation techniques for Toeplitz and Toeplitz-plus-Hankel matrices II. Algorithms. Linear Algebra Appl. 278, 11–36 (1998). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3795(97)10043-X

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

    Kerenidis, I., Landman, J., Luongo, A., Prakash, A.: q-means: A quantum algorithm for unsupervised machine learning, (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.