Quantum Maximum Likelihood Prediction via Hilbert Space Embeddings

Nir Weinberger; Sreejith Sreekumar

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Quantum Maximum Likelihood Prediction via Hilbert Space Embeddings

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Predicting in a Hilbert-space embedding makes the convergence rate of maximum-likelihood prediction depend on the embedding dimension, not the vocabulary size.

desk verdict Finite-dimensional QMLP results are solid and worth citing; the vocabulary-curse claim is unsupported, and the paper needs a substantive revision before the advertised conclusions hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.18364 v3 pith:K65Y3BPX submitted 2026-02-20 cs.IT cs.LGmath.ITquant-phstat.ML

Sreejith Sreekumar , Nir Weinberger This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITcs.LGmath.ITquant-phstat.ML MSC 81P4562B10

keywords quantummaximumlikelihoodpredictionHilbertspaceembeddingscovarianceembeddingrelativeentropyPythagoreantheoremin-contextlearningnon-asymptoticguaranteeslargelanguagemodels

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 proposes a quantum maximum-likelihood predictor (QMLP): it embeds each empirical distribution of i.i.d. samples into a density operator via a covariance embedding and then minimizes quantum relative entropy over a model class. The authors prove a reduction: when the model class is unitarily invariant and closed under pinching, QMLP is equivalent to a classical MLP performed on the eigenvalues of the embedded state. Their main statistical result bounds the expected squared trace-norm error of the QMLP by O(d n^{-1/2}) plus an approximation slack in general, and O(d^3/n) when the model class is perfectly expressive—the key feature being that the rate is set by the Hilbert-space dimension d, not the size of the vocabulary or sentence space. They also generalize the quantum Pythagorean theorem to mixture families generated by non-self-adjoint operators, with an infinite-dimensional statement under regularity conditions. A sympathetic reader should care because this gives a formal sense in which learned embeddings can escape the classical curse of dimensionality in prediction.

What carries the argument

The covariance embedding rho_p = integral p(x)|phi(x)><phi(x)| dmu(x) is the central object: it maps probability distributions to density operators in a Hilbert space. The QMLP is the minimizer of quantum relative entropy D(rho || sigma) over a model class Sigma. The proofs hinge on the variational expression for quantum relative entropy, matrix Hoeffding/Bernstein inequalities, Proposition 2 (a distance bound relating trace-norm error to relative-entropy gaps), and Theorem 1 (a quantum Pythagorean theorem that gives equality for mixture families with non-self-adjoint generators and identifies the information projection as a pinched operator).

What would settle it

In finite dimensions, simulate n i.i.d. samples from a fixed distribution P whose covariance embedding rho_p has a known minimal eigenvalue, and compute the QMLP squared trace-norm error at eps = 0; the theorem predicts a rate with explicit constants that can be checked numerically against the O(1/n) bound. In infinite dimensions, a counterexample would be a compact convex set S and sigma with spt(S) subset of spt(sigma) such that D(·||sigma) is not continuous on S and the Pythagorean inequality fails for a sequence rho_t.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the quantum maximum likelihood predictor sigma*_n := argmin_{sigma in Sigma} D(rho_n(X^n) || sigma), built from n i.i.d. samples, converges to the embedded true distribution rho_p at a rate governed by the dimension d of the embedded Hilbert space rather than by the number of possible symbols. Theorem 2 shows E||sigma*_n - rho_p||_1^2 <= O(d b_n n^{-1/2}) + O(eps) for a compact convex model class with approximation error eps, and O((d ||rho_p^{-1}|| + d^2)/n) when eps = 0 (i.e., when rho_p is in the model class). The same theorem supplies concentration inequalities in trace norm and quantum relative entropy. Proposition 1 shows that under unitary

Load-bearing premise

The infinite-dimensional Pythagorean inequality (Theorem 1(i)) requires quantum relative entropy to be continuous and differentiable on a compact convex set, which holds only under extra spectral or entropy conditions on the state sigma; without those conditions, the infinite-dimensional claim is unsupported, although the finite-dimensional statistical rates do not rest on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the bounds hold, prediction in an embedded space is sample-efficient in the Hilbert-space dimension d, not in the vocabulary size |X|; for a good embedding with d << |X|, this is an exponential improvement in sample complexity.
For unitarily invariant, pinching-closed model classes, the quantum problem reduces to a classical eigenvalue MLP, so existing classical algorithms and analyses apply directly.
The generalized Pythagorean theorem gives an explicit form for the reverse information projection to a mixture family, which can be computed by pinching in the shared-eigenbasis case.
Through the data-processing inequality, accuracy in the embedded space transfers to any readout distribution, so the guarantees cover the output layer of a quantum LLM.
The eps = 0 rate O(1/n) in squared trace norm shows that when the true embedded state lies in the model class, the QMLP attains a parametric rate; the constant depends on the spectrum of rho_p.

Reading between the lines

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

The bound's explicit dependence on ||rho_p^{-1}|| suggests that, for a fixed embedding dimension, the minimal eigenvalue of the embedded state is a leading-order determinant of sample efficiency; one could test this by comparing embeddings with matched d but different condition numbers.
The same framework could be applied to the mean embedding by swapping the geometry; the paper's core insight is that the covariance embedding's relative-entropy geometry is what aligns with log-loss, so a direct comparison of the two geometries on the same data would be informative.
The infinite-dimensional Pythagorean claim is the one place the paper's guarantees are conditional; a concrete spectral or entropy condition on sigma would close the gap, and the finite-dimensional results do not require it.
A practical extension would be to derive similar non-asymptotic bounds for kernel-based embeddings in supervised learning, where the same pinching reduction might simplify the analysis.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Top line: the finite-dimensional core is real and citable; the advertised lack-of-vocabulary-curse conclusion is not delivered. I agree with the reader's conditional verdict, and the stress-test note lands.

What is actually new: Theorem 1(iii)-(iv) extends the quantum Pythagorean theorem to mixture and exponential families generated by non-self-adjoint operators, and shows the pinched operator is the I-projection onto a fixed-eigenbasis family. That is a genuine information-geometric result, and the finite-dimensional proof is clean. Proposition 1 is a fairly direct data-processing consequence, but stated in a useful way. Theorem 2 gives finite-sample QMLP rates with explicit d and spectral dependence; the proof uses standard matrix concentration plus a second-order Taylor identity from prior published work (Sreekumar-Berta). No fitted constants, no circularity. Citation pattern looks fine.

Soft spots, in order of size. The largest is the inference from embedded-state convergence to actual next-token prediction over the original vocabulary. Theorem 2 plus data processing bounds M_n(rho_p) against M_n(sigma*_n). The target is P against M_n(sigma*_n), so you need a compatibility condition like M_n(rho_p) ≈ P. The remark at the end of Section 4.2 silently replaces M_n(rho_p) with P. The stress-test gives a concrete 3-symbol/qubit obstruction: with d < |X| a fixed POVM cannot be the identity on the full simplex. This is the paper's central motivation, so the gap is load-bearing. Second, Theorem 1(i) in infinite dimensions asserts continuity and differentiability of quantum relative entropy without conditions; relative entropy is only lower semicontinuous in general. The abstract promises "additional regularity conditions," but the theorem statement does not state them. Either state them or restrict the result to finite dimensions. The finite-dimensional results are unaffected. Third, the abstract calls the rates "trace norm" when the bounds are on squared trace norm; that is minor but confusing.

Who should read this: people working on quantum information projections, covariance embeddings, or finite-dimensional quantum statistical estimation. They should cite the finite-dimensional results. The LLM part should be read as motivation, not as a theory of language models. I would send this to peer review rather than desk-reject: the core deserves referee time, and the revision is clear: fix the infinite-dimensional statement, add the compatibility condition for the measurement, and reword the abstract.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum maximum likelihood predictor (QMLP) obtained by mapping empirical distributions to density operators via covariance embeddings and then minimizing quantum relative entropy over a model class. The main formal contributions are: (i) Proposition 1, a reduction of QMLP to classical KL projection when the model class is closed under pinching and unitary invariance; (ii) Theorem 1, a generalized quantum Pythagorean theorem for mixture and exponential families, including an infinite-dimensional claim; and (iii) Theorem 2, non-asymptotic trace-norm and relative-entropy bounds for the QMLP based on n i.i.d. samples, with rates depending on the Hilbert-space dimension d rather than the vocabulary size |X|. The paper interprets these results as a conceptual explanation for why learned embeddings in LLMs can alleviate the curse of a large vocabulary.

Significance. If the finite-dimensional results are correct, Theorem 2 is a useful contribution: it gives explicit, parameter-free concentration bounds derived from standard matrix Hoeffding/Bernstein inequalities, with no fitted constants, and identifies the role of the embedding dimension and the minimal eigenvalue of the embedded target state. The generalized Pythagorean theorem is also of independent information-geometric interest. However, the advertised conclusion about beating the classical curse of vocabulary size depends on a transfer step from embedded states back to the original output vocabulary that is not established in the paper. The infinite-dimensional Pythagorean claim is also stated without the regularity conditions that its proof requires. The finite-dimensional core appears sound, but the scope of the claims needs to be corrected or qualified.

major comments (2)

[Section 4.2, remark after Theorem 2 (Eqs. (22)–(27))] The remark that, by data processing, the bounds 'also hold for the output distributions of the LLM' is not justified. For a fixed output POVM M, the data-processing inequality gives D_KL(M(ρ_p)∥M(σ*_n)) ≤ D(ρ_p∥σ*_n), not D_KL(P∥M(σ*_n)). The step M(ρ_p)=P is an extra compatibility condition. It is not generic: if this had to hold for all point masses δ_x, then M would have to perfectly discriminate the states |φ(x)⟩⟨φ(x)|, which is impossible when d<|X| or when the embedded vectors are non-orthogonal. Thus D_KL(P∥M(σ*_n)) can remain bounded away from zero even when D(ρ_p∥σ*_n)→0. To support the 'beating the vocabulary curse' claim, the authors must either impose and verify a compatibility condition of the form M(ρ_p)=P for the relevant class of distributions, or restrict the conclusion to measured relative entropy relative to M(ρ_p).
[Theorem 1(i), Section 5.2 (Eqs. (29)–(33))] The infinite-dimensional statement of the Pythagorean theorem is unsupported as written. The theorem assumes only compactness, convexity, and spt(S̄)⊆spt(σ), but the proof differentiates D(ρ_t∥σ) along the segment ρ_t and uses the derivative formula for log ρ_t (Eqs. (31)–(32)), which in infinite dimensions requires additional regularity conditions. Quantum relative entropy is only lower semicontinuous in trace norm in general (as the paper notes in footnote 6), and continuity/differentiability along such segments needs, for example, uniform spectral or finite-entropy conditions. The abstract says 'under additional regularity conditions', but Theorem 1 itself states none. The authors should either state precise conditions and verify them in the proof, or restrict the theorem to finite dimension. The finite-dimensional Theorem 2 rates are not affected by this issue.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5.1, proof of Proposition 1] In the data-processing step, the measured distribution obtained by pinching σ in the eigenbasis of ρ is λ_{σ'} with σ'=∑P_i(ρ)σP_i(ρ); the text writes λ_σ. Please correct this notation for clarity.
[Section 5.5, proof of Theorem 2, after Eq. (48)] The display uses DKL in place of D in the bound for |D(ρ_n∥σ*_p)-D(ρ_p∥σ*_p)|. This is a typo, since the quantity being bounded is quantum relative entropy.
[Section 3.1] The inequality DKL(P∥Q) ≥ D(ρ_p∥ρ_q) is correct but not immediate, since P and Q are classical distributions, not states. It would help to derive it explicitly by viewing the embedding as a quantum channel from diagonal classical states, so the direction of the inequality is not confusing.
[Theorem 2(ii), Eqs. (24) and (26)] The assumptions on the empirical approximation error E[D(ρ_n∥σ*_n)]∧E[D(ρ_n∥σ̂*_n)]≤ε and its almost-sure analogue are strong and not obviously implied by spt(Σ)=H_d. A remark giving sufficient conditions (e.g., covering or expressivity conditions) would make the theorem easier to apply.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 2 is a genuine upper bound; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing Taylor lemma; the LLM-output transfer gap is an extra compatibility condition, not a tautology.

full rationale

The paper's main result, Theorem 2, is a derived upper bound, not a fit. The QMLP is defined by the minimization in (10), and the proof controls ||sigma*_n - rho_p||_1^2 and D(rho_p||hat sigma*_n) using Proposition 2, the variational form (2), matrix Hoeffding/Bernstein, and a second-order Taylor expansion. The constants depend on rho_p and sigma*_p; the only slack is the assumed D(rho_p||sigma*_p) <= eps, which enters additively as approximation error. No parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction. Proposition 1 is a data-processing/unitary-invariance reduction, not a restatement of the theorem. The only self-citation, Sreekumar-Berta 2025 Eq. 41, supplies a published Taylor identity used as a lemma; it is not load-bearing in the sense of assuming Theorem 2 or excluding alternatives. Two caveats are correctness risks rather than circularity: the infinite-dimensional Pythagorean theorem is only asserted under unstated regularity conditions, and the remark that Theorem 2 applies to LLM outputs requires the extra compatibility M_n(rho_p)=P, which is not generic for d < |X|. Neither caveat makes the derivation equal to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central bounds are honest upper bounds from concentration inequalities; the model assumptions are explicit (i.i.d. sample model, full rank, compact convex Sigma, epsilon approximation error). No fitted constants appear. The main hidden load-bearing premise is the unstated infinite-dimensional regularity of quantum relative entropy in Theorem 1(i). The only self-citation (Sreekumar-Berta) is a published integral identity used as a lemma.

free parameters (1)

epsilon (model-class approximation slack) = Assumed bound D(rho_p || sigma*_p) <= epsilon; not estimated from data
Introduced in Theorem 2: all bounds carry an additive O(epsilon) or O(28 epsilon) term, and faster rates require epsilon = 0. It is an honest approximation-error input, not fitted.

assumptions (8)

standard math Variational expression for quantum relative entropy (Petz 1988; Berta et al. 2015), Eq. (2)
Used in Theorem 2 to localize the difference of relative entropies to an operator-norm difference; assumed as a known theorem.
standard math Data processing inequality, quantum Pinsker inequality, and joint convexity of quantum relative entropy
Used throughout Propositions 1-2 and Theorem 2; standard background in quantum information theory.
standard math Matrix Hoeffding and Bernstein inequalities (Vershynin 2018, Theorem 3)
The concentration inequalities in Theorem 2 rely on these matrix tail bounds; stated as Theorem 3 and used as a black box.
standard math Second-order Taylor/integral representation for quantum relative entropy (Sreekumar-Berta 2025)
Used in the epsilon = 0 case of Theorem 2 to obtain O(1/n) rates; cited from prior published work including one of the present authors.
domain assumption Samples X_1,...,X_n are i.i.d. from unknown P; prediction is evaluated by log loss; prompt is summarized by the empirical distribution
This is the simplified data model stated in the introduction and Section 3. It is a strong simplification relative to real LLM token sequences, which are not i.i.d.
domain assumption Full-rank and model-class assumptions: rho_p > 0, spt(Sigma) = H_d, compact convex Sigma, and D(rho_p || sigma*_p) <= epsilon
Stated in Theorem 2. The bounds blow up as ||rho_p^{-1}|| grows, so full rank is load-bearing.
ad hoc to paper Technical perturbation rho_n = (1 - 1/n) rho_hat_n + (1/n) pi_d and sigma_hat*_n = (1 - 1/n) sigma*_n + (1/n) pi_d
Introduced in Eq. (19)-(20) to guarantee full-rank states for the relative-entropy calculations; vanishes asymptotically but is a paper-specific technical device.
ad hoc to paper Infinite-dimensional regularity: D(rho||sigma) is continuous and differentiable on compact convex S-bar when spt(S-bar) subseteq spt(sigma)
Assumed implicitly in the proof of Theorem 1(i) but not stated as a hypothesis in the theorem. This is the weakest part of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Maximum Likelihood Prediction via Hilbert Space Embeddings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K65Y3BPX

@misc{pith2026260218364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Maximum Likelihood Prediction via Hilbert Space Embeddings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K65Y3BPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.18364}
}

read the original abstract

Maximum likelihood prediction (MLP) is a core task at the heart of modern large language models. Here, we study a quantum version of this task for a simplified data model consisting of independent and identically distributed samples, as a first step. The quantum maximum likelihood predictor (QMLP) is obtained by embedding of empirical probability distributions into quantum states and performing a minimization of quantum relative entropy over a given class of states. We derive non-asymptotic performance guarantees for QMLP in terms of convergence rates and concentration inequalities, both in trace norm and quantum relative entropy. Our approach provides a unified framework to handle MLP within both classical and quantum LLMs. We also consider the related problem of quantum information projection and generalize the well known quantum Pythagorean theorem to mixture families which are not necessarily generated by a self-adjoint class. We further show that the Pythagorean inequality continues to hold in the infinite dimensional setting under additional regularity conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18364 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[3]

Basile and F

I. Basile and F. Tamburini. Towards quantum language models . In M. Palmer, R. Hwa, and S. Riedel, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na tural Language Processing, pages 1840–1849, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept

2017
[10]

doi: 10.1007/s10107-017-1215-7. J. K. Hoyos-Osorio and L. G. Sanchez-Giraldo. The represent ation Jensen-Shannon divergence,

work page doi:10.1007/s10107-017-1215-7
[11]

HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 35 S

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062327. HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 35 S. H. Kim, J. Mei, C. Girotto, M. Yamada, and M. Roetteler. Qua ntum large language model ﬁne- tuning. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Eng ineering (QCE) , volume 01, pages 01–12,

doi:10.1103/physreva.96.062327 2025
[12]

doi: 10.1109/QCE65121.2025. 00258. V. Koltchinskii and D. Xia. Optimal estimation of low rank de nsity matrices. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 16(53):1757–1792,

arXiv 2025
[14]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324. N. Merhav and M. Feder. Universal prediction. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 44(6): 2124–2147,

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062324
[15]

doi: 10.1561/2200000060. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information , volume

doi:10.1561/2200000060
[18]

doi: 10.1017/9781316809976.001. M. M. Wilde. Fundamentals of quantum Boltzmann machine lear ning with visible and hidden units. arXiv: 2512.19819 ,

arXiv
[1963]

doi: 10.109 0/ S0002-9939-1963-0149237-7

ISSN 0002-9939, 1088-6826. doi: 10.109 0/ S0002-9939-1963-0149237-7. R. Vershynin. High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applic ations in Data Science . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1963

Show all 18 references

[1981]

doi: 10.1109/TIT.1981.1056331. J.-G. Liu and L. Wang. Diﬀerentiable learning of quantum circ uit born machines. Phys. Rev. A , 98: 062324, Dec

1981
[1986]

doi: 10.1007/BF01212339

ISSN 1432-0916. doi: 10.1007/BF01212339. 34 S. SREEKUMAR AND N. WEINBERGER E. Edelman, N. Tsilivis, B. L. Edelman, E. Malach, and S. Goel . The evolution of statistical induction heads: In-context learning markov chains. Advances in neural information processing systems , 37: ...

doi
[2004]

Fukumizu, F

K. Fukumizu, F. R. Bach, and M. I. Jordan. Kernel dimension re duction in regression. The Annals of Statistics , 37(4):1871–1905,

1905
[2009]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103 .160504. Y. Polyanskiy and Y. Wu. Information Theory: From Coding to Learning . Cambridge University Press,

doi
[2015]

doi: 10.1007/s11005-017- 0990-7. N. Cesa-Bianchi and G. Lugosi. Prediction, learning, and games . Cambridge university press,

doi
[2017]

doi: 10.18653/v1/D17-1196

Associa tion for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D17-1196. S. Basu, M. Choraria, and L. R. Varshney. Transformers are un iversal predictors. ArXiv, abs/2307.07843,

arXiv
[2018]

HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 33 N

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021050. HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 33 N. Aronszajn. Theory of reproducing kernels. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 68(3):337–404,

doi
[2019]

doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0157-8. A. Berlinet and C. Thomas-Agnan. Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces in Probability and Stati stics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, USA,

doi
[2023]

doi: 10.1109/TIT.2022.3211077. Y. Bai, F. Chen, H. Wang, C. Xiong, and S. Mei. Transformers as statisticians: Provable in-context learning with in-context algorithm selection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36,

2022
[2025]

doi: 10.1109/TIT.2025.3557056. B. Houska and B. Chachuat. Global optimization in Hilbert sp ace. Mathematical Programming, 173, 12

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Basile and F

I. Basile and F. Tamburini. Towards quantum language models . In M. Palmer, R. Hwa, and S. Riedel, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na tural Language Processing, pages 1840–1849, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept

2017

[2] [10]

doi: 10.1007/s10107-017-1215-7. J. K. Hoyos-Osorio and L. G. Sanchez-Giraldo. The represent ation Jensen-Shannon divergence,

work page doi:10.1007/s10107-017-1215-7

[3] [11]

HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 35 S

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062327. HILBERT SPACE EMBEDDINGS AND PREDICTION 35 S. H. Kim, J. Mei, C. Girotto, M. Yamada, and M. Roetteler. Qua ntum large language model ﬁne- tuning. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Eng ineering (QCE) , volume 01, pages 01–12,

doi:10.1103/physreva.96.062327 2025

[4] [12]

doi: 10.1109/QCE65121.2025. 00258. V. Koltchinskii and D. Xia. Optimal estimation of low rank de nsity matrices. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 16(53):1757–1792,

arXiv 2025

[5] [14]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062324. N. Merhav and M. Feder. Universal prediction. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 44(6): 2124–2147,

doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062324

[6] [15]

doi: 10.1561/2200000060. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information , volume

doi:10.1561/2200000060

[7] [18]

doi: 10.1017/9781316809976.001. M. M. Wilde. Fundamentals of quantum Boltzmann machine lear ning with visible and hidden units. arXiv: 2512.19819 ,

arXiv

[8] [1963]

doi: 10.109 0/ S0002-9939-1963-0149237-7

ISSN 0002-9939, 1088-6826. doi: 10.109 0/ S0002-9939-1963-0149237-7. R. Vershynin. High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applic ations in Data Science . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

1963